Between Two

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261877158
Between Two Worlds: Men's Heroic Conduct in

the Writings of Procopius
THESIS APRIL 2003
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
278
193
1 AUTHOR:
Michael Stewart
University of Queensland
15 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Michael Stewart

Retrieved on: 06 July 2015
BETWEEN TWO WORLDS: MENS HEROIC CONDUCT IN THE

WRITINGS OF PROCOPIUS
________________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
In
History
________________
by
Michael Edward Stewart
Spring 2003
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
The Undersigned Faculty Committee Approves the

Thesis of Michael Stewart
BETWEEN TWO WORLDS: MENS HEROIC CONDUCT IN THE

WRITINGS OF PROCOPIUS
______________________________________________
Mathew S. Kuefler, Chair
Department of History
______________________________________________
David Christian
Department of History
______________________________________________
Laurel Amtower
Department of English and Comparative Literature
04/07/03
iii
Copyright 2003
by
Michael Edward Stewart
All Rights Reserved
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my mother Anne Marie Stewart.
vi
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

This thesis examines the sixth-century CE Byzantine historian Procopius notion of mens
heroic conduct. It argues that, despite Procopius reputation as the last great Classical
historian, he created heroes that were firmly rooted in the sixth-century CE Christian
Byzantine world. Procopius writing reveals that sixth-century Eastern Roman society was
abandoning Classical constructions of heroism based on an individuals worldly
achievements and military prowess and adopting Christian notions of courage dependent on
piety, humility, and divine intervention.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................V
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION: THE WORLD OF PROCOPIUS...................................................1
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Mathew Kuelfer for sharing his love of the Ancient World with
me.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: THE WORLD OF PROCOPIUS
Procopius of Caesarea has written the history of the wars, which Justinian, Emperor of
the Romans, waged against the barbarians of the East and theWest, relating separately
the events of each one, to the end that the long course of time may not overwhelm
deeds of singular importance through lack of a record, and thus abandon them to
oblivion and utterly obliterate them.1
Throughout history, great wars have produced great historians. The sixth-century CE
conflicts of the Eastern Roman Empire are no exception. In the History of the Wars, the
sixth-century Byzantine historian Procopius provided a memorable and detailed description
of the Eastern Romans reconquest of the lost Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. In
his account, Procopius attempted to place the deeds of the sixth-century Eastern Romans
alongside the accomplishments and heroes of the Classical Greek and Roman civilizations.
The sixth-century CE Eastern Roman Empire, however, had developed into a far different
entity than either the Roman Empire of Augustus (ruled 27 BCE-14 CE) or fifth-century
BCE Periclean Athens.
This thesis explores one aspect of this change. It examines the works of Procopius,
and argues that notions of mens ideal behavior in the sixth-century Eastern Roman Empire
had been dramatically altered by three hundred years of political and social upheaval.
Although influenced by Classical models, Procopius created histories that were firmly rooted
1
Procopius, The History of the Wars (ed. J. Haury, trans. H. B. Dewing, Loeb Classical Library, 5 vols.
[Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914, reprint 2000] ) 1.1.1. Note, since this thesis uses the older Loeb
translation of Procopius, words in quotations will be modernized and the spelling Americanized. Additionally,
the terms Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire will be used interchangeably to describe what
Procopius and his contemporaries thought of still as simply the Roman Empire. Moreover, since this thesis
uses the older Loeb translation of Procopius, words in quotations will be modernized and the spelling
Americanized. Additionally, the terms Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire will be used
interchangeably to describe what Procopius and his contemporaries thought of still as simply the Roman
Empire.
2
in the Byzantine world. Procopius writing reveals that sixth-century Eastern Roman society
was abandoning Classical constructions of heroism based on an individuals worldly
achievements and military prowess and adopting Christian notions of courage dependent on
piety, humility, and divine intervention.
Procopius
We know only a few things about the life of Procopius. He was born in Caesarea in
Palestine sometime in the last decade of the fifth century, and died around 560 CE. Even less
is known about his family, except that it belonged to the landowning elite. Procopius grew up
in the largely Greek-speaking city of Caesarea, and although familiar with Latin, he used
prose that would have been recognized a thousand years earlier in Periclean Athens.2
Procopius most likely attended school in Gaza, which at that time served as a center
of Classical learning. The curriculum emphasized Greek classics, especially the works of
Herodotus and Thucydides. Because of this Greek influence, Procopius based his writing, in
part, on the historical models established by these early Greek historians. Although Procopius
had a familiarity with Latin and Roman mythology, his knowledge of the Roman Empires
history before the fourth century CE appears limited.3
Procopius must have excelled as a student, and his academic success allowed him to
begin training for an elite position within the Empires bureaucracy. He entered law school,
probably in Berytus (Beirut), and after five years of study, he became a rhetor (attorney of
Reflecting the growing influence of Greek culture during the reign of the emperor Justinian (ruled 527565 CE), the Greek language supplanted Latin, and by the end of his rule it was the official language of the
Eastern Roman Empire. J.A.S. Evans, Procopius (New York: Twayne, 1972), 31-40.
3
Evans, Procopius, 101.
3
law). In 527, the historian was appointed as assessor (legal secretary) to Belisarius, the newly
appointed commander of the Eastern forces.4 For the next thirteen years, Procopius
accompanied Belisarius on his military campaigns in the East against the Persians, to the
West in Africa against the Vandals, and in Italy against the Ostrogoths. After 540, the two
parted ways, and we lose track of the historians exact location. We do not know if he joined
Belisarius in his 541 campaign against the Persians, though he was present the next year
when the plague struck in Constantinople. It is almost certain that after 542 he no longer
witnessed the events he described, but relied on Byzantine diplomatic records and on his
contacts within the Italian Senate.5
Without careful analysis, Procopius three works: the Buildings, the Secret History,
and the Wars, may appear either to have different authors, or to be the work of one severely
schizophrenic individual. In Buildings, Procopius extolled Justinian as Gods messenger on
earth, leading the Empire back to glory. In contrast, in the Secret History Justinian appeared
as the Lord of the Demons, driving Byzantium to disaster.6 The Wars took the middle
ground, mixing negative and positive descriptions of the emperor. These discrepancies,
however, merely reflect the nature and the limitations of the historical models that Procopius
followed. The Wars was a work of secular history that focused on great men and great
battles. Secular history was a by-product of the Christianization of the Empire in the fourth
4
Most historians agree that Procopius was a lawyer, Juan Signes Codoner, Procopio de Casarea: Historia
Secreta, (Madrid, 2000), 11-12; Geoffrey Greatrex, Lawyers and Historians in Late Antiquity, in Law, Society
and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. Ralph Mathisen (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) 151; F.
Tinnefield, Prokopios [3] Der Neue Pauly 10 (2001), 391-2. However, James Howard-Johnstone argues that
Procopius was an engineer/architect, James Howard-Johnstone, The Education and Expertise of Procopius
Antiquite Tardive 8 (2000), 19-30.
5
Evans, Procopius, 31-6. Procopius also used written sources. Unfortunately, like many classicising
historians, he failed to specify which writers he consulted. On Procopius use of official sources: Cameron,
Procopius, 156, and Geoffrey Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 502-532 (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1998), 62-4.
6
Procopius, Buildings 1.1.16, Procopius, The Secret History (trans. G.A. Williamson [London: Penguin
Books, 1966, reprint 1981] ) 30.34.
4
century. Early practitioners, such as Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapius, and Zosimus, were
pagans, and they tended to see the abandonment of pagan ideals as the reason for the
Empires gradual decline. By the sixth century, however, with the preeminence of
Christianity assured, secular historians, while continuing to follow the Classical model,
abandoned their anti-Christian tone.7 The Secret History followed the literary genre of
psogos (invective) and komodia (satire), while the Buildings followed the restrictions of the
most artificial of all classical genres to modern taste, that of panegyric.8 Nevertheless,
despite the different historical models used by Procopius, his notion of what kind of conduct
made a man a villain or a hero remained constant, and provides unity to all three of his
works.
The dating of Procopius writings has been the subject of debate. Procopius
composed the majority of the Wars in the 540s, and published Books I-VII in 551. He
completed Book VIII, a summary of developments in the East and the West from 550 to 553,
in 554.9 Averil Cameron asserts that the Secret History was composed around 551, shortly
after Procopius had finished the Wars, and reflected the authors disillusionment with his
hero, the general Belisarius. She states: It would be hard to see him doing this [writing a
negative portrayal of Belisarius] in 559 or 560, when Belisarius was the aged hero who had
just saved Constantinople from the Huns.10 While I agree with Camerons dating of the
work, I suggest that the Secret History reflected more than the authors temporary
7
Averil Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (London: Duckworth, 1985), 25, 60. Cameron
stresses that seeing the Secret History simply as an exaggerated satire does not give justice to its complexity
and its earnestness, and should not be used to obscure the substantial portion of the work that is devoted to
detailed political accusation.
9
In particular, see J.A.S. Evans, The Dates of Procopius Works, Greek and Byzantine Studies 37
(1996): 301-320, Cameron, Procopius, 8-11, and Geoffrey Greatrex, The Dates of Procopius Works, BMGS
18 (1994), 101-14.
10
Cameron, Procopius, 53.
5
disenchantment with Belisarius, and represented his long-held anxiety that the general and
Byzantine society were flawed.
Ordinarily, it might be considered problematic to rely on one historians works as an
accurate reflection of his society. There are, however, several important reasons for choosing
Procopius as a main source for his era. Procopius has arguably long been the most important
and widely read Greek historian of Late Antiquity. The Wars, Buildings, and Secret History
are the primary, and at times, the only source for the reign of Justinian. In their accounts of
the era, eminent historians like J. B. Bury and many other biographers of Justinian have paid
Procopius the ultimate compliment by summarizing large sections of the Wars.11 Procopius
writings also influenced ancient historians. Agathias, Procopius successor, who accused his
fellow sixth-century writers of composing histories that demonstrated a flagrant disregard
for the truth and no concern for historical precision, in contrast, complimented Procopius for
his accuracy and reliability.12 This praise was not limited to political historians. The sixthcentury ecclesiastical historian Evagrius Scholasticus, who paraphrased large sections of the
Wars for his own history, revealed the esteem in which Procopius was held: Procopius has
set forth most assiduously and elegantly what was done by Belisarius, when he commanded
the Eastern forces, and by the Romans and Persians when they fought each other.13 The
regard in which contemporary historians held him indicates that his history was considered
accurate.
Since he was the most respected historian of his age, Procopius writings may be used
as a good example of a large segment of the populations views on many issues, including
11
12
Agathias, The Histories (trans. by Joseph D. Frendo [New York: de Gruyter, 1975.] ) preface, 18-22.
13
Evagrius Scholasticus, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus (trans. Michael Whitby
[Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000] ) 4.12.
6
mens heroic conduct. Procopius popularity among both religious and secular writers
indicates that a large portion of the literate Eastern Roman Empire had read his account.
Additionally, sections of the Wars might have been performed in front of live audiences,
suggesting that even illiterates may have been familiar with the work.14 Like popular motion
pictures of today, the Wars was meant to appeal to a diverse audience, and Procopius
advanced familiar themes that contemporary Byzantine citizens would have easily
recognized. In creating his heroes and villains, Procopius constructed examples with which
the populace could readily identify. Furthermore, Procopius mostly described events that had
occurred in the recent past. If he had told outright lies or described the actions of individuals
in an obviously inaccurate fashion, there would have been many people in Constantinople to
refute his history and denigrate his work.
Relying on a Roman historians descriptions of barbarian cultures might be
considered as another difficulty with this study. Overall, however, Procopius provided a
sympathetic and accurate representation of non-Roman attitudes and policies. For example,
in a letter recorded to the Senate of Rome, the Ostrogothic Queen Amalasuntha described her
and King Theodatus admiration of Classical learning and education. Procopius subsequent
description of the two leaders in Wars mirrored the Ostrogoths self-description. Whether
this indicates that Procopius had access to native accounts, or based his description on other
sources is impossible to discern, though it does reveal Procopius concern to impart accurate
images of barbarian cultures.15 Indeed, he provided the best explanation for why his history
remains a valuable source on sixth-century Byzantine and barbarian cultures: It fell to his
14
15
Cassiodorus, The Variae (trans. S.J.B. Barnish [Liverpool: Liverpool University, Press, 1992] ) 10.3.4.
This thesis uses barbarian as a neutral term to describe non-Roman peoples. See Patrick Amory, People and
Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) preface, 15.
7
[Procopius] lot, when appointed advisor to the general Belisarius, to be an eye witness to
practically all the events to be described. It was his convention that while cleverness is
appropriate to rhetoric, and inventiveness to poetry, truth alone is appropriate to history.16
Of course, there is no such thing as a truly objective reporter, and Procopius, like all
historians, was limited by his own perceptions and prejudices. Whether Procopius always
gave accurate portraits of events or individuals, however, is not nearly as important as the
constructions of heroism themselves. A false description based on misconceptions or bias
reveals as much about the historian and his culture as a truthful account. This thesis explores
what Procopius considered heroic or cowardly behavior, regardless of whether these accounts
accurately record the behaviors in question.
One example of the value of non-factual sources was Procopius reliance on set
speeches. Procopius borrowed this fictional device from the Classical Greek historians. The
gradual stifling of intellectual life marked Justinians reign. By putting these speeches in the
mouths of the enemies of the Empire, Procopius was able to express ideas that would have
been dangerous for him to convey more directly. These speeches often contained attacks on
Justinian, or portrayed enemy viewpoints on controversial political issues.17 Procopius
disenchantment with Justinian reflected the emperors growing unpopularity. The intellectual
elites, who made up much of Procopius audience, would have been able to read between
the lines of the Wars and Buildings and understand the historians true feelings, while the
Secret History gave Procopius the chance to fully reveal his feelings about the shortcomings
and problems within the empire.18 Therefore, when an Ostrogothic leader criticizes Justinian,
16
Procopius, Wars 1.1.3-4.
17
Evans, Procopius, 46; see also, Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (trans. Rex Warner
[London: Penguin Books, 1954, reprint, 1972] ) 1.22.
1
18
John Moorhead, Justinian (London: Longman, 1994), 171.
8
or calls the Byzantines Greeklings and unmanly by nature,19 it does not necessarily mean
that the leader said these things; it may, however, help provide a better understanding of
Procopius genuine beliefs.
The Decline of Roman Power
In order to achieve a better understanding of the personalities and the social and
political changes that shaped Procopius age and his writing, it is necessary to begin with an
earlier era. For an Empire that had long prided itself on its military prowess and its ability to
subjugate barbarian peoples, the fifth century CE had been disastrous. The Roman Empire
had lost nearly two-thirds of its territory and relinquished control of North Africa to the
Vandals, the Balkans to the Huns, and Italy to the Goths.20
The Roman Empires first defeats began in North Africa. The Vandals, a Germanic
people, looking for more prosperous lands, successfully invaded North Africa in 429 CE. The
Romans signed a treaty acknowledging the Vandals control of Numidia and Mauretania.
Recognizing the Romans weakness, the Vandalic king, Gunderic, violated the accord, and
seized the wealth of Carthage and the Provinces of Proconsularis and Byzacena in 439. The
Roman Empire had little choice but to concede the loss of North Africa, and in 442 the
Romans signed another treaty with the Vandals.21 For the Romans, Carthage and the rich
African Provinces had long served as the major supplier of grain and oil.22 Accordingly,
19
Procopius, Wars 8.23.28.
20
John Moorhead, The Roman Empire Divided 400- 700 (London: Longman, 2001), 125.
21
G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown, Oleg Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World,
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press / The Belknap Press, 1999), 741. For the purposes of this thesis the term
Germanic denotes a language family, not a culture, race, or ethnic group. The word Germanic is
anachronistic for the period. See Amory, 15.
22
Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley: University of California Press, reprint 2000), 7-8.
9
when the Vandals forced the forfeiture of North Africa, they damaged both the Empires
military prestige and its economic well-being.
Part of the reason for the Empires inability to deal with the Vandals invasion was
the emergence of the threat of Hunnic invasions in the Balkans. The Huns were the dominant
power in the Eastern Pontic region, threatening the borders of the Roman Empire. Instead of
confronting these ferocious warriors, Roman Emperors like Theodosius II (ruled 408-50)
often used the great wealth of the Empire to pay off the Huns with annual tributes. These
gifts continued into the sixth century. Many Romans were uncomfortable with these
payoffs. Indeed, Procopius lamented that they had begun the enslavement of the Roman
Empire.23
The Hunnic Empire crumbled after the death of its famous leader Attila in 453.
Nevertheless, the political situation in the Western Roman Empire continued to deteriorate.
In North Africa, Gaiseric persisted in interfering in Italian politics. Still, it is important to
note that Gaiseric may not have wanted so much to destroy the Roman Empire as to find a
place for himself and his people within it. He arranged for his son Hunerics betrothal to the
Western Roman emperor Valentinian IIIs daughter, Eudocia. After Valentinians
assassination in 455, however, a usurper, Petronius Maximus, married his son to
Valentinians daughter. Insulted and angry, Gaiseric sacked Rome that same year.24
Recognizing the danger that they faced from their African neighbor, and freed from the
Hunnic threat, the Romans in 468 sent a large expeditionary force against the Vandals.
23
David Christian, A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume 1 Inner Eurasia from
Prehistory to the Mongol Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 227. Procopius, Secret History 8.10.
2
24
Moorhead, Roman Empire Divided, 41.
10
Despite the impressive size of this army, the campaign ended in failure.25 These defeats
severely challenged the Romans sense of military superiority over the barbarian peoples.
Signs of this crisis in confidence began in the West. Valentinian IIIs death marked
the end of strong leadership in the Western Roman Empire. Under the inept rule of the last
Western Roman emperors, the Germanic generals became the true power behind the throne.
In 476, a group of rebellious soldiers proclaimed one of these strongmen, Odoacer, king.
Odoacer deposed the Western Roman emperor, Romulus. The new king dispatched a
delegation to the Eastern Roman emperor Zeno, (ruled 474-5, 476-91), informing the
emperor that there was no longer the need for a separate emperor in the West. Zeno, who
himself was a former Isaurian chieftain (a pastoralist people who had raided throughout the
Empires Cappadocian and Syrian Provinces) and who had taken control of the Empire after
the death of Leo I (ruled 457-474), had little choice in the matter. He recognized Odoacers
right to rule, and appointed him to the rank of patricius.26
The Byzantines also used allied barbarians to punish their enemies. An example of
this policy occurred in the fifth century, when emperor Zeno convinced Theoderic the Amal
to gather his forces in Thrace and the Balkans and march into Italy to eliminate Odoacer.
After a fierce struggle, Theoderic slew Odoacer and took control of Italy. Theoderics
relationship with the Byzantine Empire became strained. Though technically subservient to
the emperor, he was viewed as a usurper by many Byzantines.27
Yet, as with the Vandals in North Africa, it would be a mistake to see the triumph of
the barbarians in Italy as the end of the Western Roman Empire. The barbarians of the late
25

26
Malchus, frag. 10 (ed. and trans. Blockley). In the fifth century CE, the title patricius was an honorable
title granted by the emperor in recognition for faithful service to the Empire. Simon Hornblower and Antony
Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Companion to Classical History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 523.
27
11
fifth century CE were far different from the fur-clad wild marauders portrayed in Classical
literature. On the contrary, many Germanic leaders had adapted themselves to Roman society
and rapidly became indistinguishable from their civilian Roman neighbors. They dressed in
contemporary Roman fashions and possessed magnificent villas decorated with the latest
mosaic floors and furnishings.28 Theoderic himself was attracted to Roman culture. Indeed,
during his ten years as a hostage in Constantinople (461-71) he had received a Roman
education. Subsequently, when Theoderic seized power in Italy, he did not destroy Rome, but
cooperated with the Roman officials and attempted to integrate his people into Italian
society.29
Theoderic ruled as a military leader, and part of his success may be attributed to his
ability to provide stability and a renewed sense of military pride to the Western Romans.
While maintaining his independence from the Eastern Roman Empire, he recognized that his
position was subordinate to the Roman emperor, but superior to all other rival kings.
Theoderic played the role of a warrior-leader well. In 504/505, he led the Roman forces to
victory in Sirmium on the middle of the Danube. This triumph helped secure the Italian
borders and protected Rome from the threat of further invasion. Having kept the barbarians
out of Italy, the Ostrogoths could hardly be seen as barbarians any longer.31
Roman writers, like Cassiodorus, saw Theoderic as the Italians best chance to
maintain Roman culture, and he, like many of the elite, cooperated with the new order.
Despite his fascination with Roman traditions, however, Theoderic owed his position in
28
Ostrogorsky, 63.
29
Roger Collins, Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 (London: Macmillan, 1991), 102. Despite Procopius
assertion that Theoderic was illiterate (5.2.16.), most modern historians believe Malalas assertion (15.9.) that
he received a literary education during his ten years in Constantinople, see; Wolfram, 262-3, 330; Moorhead,
Theoderic in Italy, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 13-14, 87, 104-6.
31
Amory, 50.
12
Ostrogothic society not to his Roman values, but to his military leadership and his
unscrupulous use of violence.32 The close relationship of Theoderic to the Western Romans
would have dramatic consequences when in the 530s the Eastern Romans attempted to
conquer Italy.
The sixth century CE witnessed the reemergence of the Eastern Romans ancient
political rivalry with the other great agrarian power of Western Eurasia: Persia. The Eastern
border between the two powers began at the southeastern edge of the Black Sea and extended
southward towards the Euphrates. Along this boundary, the ancient Persian Empire formed a
powerful state that maintained an old rivalry with Rome.33 The fifth century had been a
relatively peaceful era between the two Empires. Nevertheless, by the beginning of the sixth
century relations between the two states had deteriorated. In the first half of the sixth century,
the most powerful of all Sassanian Emperors, Chosroes I (531-79), established Persia as a
great international power; he then prepared to challenge Byzantium for regional hegemony. 34
Throughout their history, the Romans had suffered numerous foreign invasions and
the Romans survival depended on their ability to repel these attacks and dominate the
barbarians. In Roman Homosexuality, Craig Williams describes the Classical Roman attitude
towards foreigners:
A common theme in the ancient sources is that true Roman men, who posses
virtus by birthright, rightfully exercise their dominion or imperium not only
over women but also over foreigners themselves implicitly likened to
women. An obvious implication is that non-Roman peoples were destined to
submit to Romes masculine imperium.35
32
J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West: 400-1000 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), 40.
33
Moorhead, Justinian, 11.
34
Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971), 20.
35
Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1999), 135.
13
During the era of the Roman Republic, legendary generals like Gaius Marius (157-86 BCE)
and Caesar (100-44 BCE) had faced and defeated large forces of barbarians. In the third and
fourth centuries CE, foreign peoples continued their attacks on the Empires borders; even
these invasions, however, had ultimately been overcome by Roman military might.
Therefore, the fifth century CE is a critical turning point in Roman history and an era when
Roman men began to question their assumed superiority over barbarians.
Even before the fifth century, CE Roman mens military roles were being redefined.
In the era of the Roman Republic, the nobility had served as both political and military
leaders. In order to be seen as real men, even the most affluent members of the aristocracy
needed to prove their virility on the battlefield. Under the Early Empire, however, the upper
classes were no longer required to fulfill their military duties, and the defense of the Empire
became entrusted to a professional army. 36 In the fourth century CE, the role of citizen
soldiers decreased even further, and the protection of the Empire increasingly began to
depend on the recruitment of foreign troops. Both of these steps transformed the notion that
Roman men, regardless of birth, had to prove their heroic qualities by serving as idealized
warrior-elites. Although non-Roman mercenaries had always played a role in the Roman
army, these men became the Empires primary striking force from the fourth century CE.
These mercenaries (federates) constituted a considerable threat to the imperial
government. From the reign of Arcadius (ruled 395-408), the emperor had ceased to lead the
army personally, and in the Western Provinces the head of the army often became the de
facto ruler of the Empire.37At the end of the fourth century in the East, however, the ruling
36
J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and
Chrysostom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 245.
37
Liebeschuetz, 7. In 611 CE, the emperor Heraclius (ruled 610-641) broke with this tradition by leading
the military campaign against the Persians. Walter Kaegi, Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), 68.
14
class recognized the peril of relying too much on federates, and they attempted to curb the
power of the military. The government established control over the army and reduced the
size of the force. These policies helped the Eastern half of the Empire survive the calamitous
fifth-century foreign invasion
The Era of Justinian
Roman decline continued in the sixth century. The military defeats in the West, as
well as the renewed Persian threat to the East, created a sense of anxiety amongst the
populace. Increasingly, many Eastern Romans, rich and poor, began to search for a Roman
ruler to lead them back to glory. They got their wish when Justinian succeeded to the throne.
George Ostrogorsky argues that Justinian believed that the loss of the Western Empire
resulted from the fifth-century emperors incompetent rule and it was his duty to reunite the
lost Provinces and restore order to the Empire.39
Justinians family came from the provincial Balkan town of Nis, and like Zeno, he had
journeyed to Constantinople in the search for a position in the military. Justinian recognized
that his humble origins meant that he had a tenuous hold on power. Accordingly, he took
several steps to consolidate his authority. Under the guise of a Classical renewal, he
gradually increased the authority of the emperor, and curtailed the aristocracys power. He
claimed for the first time that the emperor represented the nomos empsychos (the living law).
39
Ostrogorsky, 69. On Justinians territorial ambitions and his attitudes towards his predecessors failures
in the West, Justinian, Digest of Justinian ( ed. and trans. Alan Watson et al., 2 vols. [Philadelphia. University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1997] ) 30.11.12, of April 535.
15
In the Digest, he codified Roman law and refused to allow lawyers to change these laws. It
became the emperors duty to resolve ambiguous juridical descisions.40
It is with Justinian that Classical Rome fades away and a recognizable early Medieval
Christian State takes its place. Although Justinian played upon many Romans hunger for the
return of the glorious Roman past, his centralization, strict regimentation, and Classical
Roman renewal were based on Christian concepts. Justinian perceived himself as the head
of the Church and State, and he ruled as both a religious and a secular leader. No other
emperor either before or after had such control over the Church. It would be a mistake to see
Justinian acting out these reforms purely from political necessity. What separated Justinian
from many of his predecessors was his devotion to Orthodox Christianity and his abhorrence
of heresy. Like the emperor Constantine, Justinian seems to have honestly believed that he
served as Gods vehicle in the secular world. Justinian thought of himself as a man who,
along with his wife, the empress Theodora, served as Gods representative on earth. During
the pagan era, the divinity of an emperor like Augustus isolated him from both his wife Livia
and the general populace. Justinians role as mediator between heaven and earth brought him
closer to the people and to his wife.41 Justinian assumed that for the good of the Empire, it
was his duty to impose religious and legal conformity on his subjects. Before Justinians
ascension, pagans had been allowed to serve in the bureaucracy as long as they kept their
beliefs to themselves. Justinian, however, felt compelled to stamp out the last vestiges of the
old faith. In 528, he commanded that all pagans had three months to be baptized. The next
year he forbade the teaching of philosophy at the Academy in Athens. Pagan professors
40
41
Michael Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past (London: Routledge, 1992), 15.
Jas Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art From the Pagan World to
Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 180-4.
16
disillusioned with the Christianization of the Empire fled to the more enlightened court of
the Persian king Chosroes.42
Justinians autocratic rule and his humble background guaranteed that there would be
strong opposition to his rule among the populace, especially the nobility, many of whom
remembered the reign of the emperor Anastasius I (ruled 491-518 CE) as an era of relative
religious freedom and prosperity. In January of 532, the anti-Justinian faction felt strong
enough to make its move. A crowd of people went to the home of Anastasius nephew,
Probus, in an attempt to name him emperor. Probus, perhaps purposely, was not there and the
group burned down his house in frustration. In an attempt to appease the opposition, Justinian
removed two unpopular officials from office. The emperors rivals, however, took this
gesture as a sign of weakness and awaited the proper opportunity to make their move. Their
chance arrived when Justinian attended a race at the Hippodrome and tried to placate the
angry masses by giving a conciliatory speech. Both the Blues and the Greens, sporting
factions that usually were bitter rivals, shouted down the emperor, and an uprising called the
Nika revolt ensued.43 According to Procopius, the emperor attempted to abandon the capital,
but Theodora stiffened the emperors resolve, and Justinian sent out his general Belisarius to
punish the rebels. The Chronicon Paschale, an early seventh-century account, described
42
Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000. (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996. Reprint, 1997), 122. Agathias points out that the philosophers quickly became disillusioned in
Persia and returned to the Eastern Roman Empire in 531 CE. Agathias, 2.31. Evans supports Agathias account,
Justinian, 70. Averil Cameron is more skeptical, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity (London:
Routledge, 1993), 134. Justinian launched three major persecutions against pagans during his reign, in 528-9,
545-6, and 562; Maas, 67-78. The emperor sought to convert the remaining pagans both within and outside the
empire, see John of Ephesus account in, Pseuso-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre Chronicle (known also as the
chronicle of Zuqnin) Part III trans. Witold Witakowski ( Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996), 76-8.
43
For a detailed account of the revolt, Geoffrey Greatrex, The Nika Riot: A Reappraisal, Journal of
Hellenic Studies cxvii (1997), 60-86. Meire argues that the Nika riot was not a popular rebellion. He suggests
that Justinian wanted to appear weak and endangered in order to draw out his enemies into the open. Then the
emperor could destroy them and reveal his uncompromising strength to the people.
17
Belisarius ruthless counterattack, The people remained mobbing outside the palace. And
when this was known, the patrician Belisarius, the magister militum, came out with a
multitude of Goths and cut down many [rioters] until evening.44 Justinian never forgot the
lesson of his near overthrow. Perhaps he knew that if he wanted to survive he could never
again show any signs of weakness or compromise.
Justinians actions cemented his power in Constantinople, and allowed him to
conduct his campaigns to restore the lost Provinces of the Western empire. However, before
Justinian could turn his forces to the West, he needed to secure his Northern and Eastern
borders. Even before the Nika revolt, Byzantine armies had attained several important
victories in these regions. In 530, for the first time in several years, the Byzantine army
gained several victories over Persian forces in Armenia and Mesopotamia.45 The Empire
gained further successes in the Balkans by defeating raiding Slavic and Bulgar forces. That
same year, the Vandals deposed and imprisoned their king Hilderic. The Vandals replaced
Hilderic with his fiery nephew and heir, Gelimer.46 Although this overthrow disturbed
Justinian, for the time being he could only warn Gelimer not to exchange the title of king for
the title of tyrant.47 The next year, the Persians and the Eastern Romans fought to a standstill
in the East. However, the Persian emperor Cabades died in 531, and the new emperor,
Chosroes, who needed time to consolidate his own power, readily agreed to a five-year truce
44
Chronicon Paschale: 284-628 AD (trans. Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby [Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press, 1989] ), 117.
45
Ostrogorsky, 62.
46
Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1997), 180.
47
18
with the Eastern Romans. With both the dangerous Balkan and Persian frontier secured,
Justinian eagerly turned his eyes to the West.48
Justinian used both political and religious reasons to justify his attack on the Vandals.
In 533, claiming that he was protecting orthodox Christians from the dangers of an Arian
usurper, the emperor sent Belisarius and his small army of about 18,000 men to North Africa.
The landing caught the Vandals off guard. Although Gelimer attempted to block Belisarius
march on Carthage, the Eastern Roman army soundly defeated him. He fled, leaving his
forces in disarray. Belisarius captured the city, and that same year he destroyed the remnants
of the Vandal army at the battle of Tricamerum. Although Gelimer escaped once more, in
534, he finally surrendered to Belisarius. Despite the seeming ease of the Byzantine victory
over the Vandals, however, it would it take another fifteen years to stamp out the stubborn
resistance of the local Berber tribes.49
The defeat of the Vandals gave Justinian the confidence to retake Italy from the
Goths. The emperor secretly negotiated with Theoderics daughter, Amalasuntha, (regent to
her son, king Atalaric, ruled 526-534 CE), to restore Italy to Roman rule. However, when
Atalaric died in 534, political considerations forced Amalasuntha to reconcile with her cousin
Theodatus (ruled 534-536 CE) an make him co-ruler. Theodatus suspected Amalasunthas
treason, and he attempted to ingratiate himself with the queens enemies by imprisoning
and then murdering her sometime in early in 535.50
Once again, Justinian used an unlawful usurpation of power by a barbarian king as
a pretext for Byzantine intervention. Soon after Amalasunthas death, he invaded Italy and
48
Treadgold, 180.
49
Treadgold, 182.
50
Procopius claimed that Theodatus had murdered Amalasuntha at Theodoras behest. Procopius, Secret
History 16.5.
19
claimed the Ostrogothic kingdom for himself. Belisarius seized Sicily in 535. Justinian sent
envoys to pressure the Goths to capitulate. Theodatus immediate reaction was to cede power
to Justinian; however, after news arrived in spring of 536 of a Gothic victory in Dalmatia,
Theodatus decided to fight and had Justinians ambassador arrested. Belisarius invaded Italy
and, facing little resistance, easily captured Naples. Exasperated with Theodatus inept
leadership, in 536 the Ostrogoths killed him, replacing him with the general Vittigis (ruled
536-540 CE). Vittigis fared little better than Theodatus. His attempts to besiege Belisarius in
Rome from 536 to 537 failed, and in 540, he surrendered Ravenna to Belisarius. Despite
being sent to Constantinople in chains, Vittigis was allowed an honorable retirement in
Constantinople.51
Victory seemed to be within Justinians grasp. Yet in 540 things took a turn for the
worse. Justinians campaigns in North Africa and Italy had severely stretched the limits of
the Eastern Romans military power. In the same year, Chosroes, fearing Justinians growing
power, violated the endless peace. Persian troops quickly overwhelmed the sparsely
defended cities of Syria. Desperate to defeat the Persians, Justinian recalled Belisarius from
Italy. While Belisarius had mixed success in his campaigns against the Persians, Justinian
managed to sign another truce with Chosroes by agreeing to pay more tribute. Although the
treaty with the Persians allowed Justinian to concentrate once more on his reconquest of
Italy, ultimately, the payments reduced Byzantiums power in the East, allowing the Persians
to become the dominant power in the region.52
The year 540 also marked a turning point in Justinians reconquest of Italy. Despite
Belisarius victories, the Ostrogothic army had refused to submit to Byzantine rule. In 541,
51
Amory, 10.
52
Ostrogorsky, 66.
20
the Ostrogothic nobility appointed Totila (ruled 541-552) as king. Totila, a relative of the
Visigothic king Theudis (ruled 526-548), revitalized the Gothic armys fighting spirit. In a
series of swift campaigns, he recaptured almost all of Italy. Finally, however, after a long and
bitter struggle, the Byzantine general Narses defeated Totila in 552, and by 554, the Eastern
Roman army had overwhelmed the remnants of the Ostrogothic forces. Victorious at last in
Italy, in 555, Justinian sent an army to Spain, capturing the southeast corner of the Iberian
Peninsula.53
For contemporaries, it may have looked as though Justinian had succeeded in
restoring the Western half of the Roman Empire. In retrospect, however, the reconquest
was the last gasp of the ancient Roman Empire. The victories in the West had come at a steep
price. The vicious wars had devastated Italy, and many Italians began to perceive the Eastern
Romans as foreign invaders.54 The depopulation of Italy also made it increasingly difficult
for the Byzantine army to protect Italy from outside invaders, and in 568 the Lombards
overran Northern and Central Italy.55 Although the Eastern Romans managed to maintain a
political presence in Italy until the eleventh century CE, they no longer treated it as if it were
their ancient home, but simply as a frontier military Province.56
In the end, Justinians attempt to reinstate the Roman Empire failed. The
overextension of the Empire had spread its defenses thin. In the second half of the sixth
century CE, Slavic invaders overwhelmed the Byzantine defenders and established
permanent settlements in the Balkans. The Visigoths drove the Byzantines out of Spain
53
Amory 180.
54
Amory, 120.
55
Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards (trans. William Foulke [Philadelphia: University of
Pennslyvania Press, 1907; reprint 2003] ), 2.5-9.
56
Amory suggests that the Lombards were an amalgamation of former Byzantine soldiers and barbarians
from Pannonia. Amory, 12.
21
sometime between 623 and 625. Byzantine power in North Africa lasted until the Arabs took
control at the end of the seventh century.57 Although the Byzantine Empire remained active
throughout the Eastern Mediterranean for many centuries to come, too many things had
changed within the Eastern Mediterranean for the Roman Empire to reestablish its
dominance. Patrick Amory argues that, by the sixth century CE, the concept of a united
Roman culture and identity had already disappeared in the West:
The eventual failure of Justinian and his successors to retain the allegiance of
Africa and Italy and finally after Phocus, the Balkans, was partly the result of
the inadequacy of imperial ideology to draw together the varied elites of new
frontiers into a single homogeneous cultural, religious and political culture
determined by Constantinople.58
Indeed, despite Justinians attempts to reestablish the Roman Empire, the campaigns in the
West, ultimately, only led to further decline.
Christian Influences
Historians have often portrayed the sixth century as a transitional age. Within this
paradigm, Procopius has been seen as the last great classicizing historian, and symbolic of
this shift from the rationality of the Classical past to the barbarity of the early Middle Ages.
Historians have often portrayed the sixth century as a transitional age. Within this paradigm,
Procopius has been seen as the last great classicizing historian, and symbolic of this shift
from the rationality of the Classical past to the barbarity of the early Middle Ages. Many
nineteenth and early twentieth-century historians, lamenting the fall of the Roman Empire
and the beginning of the Dark Ages, praised Procopius as the last bastion of rationality in
57
Ostrogorsky, 72, 124.
58
Amory, 313.
22
an increasingly backward and irrational world.60 Attempting to draw comparisons between
the works and eras of Procopius and Thucydides, W. H. Parks suggested that Procopius lived
in a dying world: We find Thucydides living in the very atmosphere of freedom, in the
springtime of the worlds life and thought; behold Procopius, on the other hand, living at a
time when no one dared to call his life, or even his thought his own.58 In A History of the
Later Roman Empire, J. B. Bury claimed that Procopius Christianity was a mere veneer: In
fact Procopius was at core, in the essence of spirit a pagan: Christianity, assented to by his
lips and his understanding was alien to his soul, like a half known foreign language.59 These
historians, who praised the Wars for its Classical rationality, placed more intellectual value
on it and tended to separate it from both Buildings and the Secret History. Buildings was
dismissed as a lesser work, and its fawning account of Justinian and his reign was perceived
as a typical panegyric, with little historical value. The Secret History, with its virulent attacks
on Justinian and Belisarius and its obsession with the empress Theodoras supposed sexual
depravity, was described as either a fraud or the result of Procopius disillusionment, and
therefore discounted as unrelated to the other two works.60 Until he changed his mind in the
1920s, Bury argued that it was almost impossible to believe that Procopius, the author of the
60
Walter Goffart suggests that historians lamenting the fall of the Roman Empire have overstated the
Early Middle Ages as a Dark Age. He argues that the Dark Age was no more perilous than those of any
other times, including our own. Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History A.D. 550-800: Jordanes,
Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 13.
58
W.H. Parks, Some Suggestions derived from a Comparison of the Histories of Thucydides and
Procopius, in Transactions of the American Philological Association 24 (1893), 41, quoted in Evans,
Procopius, 132.
59
J.B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene 395 to 800, vol. 1 (London:
Macmillan, 1889), 178.
60
6
23
[Wars] would ever have used the exaggerated language in which the writer of the Secret
History pours out vials of wrath upon Justinian.61
Beginning in the late 1940s, historians began to acknowledge Procopius Christian
faith. G. A. Downey suggested that Procopius was an independent if skeptical Christian.
Nevertheless, instead of examining the Christian influences in Procopius writing, Downey
continued to focus on Procopius fascination with the Classical past.62 In Procopius (1972), J.
A. S. Evans seeks to refute the assertion that Procopius was a half pagan whose thoughts
reflected a pre-Christian World. He argues: he [Procopius] may have borrowed
vocabulary from the Periclean age, but the substance belonged to the sixth century after
Christ.63
In Procopius and the Sixth Century, Averil Cameron warns historians not to be fooled
by Procopius seductively classical appearance. For beneath the surface is a set of
assumptions much more closely in line with the rest of his society than his classicism might
suggest.64
However, despite this move towards seeing Procopius writings as a product of the
sixth-century CE Byzantine world, historians continue to emphasize Procopius links with
the Classical past. In Procopius and Thucydides on the Labors of War: Belisarius and
Brasidas in the Field, Charles F. Pazdernik explores the links and similarities between
61
Bury, 364
62
Cameron, Procopius, 31, n. 7
6
63
64
65
Charles F. Pazdernik, Procopius and Thucydides on the Labors of War: Belisarius and Brasidas in the
Field, in Transactions of the American Philological Association, 130 (2000), 149-87.
24
Procopius and Thucydides.65 While Pazderniks well-written and researched work is not
exactly a step back one hundred years to the works of Parks, it does suggest that historians
continue to perceive Procopius as the last bastion of the Classical age. In particular,
historians continue to suggest that Procopius viewed barbarians in Classical terms. Even
Cameron argues that Procopius attempted to preserve the established order by creating a
strong demarcation between civilized peoples and barbarians.66
Historians have also taken selected passages about barbarians from Procopius
writing and used them to make broad assertions about Procopius vision of foreigners. In the
Narrators of Barbarian History, Walter Goffart uses Procopius account of the Herules (a
Germanic people) to propose that Procopius wanted to expel all the barbarians from the
Roman Empire.67
Despite Procopius reputation as a classicizing historian, many of the themes in
Procopius writings would have bewildered Herodotus and Thucydides. Foremost of these
novelties was the Christian influence on the works. For Procopius, God often controlled
worldly events. An example of his conviction may be seen when Procopius tried to
comprehend Gods allowing the Persians to destroy the city of Antioch: I am unable to
understand why indeed it should be the will of God to exalt on high the fortunes of a man or
a place and then cast them down and destroy them for no cause which appears to us. For it is
wrong to say that with Him all things are not always done with reason.68
66
67
68
Goffart, 94-6.
Procopius, Wars 2.10.4. Cameron argues that this passage, which some historians have used to suggest
Procopius skepticism towards Christianity, on the contrary is a statement of uncomprehending faith.
25
Miraculous intervention is another common theme in the Wars. When all of
Justinians advisors warned him against his invasion of North Africa, a visiting bishop told
him about a dream in which God had explained that He supported the expedition because the
emperor was protecting the Christians in Libya from tyrants.69
Likewise, Procopius often differed from Classical Roman and Greek historians on
issues of sexual morality; the latter frequently depicted males asserting their superiority by
sexually dominating submissive men and women.70 Procopius, however, influenced by two
centuries of Christian domination of the Empire, perceived that sexual restraint and mastery
over ones sexual desires were the true indications of heroism and a manly spirit. Procopius
praised Belisarius for his sexual constraint and suggested that despite holding great numbers
of beautiful Gothic and Vandal women captive, Belisarius refused to have sex with them, and
had never touched a woman other than his wedded wife.71
A clear indication of Procopius devotion to Christianity may be found in his
abhorrence and fear of those who followed the old pagan faith:
He [John the Cappadocian] conversed commonly with sorcerers and
constantly listened to profane oracles, which portended for him the imperial
office, so that he was plainly walking on air lifted up by his hopes of royal
power. . . . And there was in him absolutely no regard for God, and even when
he went to a sanctuary to pray and to pass the night, he did not do at all as the
Christians are wont to do, but he clothed himself in a coarse garment
appropriate to a priest of the old faith which they are now accustomed to call
Hellenic, and throughout that whole night he mumbled out some unholy
words.72
69
70
Mathew Kuefler, The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late
Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 78.
71
72
26
Procopius followed sixth-century CE constructions of the supernatural world that would
have often appeared bizarre to the ancient Greek historians. He believed in the power of
sorcerers and the influence of supernatural beings like demons. Since the third century CE,
demons and angels had become a part of everyday life, and Christians were literally
surrounded by invisible helpers and invisible seducers.73 Therefore, for Procopius, if
Justinian was not under Gods influence, it was logical to assume that the emperor was
possessed by a powerful demon.
Brent Shaw suggests that another element that separated Procopius from his Classical
models, and from earlier Roman historians, was his detailed accounts of battles, which
portrayed the brutal nature of sixth-century CE combat. He described arrows penetrating
soldiers faces and the agony of the wounded. Procopius account of the Byzantine
campaigns in North Africa and Italy were filled with similar violent details. These images
suggest that Procopius may have been sickened by the violent consequences of the
reconquest, perhaps offering a deeper explanation of his changing attitude towards the
reconquest as the campaign floundered.74
All of these examples suggest that, although influenced by Classical Greek historians,
Procopius was as a product of the sixth-century Byzantine literary tradition. This example,
73
Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 166. For Greek and Roman perceptions of the supernatural world and
magic: Fritz Graf, Magic in the Ancient World, trans. Franklin Phillip (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1999). In Greco-Roman antiquity, demons could be either good or bad. They were considered the souls of men
from the Golden age who formed the connecting link between Gods and men. It was only in Late Antiquity,
with the influence of Judaism and Christianity that they became solely malevolent beings identified as fallen
angels. Bowersock, 406.
74
Brent D. Shaw, War and Violence, in Late Antiquity: a Guide to the Postclassical World, ed. G.W.
Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, The Belknap Press, 1999),
132-3. Though I would point out that Homer provides similar detailed descriptions of combat. Furthermore, I
tend to distrust the notion that Procopius gradually became disillusioned with the reconquest as it bogged down
around 540 CE.
27
from Evagrius, shows that other sixth-century historians besides Procopius mixed praise with
condemnation when describing the emperor:
Justinian was insatiable for money and was extraordinarily enamored of the
possessions of others that he even sold all his subjects for gold, to those who
administer the offices, and who collect taxes, and who without any reason
wish to stitch together plots against men. . . . But he was also unstinting with
his money: as a result he everywhere raised up magnificent churches and other
pious houses for the care of men and women, both the young and very old,
and those who were troubled by various disease; and he allocated great
revenues, from which these had to support themselves. And he did a myriad
[of] other things which are pious and pleasing to God.75
This account is so similar to the hyperbole of Procopius that one is tempted to think that the
religious historian had access to the Secret History.76 It is more likely, however, that
Evagrius, like Procopius, felt that all men were flawed and thus capable of admirable and
reprehensible behavior.
Despite the influence and limitations of the Classical Greek models of history that
Procopius followed, his writing and thinking reflected sixth-century Byzantine trends. It is
vital to look back into the Classical past and forward into the Middle Ages in an attempt to
achieve a better understanding of the sixth-century Byzantine mindset. Just as imperative,
however, is looking at this era as its own unique historical epoch. There are no simple
answers in analyzing Procopius complex constructions of mens heroic conduct;
nonetheless, his descriptions of heroes and villains can provide an increased understanding of
Procopius and of the sixth-century Eastern Mediterranean world in which he lived.
75
76
Evagrius, 4.30.
Michael Whitby argues that there is no evidence that Evagrius was familiar with the Secret History. He
suggests these allegations were simply part of the common condemnation of Justinians reign. Michael Whitby,
The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, 233, n. 86.
28
CHAPTER 2
GREEK WRITERS
These islands are now called Othoni. And one might say that Calypso lived
there, and that Odysseus, consequently, being not far from the land of
Phaecia, ferried himself over from here on a raft, as Homer says, or by some
other means without any ship.1
In order to appreciate the revolutionary aspects of the new Christian heroic ideal as
Procopius presented it, one must trace the origins and development of both Classical and
Christian notions of valor. In the sixth century CE, Greek had gradually replaced Latin as the
official language of the Eastern Roman Empire. This evolution reflected the growing impact
of Greek culture in general, and, like many intellectuals of his age, Procopius often looked to
29
the Classical Greek writers accounts for his historical models. Therefore, in order to explore
the roots of Procopius notions of mens heroic conduct; this chapter focuses on Greek
writers from the heroic age of Homer to the sixth-century CE ecclesiastical and pagan
historians. It then examines the similar and different ways these writers defined ideal and
non-ideal men.
Classical Traditions
For Procopius, myth and history were closely associated; he indicated that the heroes
of Homer were as real as the leading men of his own age.2 Therefore, it is with Homer that
this chapter begins. Homers epic poem, the Iliad, had a tremendous influence on Greek
notions of heroic behavior. Homers account of the mythical achievements of Greek and
Trojan heroes was written in an era when the Greeks had first begun to colonize and
dominate the Mediterranean world. These works are not merely mythology, but describe an
archaic Greek world where noble men competed with each other for honor and status.3
In the Iliad, the heroic male was both a man of action and a powerful speaker of
words. In life it was a combination of a mans physical and intellectual deeds that granted
him glorious immortality or ignominious death.4 Homer did not describe the world the
common people; he cared only about the deeds of aristocratic heroes. Often these activities
involved warfare, and the Iliad portrayed an extremely violent world in which often only the
strongest leader survived. Homer did not merely provide vague descriptions of battle, but
Richard Martin, The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad (Ithaca, Cornell
University Press, 1989), 98.
4
Aubrey de Selincourt, 84, Martin, 96.
30
gave vivid accounts of hand-to-hand combat. Men did not merely die in rhetorical battle
sequences, but had their skulls smashed and their entrails sliced out of their abdomens.5
In the Iliad, both Greeks and barbarian aristocrats performed glorious deeds and both
could serve as heroic examples for the archaic Greeks to emulate. The Trojan king Priam
represented the ideal leader, and he displayed the traits of a balanced warrior: he was brave,
yet humble.6 In the poems, where elite men battled for prestige and supremacy, a mans
lineage often indicated his virtue. Despite being foreigners, the Trojans were members of this
privileged hierarchy, and continually praised by Homer for their exemplary character and
good behavior. Indeed, the heroic qualities of ones enemies reflected on ones own nobility.
Homer illustrated this notion of the heroic barbarian with Achilles description of his
mortal enemy, the Trojan prince Hector. Achilles, who was about to die a cowards death
drowning in a river, lamented, Ah, why could Hector not have killed me? He is the finest
man they have bred in Troy, and the killer would have been as noble as the killed.7 In
Homer world there were no barbarians. According to Edith Hall, it was only in fifth-century
BCE Greek literature that Priam and Hector became typical barbarians: murderous,
untrustworthy, and vile.8
Homers heroes were not perfect, and like his Gods, they suffered from many human
frailties. Achilles represented this construction of the gallant, yet flawed hero. Homer
portrayed Achilles as the ultimate warrior-leader: beautiful, articulate, and nearly invincible.
5
Homer, The Iliad (trans. E. V. Rieu [London: Penguin Books, 1950] ) 16.804.
Homer, 26.473-543.
Homer, 21.292.
Hall suggests that the fifth-century BCE Greeks growing animosity towards foreigners was due both to
the Greeks conflict with Persian Empire and the consolidation of Athenian democracy and Athenian
hegemony in the Aegean. Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 54-5.
31
Yet, Achilles remained flawed because he took everything to the extreme: honor, friendship,
and revenge, and throughout the poem he displayed a distinct lack of humility and selfcontrol. Homer provided an example of ideal male behavior, and the importance of mens
bonds, when he showed how two of the heroes of the Iliad, the Trojan king Priam and the
Greek Achilles, dealt with the death of a cherished male companion. Achilles mourned his
dear friend Patroclus slain by the Trojan Hector. In turn, Priam needed to come to terms with
the death of his beloved son, Hector, at the revenge-seeking hands of Achilles. Brash and
irrational, Achilles immediately was overcome with rage, and launched a campaign of
retribution against the Trojans. Achilles achieved his greatest victory when he defeated the
gallant Hector in combat. This triumph, however, quickly became tarnished when Achilles
refused to give Hector an honorable burial. In order to exact further revenge against the killer
of his best friend, Achilles stole Hectors corpse.
Homer illustrated that true bravery and honor did not necessarily come from the
swing of a sword. Priams immediate reaction after the death of Hector was similar to that of
Achilles: he lashed out in anger against his remaining sons, whom he accused of being
heroes of the dance, who gained their acclaim on the dance floor when they were not
robbing their own people of their sheep and kids. Yet the mature Priam managed to regain
control of himself, and allowed himself to be humiliated by Achilles. In order to reclaim the
body of his son, he entered Achilles camp and appealed to the Greeks sense of pity by
exclaiming that, I am even more entitled to compassion, since I have brought myself to do a
thing that no one on earth has done I have raised to my lips the hand of the man who killed
my son.9 Priams nobility and humility touched Achilles, and the poem culminates with
Priam paying Achilles a ransom and returning home to Troy with his sons body. The story,
9
Homer, 24.251-321.
32
however, does not conclude happily, and the reader knows that both heroes will face further
suffering. In the Iliad, Homer revealed how significant relationships were between
aristocratic men in warrior cultures. Furthermore, while Homer acknowledged the
importance of military prowess, he warned Greek men not to lose their sense of honor and
thereby be transformed from noble warriors into mere butchers. This warrior code of mens
heroic conduct held enormous appeal for centuries, helping to explain the continued
popularity of Homers writings in the vastly different worlds of democratic fifth-century
BCE Athens and sixth-century CE Christian Constantinople.
Three centuries later, in The Peloponnesian War, the fifth-century BCE Greek
historian Thucydides described the struggle for dominance between the traditional Greeks,
who were the Spartans, and the new Greeks, who were the Athenians. Since the time of
Homer, the Greek cultural and political environment had changed significantly. According to
Thucydides, foremost of these changes was the Greeks abandonment of their barbarian
past and their attainment of a civilized state. The growth of seaside cities contributed to this
change, and Thucydides argued that the Athenians had been the first Greeks to give up the
habit of carrying weapons and to adopt a way of life that was more relaxed and more
luxurious. This emphasis on comfort led the Athenians to abandon the Greeks traditionally
moderate form of dress. Thucydides revealed that his contemporaries clad themselves in
linen undergarments, and fixed their hair in extravagant knots tied with golden
grasshoppers. This focus on outside appearance extended to the body itself, and Thucydides
lamented that the Athenians performed their gymnastics naked and slathered in oil. What
made Homers Greeks so impressive was that they maintained their modesty and military
33
prowess, and Thucydides suggested the manners of the ancient Hellenic world are very
similar to the manners of the foreigners today.10
Despite many Greeks adulation of civilized living, Thucydides indicated that
military valor remained an essential trait for heroic Greek men. In his description of the
origins of the Peloponnesian war, Thucydides revealed that, to protect their affluence,
Athenian men needed to juxtapose their love of civilization with a fighting spirit:
Wise men certainly choose a quiet life, so long as they are not being
attacked; but brave men, when an attack is made on them, will reject peace
and will go to war, though they will be perfectly ready to come to terms in
the course of the war. In fact, they will neither become over-confident
because of their successes in war, nor, because of the charms and blessings
of peace, will they put up with acts of aggression. He who thinks of his own
pleasures and shrinks from fighting is very likely, because of his
irresolution, to lose those delights, which caused his hesitation.11
Thucydides appreciated the role that refined living had played in the rise of Greek culture;
however, he also recognized that to survive the Greeks needed to embrace their militaristic
barbarian past.
The Greeks maintained a dominant position in the Mediterranean until the arrival of
the Romans. In the Histories, the Greek historian Polybius (c.200-c.118 BCE) described this
transition. Polybius asserted that his history would help explain both Greeces decline and
Romes rise, as well as serve as a handbook for political men, an exploration of good and
bad statecraft.12
10
Thucydides, 1.6.1-6.
11
Thucydides, 1.120.
12
Polybius, The Histories (trans. Mortimer Chambers [New York: Twayne, 1966]) 1.1; Arthur M.
Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995),16.
34
Within his larger account, Polybius idealized description of his student and friend,
Scipio, provides an illustration of righteous Roman behavior. Scipios primary ambition in
life was the pursuit of virtue. He attained this goal through a strict regime of self-discipline,
and his focus on self-perfection helped differentiate himself from his rivals. To Polybius,
greed and dishonesty had played an integral part in Greeces fall. He found that virtuous
Romans like Scipio looked out for the good of the state over their own prosperity; when
Scipio went on his military campaigns, he displayed remarkable integrity by turning over his
abundant booty to the Roman govermment.13 Polybius disclosed that Roman mens moral
excellence led to Romes supremacy over foreigners. He concluded that the Greeks soft
living had eroded their masculine natures and had made them easy prey for the more virtuous
Romans.
Polybius indicated that the discipline of civilized living created great men.
Therefore, despite being mighty warriors, barbarians could never be considered as heroes.
Polybius argued that the Gauls (a Celtic people) lacked the moral discipline and cultural
refinement necessary to become supreme men:
They lived in unwalled villages, in a condition of ignorance of the other arts
of civilization. Because they used to lie on litter and feed on meat, and also
never worked at anything besides war and farming, they kept their lives
simple, nor did they know any other kind of science or art at all.14
The Gauls' lack of self-control made them unreliable soldiers. Polybius partly blamed the
Carthaginians defeat in Spain on the Gauls drunken state during the battle of Metauras (207
BCE). At the crucial point of the encounter, the Romans entered the enemy camp and found
13
Polybius, 31.25.
14
Polybius, 2.17-20.
35
many of the Celts [Gauls] lying drunk and asleep on their litter beds. The Romans showed
the barbarians little mercy, and slaughtered them like so many sacrificial victims.15
The Gauls obsession with warfare severely challenged the Romans military
prowess. Eventually, however, the Romans used their superior discipline and fortitude to
conquer the dangerous barbarians. Polybius indicated that once they defeated the Gauls, the
Romans became the champions in the art of war and easily overwhelmed their other
enemies in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Polybius warned the Romans that universal dominion could be hazardous for Roman
masculine ideals built around battle and strict living. And just like the Greeks before them,
the Romans were in constant danger of succumbing to the temptation of the easy and
effeminate life. In contrast to the chaste Scipio, he exclaimed that many young Roman men
freed from the battlefield had abandoned themselves to affairs with boys and courtesans. In
addition to these relationships, the young men listened to immoral music and indulged in
extravagant bouts of drinking. Polybius argued that these disgraceful traits resulted from the
young mens contact with the moral laxity of Greek culture.16 By succumbing to the
temptations of civilization, Roman men threatened the survival of the state.
Polybius stressed that the ethical standards of a nations men were often what
separated the victor from the vanquished. This virtue, however, was tenuous and the Romans,
like the Greeks before them, needed to remain on constant guard unless they too wanted to
slip into the moral laxity that had destroyed the Greeks heroic spirit.
15
16
Polybius, 11.3.
Polybius, 31.25. Note that Polybius did not condemn the soldiers because they were having sex with
other men, only that they were breaking strict Roman protocols that regulated all sexual activities. In ancient
Mediterranean societies mens sexual relations were not distinguished by the sex of their partners and Greek
and Roman cultures permitted sexual relations between men. But like all sexual behavior, it was highly
regulated and each culture differentiated between active and passive partners. See Williams, 85.
36
In the era of the Early Roman Empire, the Classical Greek scholar Plutarch (c. 50-120
CE) composed numerous works of philosophy and biography. His work is of primary interest
for this study because of his focus on the moral character of the great men in Greek and
Roman history. In his Parallel Lives, Plutarch created a series of biographies that compared
the famous and infamous heroes of Greek and Roman culture.
Plutarchs writing revealed that some within the early Empire had become
uncomfortable with many aspects of Classical Greco-Roman society. In the lives of Sulla and
Pompey, Plutarch indicated that their sexual appetites reflected flaws within their characters
and contributed to their downfall. Both Classical Roman and Greek culture idealized male
and female youthful beauty.17 From his adolescence, the Roman dictator Sulla (138-78 BCE)
had enjoyed the company of attractive men and women. Sulla suffered the bad habit of
indulging in frivolous activities, such as spending his time with ballet dancers and comedians,
and engaging in sexual indulgence. While Plutarch did not approve of this behavior, he
forgave Sulla his youthful sexual escapades, and indicated that his improprieties had only
become a problem after Sulla gained control of the Roman government.17 This suggests that
Plutarch felt that political leaders needed to lead more virtuous lives than the average citizen
did, and immorality in ones personal life often led to trouble in ones public life.
Plutarch emphasized that ideal political leaders needed to prove their supremacy on
the battlefield. Plutarchs description of Caesars military campaigns in Gaul revealed that
war could make a weak man strong:
17
Williams, 77, Plutarch, Sulla (trans. Rex Warner, in Fall of the Roman Republic [London: Penguin
Books, 1957; reprint, 1976] ) 35-6.
18
Plutarch, Caesar (trans. Hugh Clough, in Plutarchs Lives, The Harvard Classics [New York: P. F.
Collier & Son, 1969] ) 34.
37
But his enduring so much hardship, which he did to all appearance beyond his
natural strength, very much astonished them [his soldiers]. For he was a spare
man, had a soft and white skin, was distempered in the head, a subject to
epilepsy. . . . But he did not make this the weakness of his constitution a
pretext for his ease, but rather used war as the best physic against his
indispositions; whilst by indefatigable journeys, coarse diet, frequent lodging
in the field, and continual laborious exercise, he struggled with diseases, and
fortified his body against all attacks.18
Plutarch also focused on the role of wealth, and the danger of avarice in the lives of
these eminent Romans. For Plutarch, the attainment of wealth was acceptable as long as it
served as a means to obtain political power. In order to reach an eminent position within
Roman society, Caesar used his wealth to hold lavish parties. When he became aedile
(Roman magistrate responsible for the Games and the maintenance of the temples), he
continued his reckless spending in order to reward his supporters. He held elaborate
gladiatorial games, with 320 pairs of fighters, and served enormous public banquets. Caesars
expenditures had the intended result, and according to Plutarch, the people were so
favorably disposed towards him that every man among them was trying to find new offices
and new honors to bestow on him in return for what he had done.20 Caesars acquisition of
riches was permissible because it served a political end. His very recklessness with his
wealth revealed that he had not been corrupted by greed. Crassus, Caesars political partner,
crossed the line, however, and Plutarch revealed, in the case of Crassus many virtues were
obscured by one vice, namely avarice.21 Crassus defeat and his death at the hands of the
Persians was attributed to this weakness, and Plutarch warned Roman men that glory and
1
20
Plutarch, Caesar (trans. Warner) 5.
2
21
Plutarch, Crassus (trans. Warner) 1-2.
38
victory were obtained by virtuous behavior and that even one moral fault could lead to defeat
and dishonor.
Plutarch demonstrated that Rome truly became the dominant civilization in the
Mediterranean when it began to produce scholars and oratory worthy of Classical Greece.
This development, however, alarmed many Romans, and they worried that this focus on
learning might take men away from the essential heroic task of training for war. Plutarch
revealed that many uncultured Romans called Cicero the Greek and the Scholar, terms
that brought to mind someone who was not a typical Roman warrior.22 It is with Plutarch that
one notices an Empire focusing increasingly on mens morality. It reveals that later Classical
constructions of mens heroic conduct often preceded subsequent Christian demands, and
that to be considered laudable, men needed to first attain a difficult moral perfection.
The Triumph of Christianity
Not all Christian writers rejected the pagan traditions of the Roman Empire. By the
beginning of the fifth century CE, with the supremacy of Christianity in the Empire
guaranteed, a number of ecclesiastical historians attempted to combine Classical GrecoRoman and Christian virtues. An example of this accommodation may be found in the
Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus, who in his Ecclesiastical History continued
Eusebius work. Socrates, however, did not merely mimic Eusebius. His work reflected the
changing nature of the Christian Church and the Roman Empire since Eusebius death.
Socrates opposed Eusebius Arianism and his complete rejection of paganism. Socrates
emphasized that for the Church to thrive the state needed to flourish. He suggested that the
Empires Classical heritage could be combined with Christian traditions, and argued that
22
Plutarch, Cicero (trans. Warner) 4.
39
many pagan scholars had come close to Gods truths. Furthermore, while recognizing his
debt to Eusebius, he criticized him for eulogizing Constantine in Life of Constantine and
ignoring factual evidence.29
Socrates indicated that many Romans felt uncomfortable that the protection of the
Empire depended on the whims of barbarians and the guidance of often incompetent
Roman leaders. In 378 CE, at the battle of Adrianople, a Gothic army destroyed a Roman
army and killed its leader, the Roman emperor Valens (364-378). Though born shortly after
this disastrous defeat, Socrates revealed that the Goths near capture of Constantinople made
many Romans rethink the foreigners prominent position within the armed forces. He
composed a vivid description of the Roman men attempting to reassert their warrior legacy:
The barbarians [Goths] again approached the very walls of Constantinople,
and laid waste to the suburbs on every side of it. The people, unable to
endure this distressing spectacle, armed themselves with whatever weapons
they could severally lay hands on, and sallied forth on their own accord
against the enemy. The empress Dominica caused the same pay to be
distributed out of the imperial treasury to such as volunteered to go out on
this service, as was usually allowed to soldiers. On this occasion, the
citizens were assisted by a few of the Saracen confederates . . . and by this
united resistance; they obliged the barbarians to retire to a greater distance
from the city (Socrates, HE 5.1).
This example, and much of Socrates work, shows that it is a mistake to see all Christians
as pacifists who had no concern for the Empires security. Socrates writing illustrates that
many Christians could be influenced by Roman heroic ideals. He seemed intrigued by the
concept of the citizen soldier willing to protect both the Church and the State.
By the beginning of the sixth century CE, the pagans within the Empire had lost their
intellectual battle with the Christians. Yet despite their declining influence, some pagans
230
Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (trans. anonymous [London, Hall, 1892] ) 5.1. For a
discussion of the Christian involvement in the Roman army, see John Helgeland et al, Christians and the
Military: The Early Experience, ed. Robert J. Daley (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 31-6.
40
continued to hold important political positions in the Eastern Roman government. One of
these pagan office holders was the Greek historian Zosimus. His history demonstrates that
some pagans were not happy with their increasingly negligible role in Constantinople. They
tended to blame their plight and the problems of the Empire on their Christian rivals.
Zosimus compared his work to that of Polybius; however, where Polybius studied Romes
rise, Zosimus attempted to understand its fall. Zosimus was not the first Greco-Roman writer
to assert that he lived in an era of decline. The Romans adulation of the past guaranteed that
contemporary achievements would often pale in comparison with the heroic deeds, of their
ancestors. In the fifth century, with the barbarian invasions and the loss of the Western
Provinces, the notion of an Empire in decline became a prominent theme in both pagan and
Christian histories. The fifth-century Christian writer Saint Augustine (354-430 CE)
composed his City of God chiefly as a rebuttal against pagan assertions that the
Christianization of the Empire had led to the barbarian invasions and the Goth Alarics sack
of Rome in 410 CE.31
Zosimus argued that the Empire had deteriorated because it had abandoned paganism
and allowed the barbarians to infiltrate its borders and take control of its armies. According to
Zosimus, these two developments created leaders and citizens who no longer could be
considered as true Romans.
The writers in this chapter covered over thirteen hundred years of history and
witnessed the rise and fall of the Greek and the Roman Empires. Yet all these histories share
some basic ideas about what makes a man heroic or flawed. One common theme is the idea
that being an ideal man was never an easy task and that a man must strive continually for
31
Maas, 48.
41
perfection. For Christians and pagans alike, a heroic man controlled all aspects of his life.
Internal and external desires remained dangerous for all men. This temptation might consist
of sexual activity, but was just as likely to concern the intake of food or the enjoyment of
power. Rome and Greece were founded as warrior-societies that rose to dominance through a
militaristic creed based on conquest and virtue. For each, the affluence that came with
Empire was perceived as the greatest threat to their political dominion.
The Christians continued many of these Classical concepts of heroism. Although
many Christians rejected violence, they managed to adopt the Greco-Roman warrior-male
tradition without fighting in secular wars. In fact, they claimed that they were even more
heroic and brave than the Roman legionnaires, because they were fighting a much more
difficult spiritual battle. Historians have perhaps overemphasized the struggle between
pagans and Christians within the Empire. Part of the reason that Christianity ultimately
triumphed over paganism resulted from the religions ability to adopt Classical Greco-Roman
notions of valor and adapt to contemporary political and social realities. By doing this,
Christians not only challenged Classical notions of heroic behavior, but also created heroes
that became the epitome of Roman courage.
What made the new Christian heroic ideal revolutionary was its abandonment of the
Classical Roman notion that an ideal man established his dominance through succeeding on
the battlefield and asserting his cultural supremacy over foreigners. Although the Roman
acceptance of Christianity did not immediately transform Roman attitudes towards
foreigners, gradually the Christian notion that mankind could be united through religion,
regardless of nationality, threatened the Romans sense of a shared identity based on their
uniquely Roman sense of heroism.
42
CHAPTER 3
BARBARIANS AND ROMANS
43
If you [Ostrogoths] change your course, God too will instantly change His favor and
become hostile to you. For it is not His wont to fight with a race of men or for a
particular nation, but with such as show the greater honor to justice. And for Him it is
no great labor to transfer His blessings from one people to another1
Procopius provided detailed descriptions about many of the foreign peoples who lived
both outside and within the Eastern Roman Empires borders. In a broad sense, he considered
all of these peoples as barbarians, and different from Roman citizens. This chapter
examines Procopius notion of foreigners and contrasts it with his construction of heroic
Byzantine men. It demonstrates that Procopius argued that there were different levels of
barbarism. Through their long association with Roman culture, Germanic peoples like the
Goths and Vandals had attained a semi-civilized state, and could provide Procopius with
examples of both valiant and despicable men. In contrast, Central Eurasian peoples like the
Huns and any foreigners who rejected Roman culture represented the ideal of the dangerous
other and such people provide Procopius with the opportunity to construct stereotypical
villains. Procopius vision of foreign peoples frequently represented a new Christian vision of
ethnicity. He no longer strictly defined people as Romans or barbarians, but increasingly,
Procopius designated them as Christians or pagans.
Barbarians
In order to understand Procopius notions about non-Roman peoples, one needs to
appreciate the Classical Greco-Roman concept of the barbarian. The fifth-century BCE
Greeks emphasized the importance of citizenship, and consequently they created a strong
sense of a shared Greek identity. In order to maintain this solidarity, the Greeks formed the
1
44
perception of the barbarian. In the Greek literary tradition, these barbarians could not speak
Greek and lacked the moral responsibility of Greek citizens. Without this accountability,
barbarian men did not need to control their urges and frequently showed insatiable appetites
for sex, food, and brutality. These foreigners also presented a challenge to the virtuous Greek
man by wearing effeminate clothing and enjoying emotional music. Lacking the Greeks
sense of political freedom, the barbarians tended to succumb to the tyrannical rule of evil
kings, or even worse, of women. This lack of morals also made them cowardly fighters:
instead of facing their adversaries in heroic man-to-man combat, they frequently relied on
craven weapons like poison and bows to dispatch their victims.2
Not all fifth-century BCE Greek writers portrayed barbarians in this negative way. In
particular, Herodotus presented a positive description of foreign peoples. Aubrey de
Selincourt claims: In all of his judgments Herodotus is singularly free from the Greek
national arrogance. . . . In spite of his partiality for Athens he is careful to give every other
state its due. However, Selincourt suggests that Herodotus views were not typical of Greek
literature: The Greeks in general were not very much interested in countries and
civilizations other than their own. They were aware that the world was full of men, but the
men were of two kinds only: Greeks and barbarian... Unlike the Romans, who spoke Greek
familiarly, the Greeks never seemed to have bothered to learn a foreign language. 3
In contrast to the Greeks, the Romans multiracial Empire and their tradition of
inclusion contributed to a somewhat more complicated notion of foreigners otherness.
From the era of the Republic, the growth of the Empire had depended upon its ability to
2
Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998), 111-3.
3
Aubrey de Selincourt, The World of Herodotus (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1982), 26-46. For a
selection of essays on Greek attitudes towards barbarians, from the Classical period to the Later Middle Ages,
Thomas Harrison, ed. Greeks and Barbarians (New York: Routledge, 2002.)
45
make Romans out of barbarians. By the fourth century CE, Frankish and Gothic generals
often led the Roman armies. This reality conflicted with the notion that Roman mens
superiority allowed them to defeat and rule over foreign peoples. Examples of this ambiguity
may be seen in the Imperial iconography; frequently it depicts Roman emperors, while
surrounded by their non-Roman soldiers, standing triumphant over groveling barbarians.3
Ironically, in the Classical Roman literary tradition it regularly became the Greeks who were
portrayed as the effeminate lovers of the soft life and perceived as a threat to Roman
virility.4
In Late Antiquity, as the military threat posed by foreign armies grew, the negative
stereotype of the wicked barbarian increased. The fourth-century CE historian Ammianus
Marcellinus distrusted all barbarians and attempted to reassure the Roman populace by
describing the barbarians as contemptible enemies. In particular, Ammianus suggested that
the Huns were the worst of all the foreign invaders to afflict the Empire. 5 He described the
Huns as ugly beasts and barely human. Their way of life also evoked his scorn, and he
condemned the Huns for their nomadic lifestyle and their lack of a king. He respected their
military prowess but suggested they fought like animals: When they join battle they advance
in packs inflicting a tremendous slaughter.6 The influence of these negative portraits of
barbarians, and in particular of the Huns, continued into Procopius era.
34
Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar, 334-5.Williams, 68.
45
J. Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture, ed. Max Knight
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 11. For a discussion of Ammianus attitude towards
barbarians, John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (London: Duckworth, 1989), 304-82.
56
Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire: A.D. 354-378 (trans. Walter Hamilton [London:
Penguin Books, 1986] ) 31.2.
67
Procopius, Wars 3.2.2-5. On the dangers and difficulties of using terms like peoples, tribes,
nations, or races, see Susan Reynolds, Our Forefathers? Tribes, Peoples, and Nations in the
Historiography of the Age of Migrations, in Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History: Essays
Presented to Walter Goffart, ed. Alexander Murray (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 17-22.
46
To grasp Procopius notion of the barbarian it is necessary to understand his concept
of ethnic identity. Procopius based ethnic identity on four basic criteria: religion, language,
physical appearance, and lifeway. This quotation reveals Procopius characterization of
cultural distinctiveness:
There were many Gothic peoples in earlier times, just as also at the
present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals,
Visigoths, and Gepaedes. All these, while they are distinguished from one
another by their names, do not differ in anything at all. For they all have
white bodies and fair hair and are tall and handsome to look upon, and
they use the same laws and practice a common religion. For they are all of
the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic; and, as it seems to
me, they originally came from one tribe and were distinguished later by
the names of those who led the group.7
Although this definition would not satisfy modern anthropologists, it shows that Procopius
looked past mere tribal names and attempted find links between similar cultures.
Additionally it demonstrates that, unlike Ammianus, Procopius suggested that the Germanic
peoples had redeeming qualities: he considered them physically attractive, and though
Arians, still fellow Christians. In contrast, Procopius description of the Huns mirrored
Ammianus negative image. Unlike the Gothic peoples, Procopius portrayed the Huns as
dark skinned and ugly. Since they were barely human, he did not find it necessary to mention
the Huns language or their religious practices.8 He also attacked the Huns for their nomadic
lifestyle and for their lack of a king or a lawful constitution.9 All of these cultural traits
made a political relationship between the Huns and the Eastern Romans difficult.
From the beginning of the Wars, Procopius repeatedly portrayed the Vandals and
Goths positively. In the first book of the Gothic War, when a fairly easy and quick
reconquest still seemed possible, Procopius hinted that maybe an all-out war with the
7
8
Procopius, Wars 1.3.3-6
47
Ostrogoths was unnecessary. In his description of Belisarius siege of Rome in 537/538 he
told a story of cooperation between Ostrogoths and Eastern Romans that reveals a startlingly
pacifist tone.10 Amidst the confusion of battle, a Byzantine soldier staggered blindly into a
deep hole. Surrounded by enemy soldiers, the Roman did not dare to cry out for help, and he
was unable to escape. The next day an Ostrogothic soldier fell into the pit. Instead of killing
one another, the change in environment allowed the two men to set aside their differences; in
order to escape they pledged to work together. A group of Ostrogothic men heard their cries
for help and offered to rescue the two men. The Ostrogothic soldier explained what had
happened to the other Ostrogothic men and asked them to lower a rope. Fearing for his new
friends safety, however, he purposefully did not mention the Roman soldiers presence. He
made the Roman go up the rope first, explaining, The Goths would never abandon their
comrade, but if they should learn that merely one of the enemy was there they would take no
account of him. The Ostrogoths at first were astonished at the sight of the Eastern Roman,
but, when told of the pledge, let him go back to his own side.11 This story allowed Procopius
to demonstrate that, if given the opportunity, the Ostrogoths could be trusted and perhaps
someday become true Romans.
Procopius indicated that both the Eastern Roman soldiers and the Ostrogothic enemy
could display courage and valor. In his description of the numerous battles, he made it a point
to describe valiant actions on both sides. An illustration of this shared bravery may be seen in
his summary of the primary heroes in the battle for Rome in 537 CE:
10
Amory, 243. Although there is no proof that the two historians ever met, the Gothic historian Jordanes,
writing in Constantinople in 551 CE, promotes a similar theme of cooperation between the Gothic peoples and
the Eastern Roman Empire in his history, see Jordanes, The Origins and Deeds of the Goths, trans. Charles C.
Mierow (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1908), 98-100. For a comparison of the similarities and
differences between the works of Procopius and Jordanes, see Goffart, 20-45.
11
48
And those who distinguished themselves in this battle were, among the
Romans Belisarius, and among the Goths, Visandus Vandalarius, who had
fallen upon Belisarius at the first when the battle took place about him, and
did not desist until he had received thirteen wounds on his body and fell.
Procopius continued by relating how Visandus, who had been left for dead upon the
battlefield, miraculously recovered. This deed won him great fame among the Ostrogoths,
and he went on to live a very long life enjoying the greatest renown.12
At the conclusion of Wars it was not the triumphant Byzantine commander Narses,
but the defeated Gothic leader Teas, who earned Procopius admiration as the ultimate
heroic man. In the final battle of the Italian wars, the Goths desperate situation led Teas
and the Goths to seek a noble death. Although he praised both sides behavior in the struggle,
Procopius exclaimed that Teas actions compared to those of heroes of legend. The Gothic
leader, easily recognized by all, stood with only a few followers at the head of the phalanx,
Teas slew so many Romans that he had to keep replacing his shields because they had been
filled with enemy spears. Finally, after fighting continuously for several hours, Teas was
slain as he attempted to exchange another shield with his bodyguard.13 Going back to the
works of Homer, the conduct and character of ones enemy often reflected on ones own
merit. Procopius took great pains to show the Ostrogoths in a positive way, suggesting that
God would intervene on their behalf if they acted courageously.
Procopius did not present all foreigners in the same flattering light as the Goths and
Vandals. Throughout Procopius account, the Huns are presented as the ultimate villains.
What separated the Huns from other barbarians was their refusal to accept Christianity or a
sedentary lifeway. Procopius argued that Justinians policy of paying for the Huns loyalty
12
13
49
and resettling them within the Empire set a dangerous precedent: Sending for the chieftain
of the Huns, though he had no reason at all, with senseless prodigality he flung vast sums
into their lap. Though prodigious fighters, the Huns made unreliable and dangerous allies.
Procopius claimed that just before the climactic battle with the Vandals, the Huns had
secretly negotiated with the Vandal leader Gaiseric to betray the Byzantines in the midst of
battle. Luckily for the Eastern Romans, Belisarius found out about this betrayal and
prevented the Huns treachery with gifts and banquets.13 Procopius disapproved of such
bribery, and preferred it when Belisarius used discipline to control the unruly Huns. An
instance of this savagery occurred when three drunken Huns killed one of their comrades.
The Hunnic leaders argued to Belisarius that the accused men were only following their own
customs and claimed that Roman law should not apply to them. Belisarius won Procopius
approval by refusing to be dissuaded and instead crucified the three men.14
In The Late Roman Army, Pat Southern and Karen Dixon suggest that The further
removed in physical appearance, language and culture a race is, the more they are
distrusted. They assert that Germanic peoples like the Goths and Vandals had an easier time
assimilating into Roman culture than the Asiatic Huns.15 Despite this claim, the idea that
racial similarity provided Procopius with bonds to Germanic peoples must not be taken too
far. First, the Roman Empire was multi-racial, and blonde, light skinned peoples from the
north would not necessarily have been perceived as more Roman than the Huns. Second,
Procopius could portray non-Romanized Germanic peoples like the Eruli as negatively as the
1
14
15
Procopius, Wars 4.1.9, 3.12.8-2.
Pat Southern and Karen Ramsey Dixon, The Late Roman Army (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1996), 88.
1
50
Huns. Procopius separated the Eruli from other civilized Germanic peoples like the Gepaedes
and the Lombards. He suggested that, they observed many customs which were not in
accord with those of other men. Like the Huns, the Eruli were led by the love of money
and a lawless spirit. Procopius scolded the emperor for ignoring the danger the Eruli
presented and granting them good lands and money to settle within the Empire. Procopius
scoffed at Justinians claim to have converted the Eruli to Christianity, and he asserted that
they continued to pillage the local population and remained pagans. Procopius suggested that
they mate in an unholy manner, especially men with asses, and they are the basest of all
men and utterly abandoned rascals.16 Once again the true barbarians revealed their
immoral animal nature. Political reasons must also be considered in Procopius distrust of the
Eruli. Eruli soldiers had refused to serve in Belisarius armies and instead had joined the
forces of the Belisarius rival, the Byzantine general Narses. Procopius would have seen this
as behavior typical of pagans, and thus of untrustworthy barbarians.
What made a barbarian people admirable was its adoption of Roman culture and
Christian values. Even wild barbarians from the East could be tamed by the influence of
Roman and Christian values. The Tzani, a pastoral people from the mountains near Armenia,
had harassed the Roman Empire with frequent raids, and therefore received regular tribute
from Justinian. Nonetheless, despite both the payoff and the Tzanis peaceful pledges, they
continued their raids on Roman and Armenian territory. Procopius argued that the Tzanis
ferocity and lawlessness had only been quelled when they faced the civilizing force of the
Roman military and Christianity:
16
Procopius, Wars 6.14.36. John of Ephesus provided a more positive description of the Erulis
conversion to Christianity, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, 49. For Justianians conversion of foreigners, see: I.
Engelhardt, Mission und Politik in Byzanz: ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse byzantinscher Mission zur Zeit
Justins und Justinians, Munich, 1974.
17
51
In this way Sittas [an Eastern Roman general] had defeated them in battle
before this war; and then by many manifestations of kindness in word and
in deed he had been able to win them over completely. For they changed
their manner of life to one of a more civilized sort [abandoning nomadism
for agrarian settlements], and enrolled themselves among the Roman
troops. . . . They also abandoned their own religion for a more righteous
faith, and all of them became Christians.17
These changes represented the transition from a malevolent to an admirable barbarian. First,
one must defeat the enemy on the field of battle. Once victory was achieved, however, the
conquered enemy must be shown mercy. When the barbarians joined the Roman forces they
should not be allowed to maintain either their pastoral lifeway or their pagan religion, but
should be forced to adapt themselves to Roman culture. For Procopius, these were the first
steps to becoming a semi-civilized barbarian and it is what separates the wild otherness of
the Huns from the primitive virtue of the Germanic peoples.
The Dangers of Civilization
While associating with Roman culture could uplift foreign peoples, civilized living
could also make them unmanly and cowardly. Procopius emphasized that the Eastern
Romans easy victory over the Vandals resulted from the North Africans abandonment of
the hard life of the barbarian for the soft life of Roman civilization:
For of all the nations which we know that of the Vandals is the most
luxurious, and that of the Moors the most hardy. For the Vandals, since the
time when they gained possession of Libya, used to indulge in baths, all of
them, every day, and enjoyed a table abounding in all things, the sweetest and
the best that the earth and sea produce. And they wore gold very generally,
and clothed themselves in Medic garments, which now they call seric [silk]
and passed their time, thus dressed, in theatres and hippodromes and in other
pleasurable pursuits, and above all else in hunting. And they had dancers and
mimes and all other things to hear or see which are of a musical nature or
otherwise merit attention among men. And most of them dwelt in parks,
1
52
which were well supplied with water and trees; and they had great number of
banquets, and all manner of sexual pleasures were in great vogue among
them.18
Procopius, who indicated that the Eastern Romans had begun the reconquest of North Africa
with a sense of trepidation, seemed surprised with the Vandals adoration of luxurious
living.19 One is reminded of the earlier Greek tradition that portrayed barbarians as
particularly vulnerable to civilizations temptations. Now, however, it was the lure of Roman
culture that threatened the valor of the Vandals. This description matches Procopius
condemnation, in the Secret History, of Constantinoples citizens growing moral depravity;
his account of the Vandals may have served as a warning to his readership that a lavish
lifestyle led to moral decay, and that only by following an ascetic lifestyle could men
preserve their physical and spiritual well-being.
The relationship between the Romans and barbarians was not merely a one-way exchange
between a superior Roman society and inferior foreign civilizations. Procopius pointed out that
barbarian cultures could influence Byzantine mens notion of perfect behavior. He sharply criticized
the men of Constantinople for their embarrassing attempts to emulate the Persians and the Huns:
To begin with, the partisans changed the style of their hair to quite novel fashion,
having it cut very differently from the other Romans. They did not touch
moustache or beard at all, but were always anxious to let them grow as long as
possible, like the Persians. But the hair on the front of the head they cut right back
to the temples, allowing the growth behind to hang down to its full length in a
disorderly mass, like the Massagetae. That is why they sometimes called this the
Hunnish style. Then as regards dress, they all thought it necessary to be
luxuriously turned out, donning attire too ostentatious for their particular station.
For they were in a position to obtain such garments at other peoples expense. The
part of the tunic covering their arms was drawn in very tight at the wrists, while
from there to the shoulders it spread out to an enormous width. Whenever they
waved their arms as they shouted in the theatre or the hippodrome and encouraged
their favorites in the usual way, up in the air went this part of their tunics, giving
18
19
53
silly people the notion that their bodies were so splendidly sturdy that they had to
be covered with garments of this kind: they did not realize that the transparency
and emptiness of their attire rather served up to show their miserable physique.
Their capes and breaches too, and in most cases their shoes, were classed as
Hunnish in name and fashion.20
Procopius claimed that these men had merely taken on the semblance of the Hunnic warrior
nature. While they frittered their time away attending races and terrorizing the local nobility
in the capital, on the battlefields of Italy the Empires real men were dying.
John Teall argues that, beginning in 540 CE, the Byzantine army had faced a growing
shortage of manpower. He contends that from 527-533 CE the Byzantine forces had been
made up predominantly of native Romans. The dual effect, however, of the devastating
plague in 542 CE and an overextension of its military capabilities had forced the Empire to
rely more on foreign recruits, and they became the dominant force in the Byzantine army. 21
Having witnessed the warfare in Italy and the mounting manpower crisis, Procopius may
have been particularly sensitive to this wasted source of potential warriors in Constantinople.
Procopius asserted that one of the most dangerous events in Justinians reign was the
breakdown of the Byzantine family. He claimed that roving bands of young men in
Constantinople had made its streets completely unsafe for law-abiding citizens. People were
at risk of being mugged, murdered or raped; sanctuary could not even be found in the citys
most revered churches and at public festivals. Men felt no compunction against killing
family members, and gangs of young men ravished many of Constantinoples happily
20
P rocopius, Secret History 7.8-10. For an analysis of the importance of hairstyles and clothing in
forming group identification, as well as a description of the political role of the demes in sixth-century
Constantinople, see Alan Cameron, Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976), 76-7. In contrast, Amory argues that by the sixth century CE it became impossible to
differentiate barbarians and Romans based on unique hairstyles and clothing. He claims: Classicising texts
continue to pretend that such once outlandish frontier ways were still barbarian, but pictures and demotic
pictures tell a different story. Cf. Amory, 338-47.
21
John Teall, Barbarians in Justinians Armies, Speculum 40 (1965), 297, 303-8.
54
married aristocratic women.22 Even worse, many unwilling boys were forced into immoral
relations with the partisans with the full knowledge of their fathers. Procopius did not
entirely blame the young men for their moral decay; instead, he focused on Justinians
negligence and the breakdown of Roman values during his reign. Procopius asserted that
when nothing is done to discourage wrongdoing there is no limit to its growth. He
concluded by professing that men were basically flawed, and that it was natural for most
people to turn easily to wrongdoing.23
Procopius demonstrated that in times of crisis the young men in the factions had the
potential to be turned into an effective fighting force. When Chosroes armies took Antioch
in 540 CE, the Byzantine army guarding the city retreated. Despite this betrayal, Antiochs
young faction members, who formerly had only been interested in fighting each other,
remained in the city and attempted to ward off the enemy. Although some of the young
men wore armor, the majority were unarmed and had only stones for weapons. Though
they fought valiantly, they finally succumbed; the Persians slaughtered them to a man.
Angered by the determined resistance of the civilians, the Persian troops went on to slay all
whom they met, old and young alike.24 One is able to feel Procopius disgust not only with
the Eastern Roman armys cowardice, but also with the lack of leadership that had allowed
these young men to go into battle without any guidance.
22
Roman law differentiated between married and non-married women. Consensual or non-consensual sex
with a married woman was a more serious offence than the same act with a widow, a virgin, or a boy. Adultery
could only be committed with a married woman. A secondary category, per vim stuprum applied to rape
against non-married women and boys and was considered a lesser crime: see Angeliki Laiou, Sex, Consent and
Coercion in Byzantium, in Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marriage in Ancient and Medieval Societies
(Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1993), 114-5.
23
Procopius, Secret History 7.20-37.
24
55
In the Wars there is a distinct sense that Procopius felt that the Byzantine soldiers had
become a bit soft. In many of the set-speeches given by the Ostrogothic leaders, they
condemned the Byzantine army for its soldiers effeminate Greek nature. A hint of
Procopius true feelings towards his native army may be found in the Ostrogothic warrior
Vacis harangue to the Italian Romans:
He [Vacis] began to reproach the Romans for their faithlessness to the Goths
and upbraided them for the treason which he said they had committed against
both their fatherland and themselves, for they had exchanged the power of the
Goths for Greeks who were not able to defend them, although they had never
before seen any men of the Greek race come to Italy except actors of tragedy
and mimes and thieving sailors.25
This example illustrates that one way that the Ostrogothic leaders attempted to gain the
Italian Romans support in their war against the Byzantine Empire was by severing the
Western and Eastern Romans sense of a shared identity and history. By calling the Eastern
Romans Greeks, Vacis not only split the two sides, but also played upon the traditional
Roman belief that Greek soldiers were soft, lazy, and reluctant to fight in a real mans war.
His suggestion that Greek culture produced only actors and mimes aroused another Roman
prejudice. For the Romans, the performing arts represented the dangers of civilized luxury.
Actors, singers, and dancers were considered particularly effeminate and representative of a
weak and unmanly culture.26 Ridiculing the Greeks for their propensity for piracy served as
another means of disparaging the Eastern Romans fortitude. In his description of a just war,
Cicero claimed that the only war that did not need to follow a code of conduct was one
25
Procopius, Wars 5.18.40-1. On this passage, and the pejorative use of the term Graikoi, Walter Kaegi,
Procopius the Military Historian, Byzantinische Forschungen 15 (1990), 79-81.
26
Williams, 135-9. Amory asserts that in the later part of the fifth-century CE Western Romans began
calling themselves Itali in order to distinguish themselves from the Eastern Romans. He suggests that this
development broke down some of the social barriers between the Western Romans and the Ostrogoths. Amory,
120.
56
waged against pirates, since they fought for no country but purely for self-aggrandizement.27
Additionally, Vacis speech indicates that it was natural for the Ostrogoths to presuppose that
they were not only more valorous than the Byzantine soldiers but, because of their warrior
traditions, more Roman.
The Ostrogoths adoption of many unmanly aspects of Roman civilization
challenged their sense of supreme manly virtue. Procopius writing provides a glimpse of
the struggle within Ostrogothic society between those who followed the Germanic warrior
ideal and those who imitated Roman culture. Although, as chapter one points out, Procopius
had political reasons for emphasizing the tension between the two factions, native sources
confirm his description of the dispute. From the fourth century CE, the Goths had maintained
that exposure to the easy living of the Romans would make them soft, and that periods of
extended peace would destroy their military prowess. The Ostrogoths heroic culture and
sense of ethnic identity was based on the warrior band. Therefore, the Romanization of
segments of the Ostrogothic nobility presented a direct threat to their rule and identity within
Italian society.28
While Theoderic maintained control, a rebellion by the conservative faction remained
impossible; however, after his death the nobles seized the opportunity to reclaim both the
throne and their time-honored sense of Gothic heroism. The struggle revolved around the
upbringing Theoderics grandson, Atalaric. Amalasuntha, who served as the boys guardian,
felt compelled to raise the young king as a Roman aristocrat, in accordance with her fathers
27
28
Helgeland, 3.
Liebeschuetz, 78. Peter Heather claims that Gothic group identity, although somewhat differently
constructed than modern identities, exercised a powerful hold on individuals. He adds that it was this fear of
losing their ethnic identity that contributed to their fierce resistance to the Eastern Roman conquest. Heather, 7,
299-304. For a contrary argument, Amory, 4-16.
57
adulation of the Roman ideal. Procopius illustrated how this decision created a backlash
among the Ostrogothic nobility:
All the notable men among them gathered together, and coming before
Amalasuntha made the charge that their king was not being educated correctly
from their point of view nor to his own advantage. For letters, they said, are
far removed from manliness, and the teaching of old men results in the most
part in a cowardly and submissive spirit. Therefore the man who is to show
daring in any work and be great in renown ought to be freed from the timidity
which teachers inspire and to take his training in arms.29
One cannot help but think that Procopius may have felt that a similar process had robbed the
Eastern Romans of their warrior spirit. Nonetheless, Procopius finished his tale by asserting
that falling back into barbarism also had disastrous consequences. He pointed out that
Atalaric, having abandoned Amalasuntha and a civilized way of life, became a victim of
the debauched Gothic lifestyle and died of a wasting disease brought on by the
overindulgence in wine and the relentless pursuit of women.30
The subject of men destroying their moral excellence by failing to balance study and
military training may be explored further in Procopius description of Atalarics successor,
the overeducated Ostrogothic king, Theodatus:
There was among the Goths one Theodatus by name, son of Amalafrida, the
sister of Theoderic, a man already mature in years, versed in Latin literature
and the teachings of Plato, but without any experience whatever in war and
taking no part in active life, and yet extraordinarily devoted to the pursuit of
money. This Theodatus had gained possession of most of the lands in
Tuscany, and he was eager by violent methods to wrest the remainder from
their owners.31
29
Procopius, Wars 5.2.6. For a description of Queen Amalasunthas adulation of Classical learning,
Cassiodorus, Variae 10.3. Additionally, although we know very little about what an Ostrogothic education
consisted of, we do know that officers children received substantial military training. Amory, 96.
30
Wolfram, 342.
31
58
Procopius did not necessarily criticize Theodatus for his love of learning, but predominantly
for his failure to complement it with a strict regime of physical training and an understanding
of Roman law. Procopius seemingly contradicted himself when he describes in the first
sentence Theodatus inexperience in war, only in the next passage to illustrate his aggressive
campaign of wresting control of his neighbors lands. But Procopius indicated that violence
alone did not make a man a warrior. It was only when a man was under the control of the
state and fought for a higher purpose that aggression was extolled. Procopius did not fault
Theodatus for his attempt to become a Romanized Goth. Quite the contrary; he condemned
the king for not being Roman enough. By subverting the laws of the Empire and engaging in
illegal warfare for personal profit he revealed that at heart Theodatus remained a barbarian.
Barbarian is a problematic term when one attempts to understand Procopius and
the sixth-century Eastern Romans notion of the other. Procopius indicated that there were
different levels of barbarism, and some cultures were far more alien than others. The
Germanic peoples like the Ostrogoths, Vandals, Lombards, and Gepaedes had managed to
gain the more advanced title of a semi-civilized people. Though Arians, they were fellow
Christians, and the cultural differences between them and the Romans had become blurred.
Hunnic peoples represented the dark and dangerous side of the barbarian. These peoples were
motivated purely by greed and mayhem. Of course the Germanic peoples had not yet
attained the status of a fully civilized people, but for Procopius this was not necessarily a bad
thing. In a way, their barbarous state was much closer to the heroic Greeks and Romans of
the past that Procopius and many Romans adulated. In contrast, the temptations of civilized
living could drive both the barbarians and the Eastern Romans to immoral living, and
ultimately lead to their destruction.
59
Procopius indicated that Christianity and Classical Roman customs were compatible.
Both traditions preached an ascetic lifestyle, which in turn led to virtuous citizens and a
strong Empire. For Romans and non-Romans, however, their belief in a virtuous way of life
needed to be whole and reinforced externally. While a man needed the ability to control his
own body, he also needed to be guided by a moral leader who could serve as an example.
Procopius disclosed that peoples like the Huns represented the dark and primeval side of
human nature. On the other side of the spectrum, the young dandies in Constantinople and
the Vandals frolicking in their palaces in North Africa typified the dangers of extravagant
living. Procopius suggested, however, that some of these men could still be saved. The
Eastern Romans just needed a leader strong and wise enough to make them see the errors of
their ways.
CHAPTER 4
60
EMPERORS AND GENERALS
In our age there has been born the Emperor Justinian, who, taking over the
State when it was harassed by disorder, has not only made it greater in extent,
but also much more illustrious, by expelling from it those barbarians who had
from of old pressed hard upon it. . . . And finding that the belief in God was,
before his time, straying into errors and being forced to go in many directions,
he completely destroyed all the paths leading to such errors, and brought it
about that it stood on the firm foundation of a single faith.1
The importance of strong leadership is a central theme in all of Procopius works.

According to him, great men made history, and a leaders heroic or shameful conduct often
became the determinant for the prosperity or poverty of the Eastern Roman Empire. This
chapter investigates Procopius description of four of the most influential men of his era: his
superior, the general Belisarius; the Ostrogothic king and military commander Totila; the
Persian emperor Chosroes; and the Byzantine emperor Justinian. It proposes that despite
Procopius attempts to create heroic secular men to compete with the ancient models found in
Homer, his sixth-century Christian notions of valor created visions of ideal and non-ideal
leaders that were often far removed from the examples of mens heroic actions found in the
Classical literary tradition.
Belisarius and Totila

Many of Procopius descriptions of Totilas and Belisarius positive and negative
characteristics seemed patterned on similar ideals found in the works of Homer. Like
Achilles and Priam, Totila and Belisarius, as portrayed by Procopius, were supreme warriors.
1 1
Procopius, Buildings 1.1.7-9. The fifth-century ecclesiastical historian Sozomen uses similar language
to praise Theodosius II for protecting Christianity from innovation and spurious dogmas. Sozomen,
Ecclesiastical History (trans. anonymous [London: H. G. Bell. 1855] ) 9.1.
61
In Procopius account of the Byzantine Empires battle against its foreign enemies, Belisarius
displayed traits typical of the famous Roman generals of the past. Like these great men,
Belisarius earned his troops respect on the battlefield by refusing to sit back in safety and
force his troops to fight a battle he would not face himself: Then Belisarius, though he was
safe before, would no longer keep the generals post, but began to fight in the front ranks like
a soldier. Like Achilles, Belisarius was the most important man in battle: They saw
Belisarius fighting in the front ranks, knowing well that, if he should fall, the cause of the
Romans would be ruined instantly. The enemy also recognized Belisarius worth, and
every man among them who laid any claim to honor attempted to kill the Byzantine
commander. Belisarius, however, showed astonishing fighting skills and killed every enemy
who encountered him. 2
Ideal military leaders never feared death. Indeed, for them even the possibility of
failure seemed impossible. Procopius depicted the Ostrogothic general Totila as a mythical
superhuman leader. Like any idol, Totilas superior valor and impressive fighting abilities set
him apart from the average man. As with the Eastern Roman emperors, Totila accentuated
his supremacy by wearing extravagant outfits: The armor in which he was clad was
abundantly plated with gold and ample adornments which hung from his cheek-plates as well
from his helmet and spear were not only of purple [the color of the Roman emperors] but in
other respects befitting a king, marvelous in their abundance. In between the two armies,
Totila performed a dance upon his horse and hurled his javelin into the air and caught it as
it quivered above him, then passed it rapidly from hand to hand, shifting it with consummate
skill.3 Totilas overwhelming confidence and presence helped reassure his nervous troops
2
3

62
and intimidate the Romans. Procopius respected Totila for his ability to fight and govern his
people. When he finally met his end at the hands of Byzantine army he went down like a
hero from the Iliad.
Although Procopius insisted that ideal leaders fight heroically, but he also expected
them to maintain command of their emotions. For generals, part of this self-restraint entailed
knowing when to avoid a defeat:
Belisarius purposefully refused to allow the army to make any longer march
because he did not wish to come to an engagement with the enemy. . . . And
because of this all secretly mocked him, both officers and soldiers, but not a
man reproached him to his face.4
Procopius made it clear that often there was a fine line between rationality and cowardice.
Indeed in Classical Greek may be used as both a positive or negative term. It describes either
courage or rashness. Procopius used it in both senses. He explained that the Byzantines
setbacks at the hands of the Persians had resulted, in part, from a lack of discipline and
presumption by Belisarius underlings. The soldiers and officers refused to heed Belisarius
advice and they insulted Belisarius to his face by accusing him of softness that had destroyed
their fighting zeal. Procopius argued that Belisarius mistakenly gave into their insults, and
against his better judgment reassured his troops, that now he was of good courage and
would go against the enemy with a better hope.5 The Eastern Roman army went on to suffer
a devastating defeat at the hands of the Persians. It is impossible to know whether Procopius
account is accurate. While its primary purpose seems to be an attempt to exonerate Belisarius
from blame in a terrible defeat, it also indicates that even at this early stage of his history,
4
Procopius, Wars 1.18.11-2. For further discussion of this incident, Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War,
198-200.
5
Procopius, Wars 1.18.19-26. Common tradition allowed Roman generals to accept and solicit advice
from their commanders. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 179-80, n. 30.
6
63
Procopius may have detected flaws in Belisarius ability to lead men. Throughout his works
Procopius insisted that a good general did not care what his men thought of him, but rather
based his decisions purely on what advantages could be gained for his forces and the
Byzantine Empire.
Internal bickering also undermined the Ostrogoths war effort. At the beginning of
Totilas reign, when he guided his armies to easy victories over the Eastern Romans, the
Ostrogoths praised him as an unvanquished and invincible leader. However, after he
suffered his first setbacks they quickly turned against him and inveighed against him,
unmindful of what they had recently said about him, and going contrary to these declarations
without the least hesitation. Procopius declared that this was a common trait for all people
and inevitable because of the faults of human nature.6 He implied that men were fickle and
earthly glory temporary.
An ideal general maintained strict control over his troops.7 Procopius stressed that
when the Byzantine forces moved through North Africa, Belisarius made it a point to restrain
his troops bloodlust. The poverty of the Roman soldiers made this an extremely difficult
task:
For the soldiers, being extremely poor men, upon becoming all of a sudden
masters of very great wealth and of women both young and extremely
comely, were no longer able to restrain their minds or to find any satiety in
the things they had, but were so intoxicated, drenched as they were by their
present good fortunes, that each one wished to take everything back with
them to Carthage. . . . For neither did fear of the enemy nor their respect for
Belisarius occur to them, nor indeed anything else at all except their desire
for spoils.8
67
7
8
64
To defeat the Vandals, Belisarius needed to assert his authority over these disruptive soldiers.
Attaining a victory on the battlefield served as only one way to conquer an enemy. Belisarius
explained to his soldiers that the Vandals had once been foreign invaders; therefore, if they
treated the local population well they might be able coax them over to the Byzantine side.
Under Belisarius strict discipline, the Byzantine troops refrained from harassing the North
Africans, and according to Procopius this restraint played a major role in the Empires
triumph.
In contrast, Procopius partially blamed Belisarius and the Eastern Roman armys
struggles in the latter stages of the Italian campaign on the generals abandonment of this
policy. Procopius explained that in Italy, Belisarius devoted himself heart and soul to the
pursuit of wealth. . . . In fact, he plundered indiscriminately nearly all the Italians who lived
at Ravenna or in Sicily and anyone else he could reach, pretending that he was making them
pay the penalty of their misdeeds. This course of action did not merely alienate the native
population, but it also caused the Byzantine commander Herodian to switch sides and join
Totilas forces.9
Unlike many Classical historians, Procopius insisted that a good general needed to
shield captured enemy soldiers from maltreatment. During the early stages of the Italian
campaign, Belisarius received Procopius praise for protecting his Ostrogothic captives from
acts of violence and holding them in no less honor than his own soldiers.10 Confidence and
command were essential traits for any great leader. And Procopius attributed part of the
Ostrogoths success over the Byzantine army to Totilas ability to maintain discipline over
9
10
Procopius, Wars 5.10.37. For a description of Classical Roman historians attitudes towards enemy
soldiers, Helgeland et al., 8-20.
11
65
his subordinates. Procopius applauded Totila for his efforts to treat his captives well and
indicated that by doing so he had won over many Byzantine soldiers to his cause.11
Guarding womens virtue served as another essential obligation for military
commanders, yet even for the best leaders this often proved difficult. In the Wars, Procopius
reported that Belisarius and Totila felt compelled to protect captive women from their
soldiers lust. As in any era, a sixth-century CE army often celebrated a victory by engaging
in an orgy of rape against the vanquished enemys women. Although Belisarius iron will
succeeded in keeping his soldiers from pillaging Italian farmers grain or picking ripe fruit
off their trees, he had a more difficult time controlling their lechery.12 As we saw in chapter
one, Procopius lauded Belisarius for his ability to remain faithful to his wife and refrain from
having sex with his female Gothic captives. Procopius need to draw attention to Belisarius
sexual restraint suggests, however, that most Byzantine soldiers followed no such moral
code. Procopius illustrated that many Eastern Roman soldiers had taken Vandalic women as
their wives during the North African campaign. Procopius indicated that these unions led to
mixed loyalties for the Byzantine soldiers. In an aside he illustrated this danger when he
described how the Vandalic wives had urged their Byzantine husbands to disobey Belisarius
direct orders and seize their own land in North Africa.13
The fearsome Totila had more success subduing his troops rampant sexual urges.
When the Ostrogothic army sacked Rome, Totila felt obligated to protect Romes aristocratic
women from sexual violence:
12
13
66
Now the Goths, on their part, were eager to put Rusticiana [wife of the famous
scholar Boethius] to death, bringing against her the charge that after bribing
the commanders of the Roman army, she had destroyed the statues of
Theoderic, her motive in doing so having been to avenge the murder not only
of her father Symmachus, but also of her husband Boethius. But Totila would
not permit her to suffer any harm, but he guarded both her and all the Roman
women from insult, although the Goths were extremely eager to have
intercourse with them. Consequently not one of them had the ill fortune to
suffer personal insult, whether married, unwed, or widow, and Totila won
great renown for moderation from this course.14
Although Totila had political motives for sparing these influential Roman women, Procopius
emphasized that his primary aim was to protect them from the Ostrogothic soldiers sexual
advances. When an Italian aristocrat accused one of Totilas bodyguards of violating his
virgin daughter, the Ostrogothic king imprisoned the soldier. The Ostrogothic nobility
became alarmed and requested that Totila release the soldier and dismiss the charges, since
the assailant was an active fellow and a good warrior. Totila, however, refused, declaring
that what they called kindness in reality was lawlessness: the act of committing a sin and
that of preventing the punishment of those who have committed sin, are in my judgment on
the same plane.15 This example illustrates the importance of Christian values to Procopius
construction of ideal leaders. While it had long been Roman generals duty to maintain
discipline over their soldiers, it is apparent in this story that by the sixth century CE, even a
barbarian commander needed to display moderation and regulate his troops moral conduct.
14
Procopius, Wars 7.20.28-31. This account may be compared with Polybius description of the Roman
armys custom of exterminating every form of life they encountered, (including animals) when it stormed a
city. Polybius, 10.15.
15
Procopius, Wars 7.8.18. This passage shows that Procopius had no qualms in presenting Totila as a man
willing to follow Roman law over his own personal concerns. This may be a veiled insult aimed at Belisarius
and/or Justinian, whom he often portrayed as acting for their own personal interests and not for the good of the
Byzantine Empire.
67
Procopius disclosed that God took an interest in mens actions in the world and often
chose a battles victor on the basis of which general or army had the superior moral
character. This code of conduct applied to both Eastern Romans and foreigners. In an aside,
Totila contemplated the nature of Gods role in worldly affairs. The king described how the
Ostrogoths had begun the war against the Byzantines with a host of two hundred thousand
most warlike soldiers, mightily armed and funded. Yet, five thousand Greeklings had
vanquished them. As a consequence of this defeat the Ostrogoths had lost their kingdom and
were seemingly defeated. Despite this setback, under Totilas moral guidance resurgence had
been achieved: Now it has been our fortune, though reduced to a small number, destitute of
arms and in a pitiable plight and without any experience at all, to gain mastery over an enemy
more than twenty thousand strong. Totila pondered how this had occurred. A lack of
courage was not to blame for their previous defeat. And the Byzantines seeming effeminacy
and the Ostrogoths combat skills played only a small role in determining the wars outcome.
Instead, Totila indicated that God had chosen the winners on the basis of combatants moral
fortitude: The Goths in earlier times paid less heed to justice than to any other thing, and
treated each other and their Roman subjects as well in an unholy manner; wherefore God was
moved to take the field against them on the side of their enemies. During the early stages of
the war, under Belisarius virtuous leadership, God acted in the Byzantines favor. Yet, as the
Byzantine generals succumbed to greed and bickering, and the Ostrogoths under Totilas
tutelage became more virtuous, God became hostile and switched sides. According to
Procopius, it did not matter that the Ostrogoths were Arians and barbarians, for as Totila
warned; God picked the winners purely on the basis of which side conducted themselves
more honorably.16
16
68
Procopius revealed that it wasnt rival generals or insubordinate troops that brought
about Belisarius downfall, but an even more formidable enemy: his wife. Procopius, who
praised Belisarius for his ability to govern even the most fearsome barbarians, condemned his
superior for becoming a slave to his own lust. Like any good warrior, Belisarius did not give
in without a fight and he waged a difficult campaign against her womanly wiles. Again and
again, he attempted to escape his wifes clutches and for brief moments he was able to
restore his honor by rejecting Antoninas tricks of magic, and thereby he became a good
man once more. Each time, however, the respite was fleeting, and Belisarius returned once
again to be Antoninas faithful slave not her husband.17
Procopius drew attention to how a real man handled disruptive women when he
presented the general Constantine berating Belisarius for ignoring Antonias suspected
adultery: If I had been in your shoes, I should have got rid of that woman instead of the
youngster [Theodosius, Antoninas lover]. It wasnt the man who was to blame for the affair
but the woman whom Belisarius needed to exile. Belisarius not only refused to heed
Constantines advice, but as Procopius related, a short time afterwards had the general
executed at Antoninas behest. These actions evoked the bitter hostility of the Emperor and
of the influential Romans one and all.18
Procopius emphasized that once a man became enslaved to a woman he could never
be a superior leader of men. Belisarius concern over his wifes depravity led him to sacrifice
the most vital interests of the state to his own domestic concerns. According to Procopius,
17
Procopius, Secret History 1.14., 4.30-1.
18
69
Belisarius obsession with Antonina led to the Byzantine setbacks in the war against the
Persians. Incapacitated by his wifes waywardness, Belisarius refused to travel far beyond
the boundaries of the Empire, and thus failed to take the initiative against the Persians. By
allowing Antonina to take on the dominant role in their marriage, Belisarius not only
sacrificed his manliness, but at that moment, the hand of God was unmistakably against
him.19
Like Belisarius, Totila appeared defective. Akin to Homers descriptions of Achilles
character flaws, Procopius considered Totilas fiery warrior-nature and short temper as the
main faults in his disposition. Totila was often enslaved by his violent temper. Although
Procopius provided many examples that illustrated Totilas respect for religious leaders and
the Christian populace, he indicated that Totila fought a difficult battle against his natural
propensity for violence. Procopius related that Totila had become so agitated with the bishop
Valentinus during an interrogation that he chopped off both of the bishops hands.20 In
another example of his natural rashness, Totila had wanted to raze Rome to the ground
when he was forced to abandon the city. Procopius alleged that Totila felt no compunction
against burning the finest and most noteworthy of the buildings and making Rome a sheeppasture.21 Only Belisarius heartfelt letter deterred Totila, by appealing to his vanity:
Belisarius suggested that burning Rome would earn Totila eternal contempt. Rome and
Totilas cause were saved. But in the end, like Achilles, Totila was doomed to die
prematurely in battle.
19
Procopius, Secret History 2.26, 5.1.
2
20
2
21
70
Ultimately, Totilas unbending belief in the Ostrogoths invincibility and his
contempt for the Eastern Romans military prowess led to his fall. Procopius related that the
general convinced of the superior fighting skills and the courage of his troops had armed his
troops inadequately. In contrast, the Eastern Romans made use of a variety of weapons and
were able to adapt to the shifting circumstances of combat. In the decisive battle the mistake
proved deadly. The Eastern Roman army overwhelmed the Ostrogothic forces, slaying the
king and most of his men.22
Justinian and Chosroes
The emperor Justinian held the most important and powerful position in the Eastern
Roman Empire. Nevertheless the Byzantine leader wasnt the only potent emperor of his era.
In the sixth century CE, the Byzantine Empire faced a formidable challenge from the Persian
Empire. As Procopius portrayed it, the Persian war was not only a struggle for supremacy
between two powerful Empires, but also a personal contest between two emperors, Justinian
and Chosroes, and two religions, Christianity and Zoroastrianism.
Chosroes provided Procopius with an ideal villain with which to describe all the
dangers of letting a depraved man run an Empire. Ironically, like many scoundrels, Chosroes
remains one of the most intriguing men in Procopius work. And despite Procopius attempts
to make Belisarius seem heroic during the Persian wars, frequently it is Chosroes who steals
the thunder.23 While Chosroes serves primarily as a foil to Justinian in Wars, Procopius
negative description of the Persian leader closely resembles his account of Justinians
depravity in the Secret History. These parallel accounts might be taken to suggest that
22
23
24

71
Procopius simplified history and failed to understand both emperors political motives and
mindset. To the contrary, it reveals that, for Procopius, what made a just emperor or an unjust
emperor was based on a universal code of morality.
According to Procopius, Justinian and Chosroes shared several traits that made them
evil emperors. Each leader loved innovation and disregarded the traditions of the Empire
he ruled. Early in his reign, Chosroes hunger for power and his determination to introduce
administrative reforms alarmed the Persian aristocracy:
Chosroes, the son of Cabades, was a man of an unruly turn of mind and
strangely fond of innovations. For this reason he himself was always full of
excitement and alarms, and he was an unfailing cause of similar feelings in all
others. All, therefore, who were men of action among the Persians, in vexation
at his administration, were proposing to establish over themselves another
king from the house of Cabades.24
Procopius remained vague about the details of Chosroes innovations. This suggests either
that he did not know the particulars of these changes or that he merely created the notion of
Chosroes as a revolutionary as a means to compare him with his true target: Justinian. Proof
of the latter theory may be seen in the similarity between this narrative and Procopius
description of the Nika revolt.25 The resemblance between the two accounts is striking. In
each case, the aristocracys unease with the reforms and megalomania of the emperor led to
an attempted overthrow. Ultimately, both insurrections failed. As a consequence of their
victories, the vengeful emperors lashed out against the nobles and consolidated their power.
With the upper classes in both Empires humbled, Justinian and Chosroes remained
unchallenged for many years. Procopius lamented that this omnipotence, in due course,
brought disaster to both Empires.
25
2
72
The adoration of power and money served as another appalling trait common to
Chosroes and Justinian. Procopius emphasized that Chosroes invasion of the Eastern
Provinces was motivated by avarice and jealousy. Vexed at the Byzantines success in North
Africa, Chosroes demanded his share of the spoils. When Justinian refused, Chosroes
accused the emperor of breaking the treaty between the two powers, and he invaded the
Eastern Provinces, where he proceeded to sack cities in order to extort money from the
Byzantine populace.26 Although Procopius condemned Chosroes for looting the Eastern
Provinces, at least the Persian emperor was attacking a foreign enemy. In contrast, Justinians
exploitation of the Byzantine population was a far more vile crime:
Now it was laid down by ancient law that whenever a senator of any of the
cities departed this life without male issue, one quarter of his estate should be
given to the local Senate, while the next of kin of the deceased enjoyed all the
remainder. Here too the Emperor showed his own character in its true colors.
He happened to have recently published a law which reversed everything.
From then on, whenever a senator died leaving no male issue, the next of kin
were to share the quarter of the estate while all the rest went to the treasury
and to the account of the local Senate. And yet never before in the history of
mankind had Treasury or Emperor been permitted to share the property of a
senator.27
As discussed in chapter two, Roman culture had a long tradition of seeing rapacity as a flaw
in men and leaders. Christian writers and thinkers had developed this theme. Indeed, in many
Christian histories from Late Antiquity, a kings or emperors desire for material goods
served as the root cause for a subsequent evil reign.28
26
27
Procopius, Secret History 29.25.
28
Martin Heinzelmann suggests that the sixth-century CE writer Gregory of Tours traced the evil of
Chilperics (Frankish King) back to the root of all evils, greed and the love of material goods. Martin
Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century, trans. Christopher Carroll
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 156.
73
Procopius expected ideal military leaders to grant unarmed civilians mercy. Unlike
Justinian, Chosroes personally led the Persian army into battle.29 Despite Procopius
admiration for leaders who willingly faced the dangers and challenges of battle, he
condemned Chosroes for his vicious military campaign in the Eastern Provinces:
He saw, while the city was being captured, a comely woman and one not of
lowly station being dragged by her left hand with great violence by one of the
barbarians; and the child, which she had only lately weaned, she was
unwilling to let go, but was dragging it with her other hand, fallen, as it was,
to the ground since it was not able to keep pace with that violent running. And
they say that he uttered a pretended groan . . . though he knew well that he
himself was most responsible for everything.30
Although Justinian never personally led his armies, Procopius still blamed him for the
dire consequences of his military campaigns. The historian suggested that, like Chosroes, the
Byzantine emperor had also launched his reconquest in order to plunder other peoples
property. Procopius maintained that Justinian had insisted on making himself master of
Libya and Italy for the sole purpose of destroying their inhabitants along with those already
subject to him.31
For Procopius, a weakness of spirit was often matched by an infirmity of the body.
And he described both emperors as sickly men. Chosroes frail nature forced him to surround
himself with physicians.32 Similarly, Justinian nearly succumbed to the plague and he was
only saved by divine intervention. Procopius hinted that the plague served as Gods warning
29
Like earlier Roman emperors, the success of the Sassanid dynasty depended upon the ability of the king
to lead his armies to victory. Zeev Rubin, The Sassanid Monarchy, in The Cambridge Ancient History
Volume 14 Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors A. D. 425-600, ed. Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins,
and Michael Whitby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 659-60.
30
31
60.
32
33
J.A.S. Evans, The Empress Theodora: Partner of Justinian (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002),
74
that he was dissatisfied with the Eastern Romans and their Emperor. He also suggested that,
like all men, the emperor was mortal, and that his temporary power paled in comparisons to
Gods eternal authority.33
Procopius argued that while Chosroes established his superiority by leading his
armies on campaigns, Justinian maintained his dominance by remaining in the capital and
manipulating things behind the scenes. Justinian ruled as a secular and a religious leader. In
both realms, however, Justinian faced several challenges to his ascendancy. The emperor
took several steps to deal with these threats in order to guarantee that he remained the
preeminent man in the Byzantine Empire. While the early Byzantine successes in the North
African and Italian campaigns enhanced Justinians vision of a new Roman Empire, they
also created heroes who could potentially serve as competitors to the emperor. From the era
of the Roman Republic, a triumphant generals popularity amongst his soldiers and the
populace presented the greatest threat to the authority of the Roman government.34 Procopius
showed that Justinian felt threatened by Belisarius military victories and his subsequent
fame. His fears were not completely unjustified. After Belisarius defeat of Vitigis, the
Gothic nobility had offered to declare Belisarius Emperor of the West.35 This threat to
Justinians authority must have made him very suspicious of Belisarius motives. Even
before this proposal occurred, Justinian had taken steps to check Belisarius growing
influence. Following the Eastern Romans relatively easy victory over the Vandals,
Belisarius had returned to Constantinople basking in glory. Rumors, though, had already
3
34
35
Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar, 316.
75
reached the emperor that Belisarius sought to set up a kingdom himself.36 Justinian handled
the situation carefully. He realized that he had to reward his victorious general, but he also
recognized the need to preserve his own prestige. In an effort to suggest the former glory of
the Roman Empire, Justinian allowed Belisarius a triumph.
While Belisarius celebration evoked memories of former processions, officially it
only served to commemorate Belisarius inauguration as a consul. (During the era of the
Republic two men had held this office similar to that of a Prime Minister; by the sixth
century, though still prestigious, the position had become symbolic and was abolished by
Justinian in 541.)37 Like every Roman emperor since Augustus, however, Justinian made sure
that the triumph was granted in his own name. Justinian emphasized that Belisarius had
achieved his victory through his, and therefore Gods good graces. Justinian allowed
Belisarius to march the defeated Vandals and their magnificent treasures through the streets
of Constantinople. However, fully aware of the importance of visual symbolism, the emperor
set himself upon his throne high above the other important men of the Empire, and when
Belisarius came before Justinian; the general fell prone to the ground and paid the emperor
homage.38
While Justinian succeeded in overcoming his rivals in the secular world, he had a
more difficult time asserting his ascendancy in the religious domain. This was particularly
true in the Empires provincial cities, where bishops had accumulated ever increasing
authority and prestige. Part of the bishops increased authority came through their roles as the
providers of charity for the poor within the Empire. In Late Antiquity it became the duty of
all Christian men to provide both financial and moral support to the poor. The Christian
36
37
Procopius, Secret History, 170, n. 1.
38
Procopius, Wars 4.8.2-10
76
notion of charity differed from Classical forms of social welfare in that it obligated members
of the clergy and aristocratic Christians to provide assistance to all people in need. In
contrast, the Classical form of charity had involved political relationships and its recipients
were . . . as a whole voters, clients and other individuals who could be expected to do a favor
in return.39
Procopius indicated that Imperial charity was the mark of a great emperor. Following
other Christian emperors, Justinian felt compelled to support charitable institutions
throughout the Empire. While Procopius frequently condemned the emperor for frittering
away the Empires treasury, he praised him for the building of philanthropic institutions. 40
Procopius considered Christian charity as one of the Byzantine emperors most important
duties. When the bubonic plague devastated the Empire in 542 CE, Procopius showed how
Justinian played a leading role in easing the Byzantine citizens suffering:
It fell to the lot of the emperor, as was natural, to make provision for the
trouble. He therefore detailed soldiers from the palace and distributed money,
commanding Theodorus to take charge of this work. . . . Theodorus, by giving
out the emperors money and by making expenditures from his own purse,
kept burying the bodies, which were not cared for.41
Justinian felt compelled to protect the poor. By providing this service he competed with the
Christian hierarchy who had gained increasing power through their role of providing the poor
with financial and social assistance.
Justinian took great pains to stress his special role as an intermediary between his
people and God. In Buildings, Procopius revealed how past Roman emperors had emphasized
their special relationship with the Christian Church: the Emperor Constantius had built this
39
Liebeschuetz, 187-9.
40
41
77
church in honor of the Apostles and in their name, decreeing that tombs for himself and for
all future Emperors should be placed there. Procopius made it clear that this relationship
was more than just a symbolic one:
When the Emperor Justinian was rebuilding this shrine, the workman dug up
the whole soil so that nothing unseemly should be left there; and they saw
three wooden coffins lying there neglected, which revealed by inscriptions
upon them that they contained the bodies of the Apostles Andrew, Luke, and
Timothy.42
Because the emperors and the Apostles had a special relationship, it was natural that they
would be buried in the same ground. Further, building religious shrines served as a means for
an emperor to accentuate his special relationship with the spiritual realm. Procopius
emphasized that Justinian gave thanks to the Apostles by continuing his church building with
an increased passion. Dedicating churches throughout the Empire and the newly conquered
territories also served a political purpose. It not only cemented the emperors religious role in
the minds of the Byzantine populace, but also helped established Justinians preeminence for
his new subjects as well.
Procopius blamed many of Justinians faults, as was the case with Belisarius, on his
marriage to an immoral woman. Instead of portraying Justinian as an evil genius,
Procopius maintained that the emperor was a simple man: with no more sense than a
donkey, ready to follow anyone who pulls his reins. According to Procopius, Justinian
married Theodora because he was overcome by an overwhelming passion for her Justinian
used the union as an example to show how far Justinian had strayed from Roman
traditions.43 Even Justinians aunt, the empress Euphemia, whom Procopius perceived as
completely without culture, and of barbarian origin, refused to accept the marriage while
42
Procopius, Buildings 1.4.20-2.
43
78
she lived.44 For Procopius, the fact that a non-Roman would have more respect for Roman
traditions than its emperor showed just how far Justinians lust for Theodora had kept him
from looking out for the needs of the Empire.
Procopius indicated that powerful couples could be a force for good) or evil in the
world. Procopius fear of Theodoras influence suggests that women could play powerful
roles in sixth-century Byzantium. Nevertheless, in his invective against the imperial couple,
Procopius also concluded that the most powerful players in the Byzantine Empire dwelled in
the spiritual realm. While Procopius described both Justinians and Theodoras flawed
natures as resulting from their sordid characters and humble backgrounds, he had a difficult
time attributing all of their evil triumphs to their own actions. Procopius indicated that
there had to be some higher power guiding the emperor and the empress. For a religious man
like Procopius, it was logical to assume that if a just emperor relied on Gods and the saints
supernatural assistance to promote his reign, then an unjust emperor must have another
mystical form of support: demons. Procopius stressed that those who thought that Justinian
and Theodora had succeeded in bringing ruin to the Eastern Roman Empire by chance were
mistaken, for it was not by human but by some very different power that they wrought so
much havoc. For in fact, a pair of blood-thirsty demons had possessed Justinian and
Theodora. This assessment made perfect theological sense to Procopius, suggesting the
extent of his Christian belief. A mere mortal man and woman could never have stood up to
God or the Apostles; therefore, for Procopius, the only logical explanation for their success
was that the two had become man-demons who had thwarted God and led the Eastern
Roman Empire and the whole world to ruin.45
44
45
79
Further evidence of Procopius Christian beliefs and the powerful influence of
women over powerful men may be found in his description of Chosroes marriage to a
Christian woman, Euphemia. Procopius indicated that the Persian emperor felt both intrigued
and repelled by Christianity. Procopius argued that Chosroes had captured Edessa in order to
refute the Christians claims that city couldnt be taken because it had divine protection.46
Despite Chosroes belief in the superiority of Zoroastrianism over Christianity, Procopius
revealed that the Persian emperors fondness for his Christian wife played a role in his
displaying restraint and kindness to the inhabitants of Sura.47 Although political necessity
forced Procopius to portray Chosroes as a typical villain, Procopius hints that the power of
Christianity could influence even the most powerful and corrupt men.
Procopius description of admirable and villainous leaders presents a complex
amalgamation of Christian and Classical ideals. As noted in the introduction, one of
Procopius primary aims in composing the Wars was to show how the men of his own age
acted as heroically as any hero from the works of Homer. Despite this attempt, however,
Procopius failed to find a perfect heroic leader in his account. Totila and Belisarius served
as two idealized, yet ultimately flawed men. Procopius indicated that leadership and mens
heroic conduct, revolved around internal and external control. Those individuals who could
overcome men's natural weakness and control their urges became heroes. For Procopius,
Belisarius seemed to be like a Roman hero from the past; yet his inability to take on the
dominant role in his own marital relationship doomed him to failure as a leader of men. In
many ways, Totila appeared to be a better version of Belisarius. As a barbarian untouched by
46
47
80
the corruption of civilization, Totila practiced a code of conduct very similar to the Roman
and Greek heroes of the past. Moreover, unlike Justinian or Belisarius, Totila served as his
peoples political and military leader. But, in the end Totilas pride led to his death.
Procopius also presented Justinian and Chosroes as two mighty yet defective leaders.
Each was convinced of his own omnipotence and natural right to dominate others. Procopius
maintained, however, that despite both emperors seeming supremacy, when compared to the
power and magnificence of God, their authority was fairly limited. Their power was
temporary, while Gods authority was eternal.
Whereas the great Greek and Roman men of the past had gained their victories and
built their heroic characters by their own actions and moral perfection, for Procopius the key
determinant on a battlefield was Gods judgment, and God seemed to care little about either
sides bravery or skill in battle. The reality that the two men he looked up to the most,
Belisarius and Totila, had serious character defects, while the two most powerful emperors
were diabolical men, suggests that for Procopius, finding a perfect hero in the sixth-century
secular Byzantine world was a difficult task indeed.
81
CHAPTER 5
EVES, MARYS, AND COURAGEOUS WOMEN
Antonina stayed behind, a thing she had never done before: to prevent her
husband from being alone and coming to his senses, and from treating her
magic with contempt and seeing her for what she was, it was her invariable
custom to accompany him to all parts of the world.1
The previous chapters have focused on men. This chapter switches the attention to
women, and suggests that to better understand Procopius notions of mens valor it is
essential to examine the possibility of womens heroism. It examines Procopius concept of
exemplary and defective women and contrasts it with his notions of ideal and non-ideal
men. While it analyzes Procopius descriptions of a wide range of women, it focuses on three
of the most influential aristocratic women of his age: Justinians wife, the empress Theodora;
Belisarius wife, Antonina; and the Ostrogothic queen, Amalasuntha. It argues that, despite
Procopius distrust of women who acted outside what he considered the normal realm of
82
female behavior, he revealed that women, at times, could abandon what he held to be their
naturally subservient role and become heroes.
Roman Women
To comprehend Procopius philosophy about women it is first necessary to return to
an earlier era. Roman women had long held a paradoxical position in Roman society.
In Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family, Judith P. Hallett
describes Roman womens role during the era of the Republic. These portrayals are valuable
despite the distance in time because they are strikingly similar to Procopius traditional
concepts of ideal Roman women. Rome was a patriarchal society dominated by men, yet
through longstanding tradition, women from upper-class families could be held in high
esteem and exercise considerable political power. Although aristocratic Roman women could
influence their husbands and fathers as wives and daughters, it was in their role as mothers
and sisters that they asserted the most civic clout. Nonetheless, this political function was
highly regulated and mostly limited to maternal or sisterly roles as the protectors and the
teachers of male family members. Ideal mothers often served as guides seeking to protect and
further the ambitions of their male relatives, and this influence continued even when the boys
reached maturity.2 In contrast to fathers or other male relatives who could become potential
political rivals, mothers and sisters could be depended on to support their sons or brothers
political goals. A womans authority, however, was limited, and if she spoke out on her own
behalf she risked being condemned as egotistical, licentious, and greedy. Womens
peripheral position in Roman society allowed them to serve as mediators for male members
of their family in a very turbulent and competitive culture. This system permitted women to
2
Judith Hallett, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1984), 49-52, 232.
83
hold significant power, but it excluded them from overtly participating in society to promote
their personal aspirations. Any woman who took on too dominant a role risked being labeled
as non-womanly and non-Roman.3
In sixth-century Byzantium, the construction of the ideal woman continued to reflect

this ambiguity. Furthermore, with the growth of Christianity two additional stereotypical
images of women emerged: the first was that of the Virgin Mary, who combined virginity
with motherhood, and could be sought out for motherly protection and mercy; and the second
was that of Eve, who represented the sexual side of women. For many Christians, Eve was a
natural temptress like all women, responsible for original sin and mankinds subsequent fall
from grace.4
The Church had long struggled with the question of whether ideal Christians could be
married. As chastity came to be seen as the supreme act of the Christian hero, even married
Christians accepted that they were inferior to their brothers and sisters who vowed
themselves to celibacy.5 Some members of the Church did attempt to promote the family and
marriage as a basic unit of society, and the idea of the Virgin Mary as the ultimate mother
3
3
Mary R. Lefkowitz, Influential Women, in Images of Women in Late Antiquity, eds. Averil
Cameron and Amelie Kuhrt (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983), 59. Kate Cooper suggests that the
influence of the enlightenment and the modern conception of individual autonomy has hindered scholars
attempts to comprehend the experience of Roman men and women. She stresses that the notion of a private
sphere divested of public significance would have seemed impossible (and undesirable) to the ancient mind.
The domus [household], along with its aspect of family and dynasty, was the primary unit of cultural identity,
political significance, and economic production. Kate Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized
Womanhood in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996.), 14.
4
Judith Herrin, In Search of Byzantine Women: Three Avenues of Approach in Images of Women in
Antiquity, ed. Averi1 Cameron, and Amelie Kuhrt (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983), 167.
45
Brown, Body and Society, 148, 299.
56
Herrin, 168.
84
figure. But by the sixth century the Christian ideal of celibacy increasingly clashed with the
promotion of marriage and its legitimization of sexual relations in marriage as an
indispensable means of creating more Roman citizens.6
More and more, Christian constructions of ideal women revealed that, to be
considered heroic, women needed to sever their traditional ties of loyalty to their families. An
example of this transformation may be seen in the late fifth-century CE work of Victor of
Vita. In his History of the Vandal Persecution, Victor suggested that the ideal women
married Christ, and not mortal men. He described a young woman, Maxima, attempting to
explain to her suitor, Martinianus, why she had rejected his marriage proposal: O brother
Martinianus, I have dedicated the limbs of my body to Christ and as there is a heavenly and
true being to whom I am already betrothed, I cannot enter a human marriage.7 Victor argued
that ideal women maintain loyalty, not to their families, but to their faith:
There was a married woman, Victoria, who conformed to her name. While she
was being tortured by being left hanging for a good while in the sight of the
common people, she was addressed in the following terms by her husband,
already a lost man, in the presence of their children: Why are you suffering,
wife? If you hold me in disdain, at least have mercy on the little ones to whom
you gave birth. . . . Where are the covenants of married love? Where are the
bonds of that relationship which written documents once brought about
between us, in accordance with the law which pertains to respectable folk?
Victor seemed satisfied that Victoria ignored both her husbands pleas and the wailing of
her children, and willingly deserted her family in order to die for her faith.8 Although Victor
6
7
Victor of Vita, History of the Vandal Persecution, (trans. John Moorhead [Liverpool, Liverpool
University Press, 1992] ), 1.31. Kate Cooper argues that Roman literary descriptions of women were often used
as a means to describe mens character. She suggests that in Plutarchs writing it is mens inability to control
their passion for women that threatens social stability. The conflict between the public man and his rival for
power, the legitimate wife and the adulterous temptress was a common theme in Roman literature. I would
suggest that this conflict also is a major theme in Procopius writings, particularly Secret History. Cooper
claims, however, an understanding of these rhetorical constructions helps provide a more detailed picture of
how ancient woman understood themselves. Cooper, 11-13.
8
8
Victor of Vita, 3.26.
85
had political reasons for emphasizing the importance of religious loyalty over family ties, his
account accurately reflects the Churchs attempts to break the strong ties of Roman kinship.
Despite the increasing suspicion of womens sexuality and their traditional family
roles, women played a significant role in the sixth-century Eastern Roman Empire. In
Constantinople, they attended races at the Hippodrome, witnessed public executions, and
took part in court and church ceremonies. Despite this relative freedom, however, most
womens lives remained highly restricted. Following Roman custom, upper-class women
tended to be segregated from all men other than immediate members of their family.
Ironically, this separation created opportunities. Women were required to perform jobs
usually reserved for men: serving as attendants in public baths for women and as medical
practitioners who would not be sullied by interacting with womens bodily functions.
Additionally, women from the lower classes could earn a living and a certain amount of
independence by performing as actresses, mimes, and dancers. The Church, however, looked
upon these activities with suspicion and frequently condemned these women as little better
than prostitutes. According to Judith Herrin, medical practitioners often lacked medical
expertise, and relied on superstitious practices such as the wearing of amulets or incantation
of magic spells in order to obtain supernatural assistance. This dependence on magic
made these women particularly susceptible to accusations of anti-Christian beliefs and
heretical ritual. 9 The use of magic must have appealed to Roman women, who typically
were expected to play a subservient role in Roman society. The use of spells and magic
allowed them to compel others to comply with their wishes, and increasingly their sexuality
Herrin, 170-2.
86
could also be used as a type of magic to achieve similar goals. Nevertheless, women who
used magic or their sexual charms risked being looked upon with suspicion.10
Late Antiquity also witnessed an increase in the empresses political authority. At the
beginning of each emperors reign, elaborate court rituals were performed that emphasized
the link between the dual power of the imperial couple.11 Since these ceremonies portrayed
the emperor as Gods representative on earth, it was natural for his partner to also attain an
aura of authority. The more powerful the emperor, the more powerful the empress, indeed in
Justinians reign, the emperors dominant position was matched only by the Empress
Theodoras influence. While Justinian served as a mediator between the spiritual and secular
realm, his wife acted as the intermediary between the public world of men and the private
world of women. In Justinians world, all the different members of Byzantine society,
officials, soldiers, priests, and women had a place in the earthly and divine hierarchy.12
Despite the limitations imposed on women in the sixth-century Eastern Roman Empire, they
had a more prominent position than in Western Europe at the same time. In Justinian and
Theodora, Robert Browning suggests, if a civilization can be judged by the way it treated
women . . . the age of Justinian and Theodora deserves to be rated high.13
Procopius Vision of Women
10
Alice-Mary Talbot, Women, in The Byzantines, ed. Guglielmo Cavallo, trans. Thomas Dunlap, Teresa
Lavander Fagan, and Charles Lambert (Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 1997), 177-8. Fritz Graf
argues: Women, marginalized and excluded from the society of men, were considered dangerous. They were
often accused of practicing veneficiis et cantionibus (sorcery and incantation). The accusation of magic served
two purposes: first, it revealed the danger that womens love constitutes for the autonomy of the men, and
finally it provided a means to excuse social faults, such as mad love felt by men. Graf, 189-90.
11
Liz James, Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium (London: Leicester University Press, 2001), 164.
12
Elsner, 180-2.
13
Browning, 257.
87
Many sixth-century Eastern Romans, however, were uncomfortable with womens
usurpation of traditional masculine roles. Procopius writing reflects this reality.
Throughout his work, and particularly in the Secret History, Procopius is clearly
uncomfortable with the power wielded by women in the sixth-century Eastern Roman
Empire. For traditional Eastern Roman men like Procopius, Byzantine women may have
represented the idea of the dangerous other, even more vividly than foreigners. In the
Secret History, Procopius scathingly attacked the two leading women of his day: Antonina
and Theodora. Procopius portrayed Antonina and Theodora as unwomanly. 14 In contrast to
ideal Roman women, who were subservient, pious, merciful, and chaste, Theodora and
Antonina were, in Procopius view, immoral prostitutes eager to take on unnatural masculine
roles.
According to both traditional Roman and Christian standards, if the Virgin Mary was
the paradigm of the ultimate woman, non-virginal women were vulnerable to attacks on their
sexual morality. Procopius illustrated the importance of a brides virginity: When
Saturninus had slept with his new bride and found out that she had been deflowered, he
informed one of his friends that the girl he had married was nothing but damaged goods.15
Procopius used Theodora and Antoninas supposed immorality as a means to discredit their
involvement in the political realm. He emphasized their disreputable origins and immoral
early years as a means to cast suspicion upon them. Procopius, unable to find any instances
of infidelity during Theodoras marriage to Justinian, focused instead on her reputed sordid
past:
14
James, 16-7.
15
88
One night she went to the house of a distinguished citizen during the drinking,
and, it is said, before the eyes of all the guests she stood up on the end of the
couch near their feet, pulled up her dress in a most disgusting manner as she
stood there and brazenly displayed her lasciviousness. And though she
brought three openings into service, she often found fault with Nature,
grumbling because Nature had not made the openings in her nipples wider
than is normal, so that she could devise another variety of intercourse in that
region. Naturally she was frequently pregnant, but by using pretty well all the
tricks of the trade she was able to induce immediate abortion.16
Here we have some of the elements that made Procopius and many members of his audience
uncomfortable with women. Procopius claimed that Theodora used her uncontrolled
sexuality to corrupt an esteemed Roman citizen and, even worse, her insatiable sexual
appetite promised that she would constantly be on the prowl for additional male victims.
Moreover, overwhelmed by lust, she readily abandoned her nurturing role and aborted her
potential offspring with mystical medical potions. Peter Brown points out that, Procopius
wrote to prove that the Empress had once been a non-person. What had happened in public
made plain that she was a girl of the lower classes: the good Christian senators of
Constantinople could look on a body thus exposed with impunity. 17
Furthermore, Procopius disgust with Theodoras ability to induce abortions may reflect his
anxiety with womens role as doctors. Procopius argued that exposing her body in public had
permanently damaged Theodoras character.
Procopius also hinted that Theodora might not have been a devout Christian by
insinuating that from a young age she had been obsessed with sorcerers and demons, and that
she continued to have friends who were Manichaeans (a religion founded by the Persian
1
16
Procopius, Secret History 9.17-20. Evans asserts that as an actress, Theodora may have prostituted
herself before she married Justinian. He suggests that while the stories Procopius relate about Theodoras early
life in his Secret History may be only half true they are representative of the gossip that floated through the
streets of the capital. Evans, Empress Theodora, 15.
17
Peter Brown, Body and Society, 320.
89
Mani [216-276]).18 Procopius used the same tactic against Antonina, condemning her
profligate kind of life, indicating that before she met Belisarius she had continually been
in the company of her fathers magic-mongering friends learning the arts essential to her
trade.18 Procopius knew that in an increasingly devout culture, one way to curb womens
power was to suggest that instead of being dedicated Christians they were dangerous heretics.
Theodora seemed to recognize that, as a powerful woman with a dubious past, she
was particularly vulnerable to accusations of immorality, and Procopius disclosed that she
took great pains to protect her reputation. When rumors began to spread that she might have
had a love affair with a servant named Areobindus she had him whipped, and he immediately
disappeared.19 Theodoras reaction may be compared with Antoninas, who, despite her
husband and many others apparently knowing about her infidelity, continued to pursue her
lovers. For Procopius, Antonina was a typical woman incapable of controlling her lust.20 In
contrast, during her marriage to Justinian, Theodora maintained command over her own
sexuality and willingly sacrificed her servant instead of suffering accusations of adultery.
One might think that even Procopius would have grudgingly respected Theodoras ability to
overcome her natural feminine weakness by displaying heroic resolve and abandoning her
lover. Nevertheless, Procopius condemned her because she acted not out of concerns over
her own morality, but purely in an attempt to maintain her political position.
18
Procopius, Secret History 22.30. The word magic derives from the magians, the name of the
Zoroastrian priests centered in the Persian Empire. Samuel Lieu suggests that in Late Antiquity, because of its
Persian origins, many in the Eastern Roman Empire linked Manichaeism with magic and sorcery.
Manichaenans faced severe prosecution in the sixth century. Anastasius imposed the death penalty upon them,
and by the end of Justinians reign, Manichaeism was eliminated within the empire. Samuel Lieu, Manichaeism
in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985), 138, 16875. For a description of Justinians attack on Manichaenans, see, Pseudo-Dionysius, 75-6.
18
19
20
90
Procopius continued his diatribe by alleging that Theodora had abandoned her
natural role as a mother. The historian divulged that her son from a former relationship,
John, had traveled to Constantinople seeking his mother. John sought out Theodoras
attendants and as Procopius exclaimed: They, never imagining that she would feel any
differently from the generality of mankind, reported to the mother that her son John had
arrived. Theodora, though, was not a normal woman, and the young man vanished, never
to be heard from again.21
Procopius condemned Antonina as well for not realizing that her adulterous behavior
would reflect poorly on her children: And remember that the sins of the women do not fall
on their husbands only: they do still more damage to their children whose misfortune it will
almost certainly be to incur a reputation for having a natural resemblance in character to their
mothers.22 Procopius suggested that mothers played a vital role in creating good Romans.
In a culture in which a mothers devotion to her family overrode all other duties, these
attacks on Theodora and Antonina were particularly damning.
For Procopius, womens submissiveness was one of the fundamental Roman customs.
To become virtuous, women needed to separate themselves completely from their sexual
nature. Within a Classical Roman marriage, a dominant husband could control a wifes
passionate character. It was the aberrant reversal of masculine and feminine roles, in both
Theodoras and Antoninas unions, that Procopius claimed, destroyed the greatness of
Rome.23 As demonstrated in chapter four, Procopius made Antonina the culprit for
21
Procopius, Secret History 1.41, 17.17. There is no evidence that John was Theodoras son. Evans
suggests that he was an imposter, given that Theodora had previously recognized an illegitimate daughter.
Evans, Empress Theodora, 16.
22
23
91
Belisarius military failures. By using their sexuality to feminize men, women remained a
constant threat to mens proper position in a marriage.
Procopius disclosed that a married couple could work for good or for evil, and he
insisted that Theodora and Justinian had destroyed the Roman Empire together. Both were
bad, however, in different ways. Theodora refused to be swayed by others, and was a
formidable enemy; in contrast, Justinian was easygoing and readily influenced by others.
While Theodora indulged in luxuries like bathing, eating and sleeping, Justinian practiced
asceticism and spent his nights wandering the hallways of the palace. Pauline Allen suggests
that Procopius believed that husbands and wives complemented one another. If the partners
ignored Roman or Christian ideals they would enhance each others bad qualities; if they
embraced these virtues, their individual natures would improve.24
It is important to note that Procopius may not have hated women. In fact, like most
conservatives, he inferred that he was protecting them from attacks on their femininity.
Procopius showed that, especially within their marriages, women could play a significant part
in Roman culture. The historian described his notion of the ideal Roman wife:
He [Justinian] was in position to take his pick of the Roman Empire and select
for his bride the most nobly born woman of the world, who had enjoyed the
most exclusive upbringing, and was thoroughly acquainted with the claims of
modesty, and had lived in an atmosphere of chastity, and in addition was
superbly beautiful and still a virgin or as they say firm breasted.25
24
Pauline Allen, Contemporary Portrayals of the Byzantine Empress Theodora (A.D. 527-548), in
Stereotypes of Women in Power: Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views, ed. Barbara Garlick, Suzanne
Dixon, and Pauline Allen (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992), 98.
25
Procopius, Secret History 10.3. This portrayal of the ideal Roman woman may be compared with
Procopius contemporary, the Italian historian Cassiodorus (c.485-585) description of Theoderics daughter
Thoringia as a women learned in letters, schooled in moral character, glorious not only for her lineage, but
equally for her feminine dignity. Cassiodorus, Variae 4.2.
2
92
This ideal fictitious woman represented everything that Antonina and Theodora were not: she
was noble, virtuous, and properly educated. In another illustration of Procopius adulation of
righteous Roman women, he revealed in his description of an attempted rape that not all
women were harlots. An aristocratic man and his wife suffered an attack while wandering the
suburbs of Constantinople. His wife, trying to protect her husbands life, went along
willingly with her attackers. Before departing onto a boat with the men, she whispered to her
husband to have no fear. Once in the boat, she jumped into the water and drowned.
According to Procopius, this sacrifice was the ultimate act of a noble woman: she
safeguarded her own virtue, while defending her male family member.26 Procopius lamented,
however, that during his era these virtuous women were disappearing, and, by ignoring
marital traditions, almost all women had become morally depraved. Now, instead of
shielding their husbands, women found guilty of adultery were allowed to bring a counter
suit and drag their husbands into court. Procopius blamed all of these developments on
Theodoras influence.27
For Procopius, womens powerful role in Byzantine politics was even more alarming
than their leading position in their domestic relationships. Although Theodora led a cloistered
life, Procopius provided numerous examples of her interference in Byzantine politics:
appointing men to positions within the Church and state, as well as arranging political
marriages.28 It is important to note that, each time Procopius condemned Theodoras political
meddling, he had to argue that the empress had become involved in political matters for
personal reasons. This commentary suggests that empresses were allowed to participate in
26
Procopius, Secret History 7.37. Recent scholars tend to condemn Procopius for his misogyny. In
particular, see Cameron, Procopius, 81-82.
27
28

93
politics as long as it was on behalf of their sons or husbands. Procopius revealed his disgust
with Theodoras conduct toward aristocratic men, and claimed that, once within her grasp
these men were turned into animals. Referring to such an example, he wrote: And so the
poor fellow stood continuously at his manger, eating and sleeping and performing all natural
functions and he resembled an ass in every particular short of braying.29 Procopius
suggested that womens political power over men was even more dangerous than their sexual
control; by allowing this perversion, men had become little better than animals.
Even more than Theodora, Antonina typified the dynamic female, taking on heroic
functions. While Theodora was confined to the palace, Antonina followed her husband on
military campaigns and even took control of the troops. As with Belisarius, it is difficult to
know when Procopius developed his hatred of Antonina. That she took an active and
masculine part in the military campaign, however, must have made her an easy target once
things went wrong in the war. Procopius disapproval of Antonina probably increased when
he began working with her during the war in Italy. Procopius described their professional
relationship:
He [Procopius] collected not fewer than five hundred soldiers there, loaded a
great number of ships with grain, and held them in readiness. And he was
joined not long afterwards by Antonina, who immediately assisted him in
making arrangements for the fleet.30
Sharing power with a woman must have annoyed the conservative historian. But, despite his
scathing attack of Antonina in the Secret History, Procopius, at times in the Wars, suggested
that she could be a valuable asset on the campaign. Antonina had helped avert a disaster
when the troops, while preparing their assault on Africa, had their entire water supply
29
30
94
spoiled. Luckily, Antonia had safeguarded some extra water by hiding it in the hull of the
ship.31 Still, one must note that in this circumstance Antonina may be seen as the typically
protective Roman wife, looking out for her husband and for other mens welfare.
In certain instances, Procopius praised women for taking on active political roles.
Antoninas association with Theodora, and the empress subsequent influence on Justinian,
allowed Belisarius to escape execution when the emperor thought that the general was
plotting against him.32 This case demonstrates that Theodora had the ear of the emperor,
and could be sought out when someone needed clemency. 33 Furthermore, it shows that
Procopius supported women when they made decisions that defended male family members.
Another instance of the protective wife occurred when Theodora stiffened Justinians resolve
during the Nika revolt, convincing him not to flee Constantinople but to remain in the capital
and fight.34 All of these instances suggest that women could have influential roles, especially
as wives.
In certain instances Procopius portrayed women acting heroically. In this description
of the Ostrogothic queen, Amalasuntha, Procopius disclosed that sometimes a woman could
transgress the limitations of her sex and become a hero:
Now Amalasuntha, as guardian of her child, administrated the government,
and she proved to be endowed with wisdom and regard for justice in the
highest degree, displaying to a great extent the masculine temper. As long as
she stood at the head of government she inflicted punishment upon no
Roman in any case either by touching his person or by imposing a fine.35
31
32
33
Lefkowitz, 61.
34
35
95
In both the Wars and the Secret History Amalasuntha was described positively. In a
statement that was an obvious slight to the lowborn Theodora, Procopius described
Amalasuntha as an aristocrat and a queen. He continued by illustrating her beauty and wit.
Many of these traits, however, Procopius attributed to Amalasunthas extraordinary
masculine bearing.36
Procopius construction of Amalasuntha as a heroic woman needs to be examined
because it seems to go against his previous assertions that masculine women were bad. A
closer look at Procopius description of Amalasunthas character reveals, however, that she
fits into his vision of femininity. Procopius used a positive portrayal of Amalasuntha to help
justify Justinians invasion of Italy. Amalasuntha was shown as a defenseless woman adrift
in the sea of politics and in need of Justinians protection.37 She had lost a private struggle
with Theodora for the love of Justinian, and ultimately paid for it with her life. Procopius
emphasized that Amalasuntha was fearful both for her child and for the kingdom and had
cultivated the friendship of Justinian very carefully and she gave heed to his commands in all
matters.38 Therefore, although Amalasuntha was dominant in her own kingdom, in the
natural order of world politics she recognized her inferior position and bowed down to
Justinians and the Eastern Roman Empires superiority.
An examination of Procopius description of the Amazons adds further insight into
his description of Amalasunthas heroic nature:
36
37
A. Daniel Frankforter, Amalasuntha, Procopius and a Womans Place, Journal of Womens History 8
(1996), 42.
38
96
It seems to me that those have spoken the truth about the Amazons at any
rate better than any others, who have stated that there was never a race of
women endowed with the qualities of men and that human nature did not
depart from its established norm in the mountains of the Caucasus alone; but
the fact was that barbarians from these regions together with their own
women made an invasion of Asia with a great army, established a camp at
the river Thermodon, and left their women there; then, while they
themselves were overrunning the greater part of the land of Asia, they were
encountered by the inhabitants of the land and utterly destroyed, and not a
man of them returned to the womens encampment; and thereafter these
women, through fear of the people dwelling round about and constrained by
the failure of their supplies, put on manly valor, not at own on their own
will, and, taking up the equipment of arms and armor left by the men of the
camp and arming themselves in excellent fashion with this, they made a
display of manly valor, being driven to do so by sheer necessity, until they
were all destroyed.39
Procopius claimed that only under exceptional circumstances should a woman take on heroic
roles. Amalasuntha was in such a situation and was portrayed by Procopius as being forced to
take on an active role in order to protect her family from the barbarous elements within
Ostrogothic society.40 Nevertheless, while women could temporarily display courage and
perform heroic deeds, it went against the natural order and Amalasuntha, like the Amazons,
was fated to die young.
Procopius indicated that many of the problems within the Eastern Roman Empire
could be explained by the rapid social and political changes that had occurred during
Justinians reign. One of these developments was womens increasing influence. Procopius
suggested that the power of Antonina, Theodora, and other women was dangerous for
Eastern Roman mens welfare. Although Procopius often followed Classical Roman
constructions of womens behavior, he also followed the ambiguous Christian notion of
woman as both Eves and Marys. Women were admirable when they were obedient,
aristocratic, maternal, chaste and thus feminine. Yet Procopius also demonstrated that
39
40
97
femininity was symbolized by womens wild lust. This made him extremely suspicious of
active women, whom he tended to portray as appalling wives and mothers, concerned only
with their own political and sexual satisfaction. Procopius assumed that strong women
needed strong men to put them in their place. He hinted, however, that he lived in an age
where many men had become flawed, and had abandoned their valor. In a changing society
in which mens and womens roles were being redefined, powerful women and femininity
served as the dangerous other, and were a threat to mens heroic role in society. Although
Procopius indicated that, under extraordinary circumstances, women could take on leading
functions and act heroically, he thought that the majority of the time they should be
subservient to men.
98
CHAPTER 6
VANGUARD OF THE NEW HEROIC IDEAL
On this Mt. Sinai live monks whose life is a kind of rehearsal of death, and
they enjoy without fear the solitude, which is very precious to them. Since
these monks had nothing to crave for they are superior to all human desires
and have no interest in possessing anything or in caring for their bodies, nor
do they seek pleasure in any other thing whatever; the Emperor Justinian built
them a church which he dedicated to the Mother of God, so that they might be
enabled to pass their lives therein praying and holding services.1
With its praise of austere living and emphasis on the superior self-control of Christian
monks, this quotation could be found in any ecclesiastical history from Late Antiquity or the
Middle Ages. That it comes from Procopius writings only accentuates the importance of not
underestimating the impact of Christianity upon his work. As suggested in chapter four, for
Procopius, even secular men like Totila and Belisarius needed to exhibit Christian, as well as
Classical Roman notions of valor. Like previous Classical Greek and Roman heroes, they
should display extraordinary fighting skills and a natural ability to command other men;
however, just as vital to the heroic side of their characters should be their ability to
demonstrate piety, forgiveness, humility, charity, and a respect for Church officials.
This chapter examines the new Roman hero: the holy man. It argues that, whereas all of
his secular men displayed character defects, in Procopius writing many Christian men
1
99
appeared flawless, and were used as examples by which to evaluate normal men. By
comparing and contrasting Procopius descriptions of holy mens virtues with laymens
rectitude, a greater understanding may be achieved of why secular warrior-heroes like
Belisarius and Totila, so familiar from Classical literature, gradually disappeared from
literature in the ensuing centuries and were replaced by these soldiers of Christ.
Soldiers of Christ
To appreciate the influence of the Christian heroic ideal on the sixth-century Eastern
Roman Empire, it is essential to trace the evolution of the Christian hero. Until the fourth
century, most Christian men had established their superiority by martyrdom. The martyrs
(Greek for witnesses) became the first Christian saints, both for their willingness to
challenge the authority of the local pagan leaders and their eagerness to give up their lives for
their religious convictions. For a religion that faced repeated persecutions and accusations of
cowardice against its followers from the pagan establishment, these Christian examples of
bravery served as a unifying force and a symbol of Christian courage.2
Despite the allure of these early martyrs, by the fifth century this form of sacrifice had
largely become outmoded. There were several reasons for this change. When the Empire
became a Christian one, two things occurred: first, the opportunities for a glorious death
declined; second, because Christians joined the establishment, many of them found it
unnecessary to treat the Roman government as an adversary. As Christianitys role in the
Roman government grew, it also became essential for the Church to control individuals who
acted outside the established hierarchy, even charismatic heroes such as the martyrs.4
2
Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head, introduction to Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints Lives from
Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Thomas F.X. Noble and Thomas Head (University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), xix-xxi.
4
Stuart George Hall, The Organization of the Church, in The Cambridge Ancient History volume 14
100
Like many bureaucracies, the Church viewed independent actions by its members
with suspicion. Several fifth-century Christian writers composed works that reveal this
concern regarding the holy martyrs. While Augustine admired the holy martyrs, he criticized
them for their hunger to suffer when they surrendered their lives for Christ. He claimed that
if these men sought death, then their sacrifice meant nothing. He maintained that charity and
obedience were the true signs of a devout Christian, and only through Gods grace could a
man find the strength to let go of the life he cherished. Augustine suggested that it was not
necessary for Christians to forfeit themselves in order to prove their devotion to Christ.
True martyrs could better confirm their worth by dedicating their lives to fasting, prayer,
and humility.5
Even before the decline of the martyr, many Christians had adopted a new form of
valor. In third-century CE Egypt and Syria, an elite cadre of men became Christian heroes by
pushing the limits of abstinence. Monks like the Egyptian Antonym set out alone from the
cities of the Roman Empire and into the deserts, determined to separate themselves from the
physical worlds corruption.6 Struggling against temptation, they battled to purify their
bodies against the demon of fornication and fears of starvation. By persevering, these
monks became heroic models for a religion and an Empire, which increasingly proclaimed
Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors A.D. 425-600, ed. Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, and Michael
Whitby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 731.
5
Carole Straw, Martyrdom and Christian Identity: Gregory the Great, Augustine and Tradition, in The
Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus, ed.
William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999), 251-4.
6
Many of these men had first entered the desert not to practice an ascetic lifestyle, but to escape
persecution. James Goehring, Ascetics, Society, and the Desert: Studies in Early Egyptian Monasticism
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), 16, see also, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.42.2.
101
that supreme men practiced sexual abstinence, restricted their diet, and treated possessions,
rank, and power with indifference.8
For many Roman citizens, the holy man exemplified Christian valor. They suggested
that God had chosen these men, therefore permitting such men to share in His power and
perfection. The holy mans special relationship with God allowed him to serve as His
intermediary on earth, and it was often through him that God made Himself active in the
world through divine intervention and miracles. Supernatural events served as proof that the
barriers between heaven and earth could be overcome. Miracles reassured the populace that
even in turbulent times, Gods power could reestablish order and security. The holy mans
closeness to God made it logical for the needy within the Empire to seek out these Christian
men, instead of their secular leaders, when calamity threatened.9
Part of the appeal of the Christian ideal of heroism may be attributed to its inclusive
nature. Holy heroes could hail from all segments of Roman society. This differed from
Classical Greco-Roman and Germanic cultures, which emphasized a heros lineage, and
which tended to look down on men of humble origins. Many Christians rebelled against the
Classical Roman notion that a mans nobilitas (distinction) was determined by his lineage
and political accomplishments. They claimed that nobilitas served as a universal virtue and
should be open to all men, regardless of their social class. To emphasize their scorn for the
Roman social order, many Christians gained acclaim by rejecting their family ancestry and
joining Christs family, thereby creating their own aristocracy.10 Although most Christians
8
Philip Rousseau, Monasticism, in The Cambridge Ancient History volume 14 Late Antiquity: Empire
and Successors A.D. 425-600, ed. Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000), 745.
9
Binns, 220-1.
10
Michele Renee Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the
Western Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 217. On the social origins of holy
102
could never hope to attain the strict perfection demanded by this new principle of heroism, by
interacting with these holy men, they could get a glimpse of Gods flawlessness.11
Procopius and the Holy Heroes

Although his works dealt primarily with the secular world, Procopius provided
several descriptions of the power and perfection of holy men. In Wars, Procopius
demonstrated that, in his era, monks continued to abandon the world in an attempt to find
ascetic perfection.
In a brief aside, he described the deeds of a Syrian monk, Jacobus, who sought the
solace of religious solitude only to face the outside worlds interference. Procopius presented
Jacobus as a priest who had trained himself with exactitude in matters pertaining to
religion. Jacobus separated himself from the human world by fleeing Amida and devoting
himself to living piously. In an attempt to protect Jacobus from the elements and needless
harassment, a group of local men from the city had constructed a fence around the monk.
Nonetheless, this did not keep away the curious, and from time to time people visited
Jacobus to speak about religious matters. Procopius marveled at the monks ability to survive
the harsh environment, sustaining his life with certain seeds, which he was accustomed to
eat, not indeed every day, but only at long intervals.20
men in the Eastern Roman Empire, Theresa Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 67-79. She suggests that although some holy men hailed
from the peasantry, most came from noble families.
11
Peter Brown, Holy Men, in The Cambridge Ancient History volume 14 Late Antiquity: Empire and
Successors A.D. 425-600, ed. Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000), 781-2.
2
20
Procopius, Wars 1.7.7-8. Procopius is the only source for this account. Greatrex suggests that for his
accounts of the Anastasian War Procopius employed both oral and written accounts. For events up to 503, he
probably consulted the lost chronicle of Eustathius of Epiphaneia. For oral testimonies he had access to
Cabades grandson, the younger Cabades, and Peranius, the son of the Iberian king Gourgenes, both of whom
accompanied Procopius on the Italian campaigns. Additionally, Greatrex argues, that even if this story comes
103
One day, however, a group of Ephthalite soldiers, armed with bows, approached the
monk with bad intentions. God quickly intervened, however, to protect the virtuous monk:
He struck down the attackers and the hands of everyone of them became motionless and
utterly unable to manage the bow. Filled with wonder at this event, the Persian emperor
Cabades met with Jacobus and beseeched the holy man to forgive the barbarians their
crime. Jacobus absolved the soldiers, and the men were released from their distress.
Assuming that the monk would ask for great riches, Cabades rewarded Jacobus by informing
him that he could have whatever he wished. Instead, Jacobus merely requested that
Cabades grant him all men who during the war should come to him as fugitives. The
emperor agreed, and Procopius finished by relating that: Great numbers of men, as might be
expected, came flocking to him from all sides and found safety there; for the deed became
widely known.21
This brief aside offers a tantalizing glimpse of Procopius religious beliefs and his
sense of Christian valor.22 Jacobus represented an ideal Christian hero. Busy fighting an
internal battle against his bodys desires and tending to the needs of his followers, Jacobus
had little time to waste on worldly battles. Like many spiritual men of his age, however, he
found it difficult to escape the realities of the temporal world. Nonetheless, even the mighty
Persian army proved no match for the righteous monk. As His chosen disciple, God defended
Jacobus from worldly interference and threats. The miracle indicated that to protect moral
from another source, Procopius use of it indicates that both he and his audience were interested in the deeds of
holy heroes. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at War, 63, 87.
21
22
Greatrex contends that Procopius description of the Anastasian War was to purely entertain the reader,
rather than to examine earlier events; such information was in any case readily available in other historians.
Hence only remarkable and little known episodes were related by Procopius. Greatrex, Rome and Persia at
War, 74. Kaldellis disagrees.
104
men, God would intervene to stop acts of injustice and restore order to a turbulent world.
This matches Procopius previous assertion that God took an interest in mens affairs and
selected victors and losers depending on one sides virtue or the other sides villainy. To
Jacobus, the mighty Cabades represented nothing more than a temporary irritant. The holy
mans request that the emperor send him any captives implies that Jacobus, and perhaps
Procopius as well, felt that winning sacred conflicts was as important as triumphing in
battles. Having failed as soldiers in the secular world, the captives sent to Jacobus would be
given the opportunity to fight in an equally important spiritual war in Gods army as
soldiers of Christ.
When the Eastern Roman Empire faced foreign invasion, Christian heroes did not just
depend on God or the Byzantine army to safeguard their supporters, but as Procopius
showed, they often became personally involved in protecting the Empires citizens.
Procopius provides several examples that suggest that it was the local bishops and priests,
and not the secular leaders, who took on roles of leadership during these periods of
instability.
An illustration of this role may be seen in Procopius account of Totilas siege of
Rome in 546 CE. In the account, Procopius contrasted the noble actions of a priest with the
cowardly conduct of the Eastern Roman generals. He vilified the Byzantine commanders for
their avarice () and refusal to relieve the citys suffering. He indicated that while
the populace of Rome was reduced to monstrous foods unknown to the natural desires of
man, the Byzantine commander Bessas capitalized on the populaces misery by selling
bushels of grain from his personal horde at exorbitant prices.23 In contrast, he provided a
description of what he considered the proper Christian response to such a calamity:
23
105
At Rome likewise, as it labored under the siege of Totila, all the necessities of
life had already failed. Now there was a certain man among the priests of
Rome, Pelagius by name, holding the office of deacon; he had passed a
considerable time in Byzantium and had there become especially intimate
with the Emperor Justinian, and it so happened that he had a short time
previously arrived at Rome possessed of a great fortune. And during this siege
he had bestowed a great part of his fortune upon those destitute of the
necessities of life.24
With this act of philanthropy, Pelagius (consecrated Pope Pelagius I in 556 CE) gained the
Roman civilians respect. Therefore, when they needed someone to intervene on their behalf
with Totila, they chose Pelagius, and not one of the Byzantine generals. The Ostrogothic
leader greeted the deacons embassy with civility, yet he insisted that he would grant no
mercy either to the Sicilians or to the slaves who had escaped from his army to join the
Byzantine forces. Instead of acquiescing to the formidable generals power and menace,
Pelagius stood his ground and challenged Totila by claiming that he and his men would have
preferred to have been treated with contempt and still have accomplished some of the
objects for which they came, than, after hearing more courteous words to return
disappointed. The deacon finished by warning Totila that he would refer his mission to
God, who is accustomed to send retribution upon those who scorn the prayers of
suppliants.25 Procopius implied that it was Pelagius Christian duty to protect all men,
regardless of their social status or nationality.
Pelagius principled behavior may be compared with Bessas selfish actions when the
Ostrogoths finally stormed Rome. The Byzantine general took flight along with his army,
forcing the remnants of the population to seek refuge in the citys churches. Once again,
Pelagius shielded the Roman citizens from Totilas fury:
24
25
106
Totila for his part went to the church of the Apostle Peter to pray, but the
Goths began to slay those who fell in their way. And in this manner there
perished among the soldiers twenty-six, and among the people sixty. And
when Totila had come to the sanctuary, Pelagius came before him carrying the
Christian scriptures in his hand, and, making supplication in every manner
possible, said Spare thy own O Master. And Totila, mocking him with a
haughty indifference, said; Now at last Pelagius, you have come to make
yourself a suppliant before me. Yes replied Pelagius, at a time when God
has made me your slave. Nay, spare your slaves, O Master, from now on.
And Totila received this supplication with favor and forbade the Goths
thereafter to kill any Romans at all.26
This quotation illustrates how influential Christian notions of bravery had become by the
sixth century CE. Procopius characterized this incident as a duel between two very different
warriors. Pelagius fought as a Christian soldier, in a non-violent yet effective manner. The
priest bowed down to Totilas physical superiority but continued to fight as a Christian
warrior, not with a sword or spear, but with humility and concern for others. As a good
Christian, Totila conquered his need for revenge and, recognizing the deacons authority,
submitted to him. Once more, Christianity's subtle force had overcome a barbarians
propensity for violence.
Procopius drew attention to many examples that suggest that, even without the help of
divine intervention, Christian men could triumph over their enemies by showing humility and
practicing non-violence. The bishop Baradotus, whom Procopius indicated was a just man
especially beloved by God, attempted to keep Cabades from sacking Constantia (modern
Viransehir) by offering him figs, bread, and wine. Baradotus pleaded for the general to show
mercy to the city, pointing out that it had no soldiers defending it, only its inhabitants who
were a pitiable folk. Cabades did not merely spare the city but presented the priest with the
food supplies that he had saved for the siege.27
26
27
107
At times, however, even the local clergys bravery was not enough to save a city
from the enemys wrath. On these occasions, the populace needed to depend upon the
ultimate Christian weapon: the holy relic. When the citizens of Apamea heard that Chosroes
sought to conquer their city, they made a desperate plea to the local clergy that they be given
one final chance to see the citys most cherished holy relic: a portion of Christs cross.
Procopius related that, as soon they fell on their knees to view the cross, a miracle occurred:
For while the priest was carrying the wood and showing it, above him
followed a flame of fire, and the portion of the roof over him was illuminated
with a great and unaccustomed light. . . . So the people of Apamea, under the
spell of joy at the miracle, were wondering and rejoicing and weeping, and
already all felt confidence concerning their safety.28
It is important to note that this marvel did not prevent Chosroes from capturing the city. In
fact, like most of the Eastern cities during the Persian invasion, Apameas citizens
surrendered without a fight and paid off the Persian army with a bribe. Nonetheless,
Procopius reported that divine providence had manifestly prevented Chosroes from
plundering and enslaving the entire city. Procopius thought that the most important aspect of
the cross power was its ability to restore the peoples confidence and ease their fear of death.
Reassured of Gods ultimate power to preserve Apamea, the citizens had no reason to fear a
temporary defeat on earth.29
As chapter four explained, even the most powerful secular leaders depended upon the
saints support for their prosperity. Justinians relationship with the saints helped affirm his
special religious position within the Byzantine Empire. The special rapport between the
emperors and the spiritual realm may be further explored in Procopius description of the
28
29
108
saints interceding to save Justinians life. When the emperor fell seriously ill, two Syrian
saints, St. Cosmas and St. Damian, came to him in a vision and healed his malady. 30
Procopius presented the emperor not as a God, but merely as mortal man reliant like any
supplicant on divine intervention for survival. God did not give His protection
unconditionally. Procopius explained that God felt compelled to assist the Byzantine
emperors when they built magnificent churches:
It was in requital for this honor which the emperor showed them that these
Apostles appeared to men on this occasion. For when the emperor is pious,
divinity walks not far from human affairs, but is wont to mingle with men and
to take delight in associating with them.31
This passage suggests that when an emperor acted justly, the saints and God prevailed on
earth, yet, as demonstrated in chapter four, if the emperor was unjust, the saints and God
would depart, leaving the Byzantine populace at the mercy of demons. In a society in which
religious men had gained ever-increasing authority, it became essential for Justinian to
emphasize his own morality together with his essential role as a mediator between the realms
of heaven and earth. This reliance on heavenly authority put Justinian and future Byzantine
emperors in a difficult position. By recognizing both their inferior position in the divine
hierarchy, and the importance of divine support in secular affairs, imperial governments
became susceptible to attacks on their political authority.32
Saints did not only help esteemed individuals like the emperor, but could also be
called upon to benefit the entire Byzantine populace. Procopius described how Justinians
30
Procopius, Buildings 1.6.5.
31
32
Haldon, 365-6.
109
dedication of shrines to the holy martyrs throughout Constantinople attracted numerous
pilgrims:
When any persons find themselves assailed by illnesses which are beyond the
control of physicians, in despair of human assistance they take refuge in the
one hope left them, and getting on the flat-boats they are carried up the bay to
this very church. And as they enter its mouth they straight-way see the shrine
as on an acropolis, priding itself in the gratitude of the Emperor and
permitting them to enjoy the hope, which the shrine affords.33
One must note that Procopius emphasized that seeking out divine assistance remained a final
step, taken only out of desperation. He suggested that physicians were the first people to be
consulted when one experienced a medical problem. The saints reserved their miraculous
healing powers for the truly needy. Here we have the dilemma of a classically educated, yet
Christian man. Procopius believed in the divine power and in the authenticity of miracles, but
he also valued established Classical traditions and ideals.34
The New Heroic Ideal
The emergence of Christian notions of valor gradually transformed the Byzantine
concept of mens ideal heroic conduct. While charismatic secular leaders and warlike
aristocratic men continued to receive praise, increasingly it became Christian men who
epitomized Byzantine heroism. In Late Antiquity, the Christian notion of mens heroic
conduct was in flux. From the third to the fifth centuries CE, independent monks exemplified
Christian heroism by either becoming martyrs for the faith or by heading out into the desert
33
Procopius, Buildings 1.67-9.
34
Procopius perception about the value of miraculous cures is similar to the views of other ecclesiastical
and secular writers in Late Antiquity. Ian Wood argues that most ecclesiastical writers valued both rational
and miraculous solutions for medical dilemmas. Even devout Christians, such as Gregory of Tours, when
confronted by illness, first sought to cure themselves by scientific means, and only if this failed, resorted to the
power of relics. Ian Wood, How Popular was Medieval Devotion? in Essays in Medieval Studies, 14 July
1999<http.luc.edu/publications/medieval/vol14/14ch1.html>
110
to abandon the worlds temptations. However, by the sixth century CE, with the increased
organization of the Churchs hierarchy, the holy men of the cities and the monks within the
monasteries came to be seen as heroic as the holy martyrs and monks of the desert.
Moreover, the inclusiveness of the Christian heroic ideal defied the Classical notion
that virtue and mens heroic conduct were restricted to a privileged segment of civilized
society. Procopius description of the defeated Byzantine soldiers joining the monk Jacobus
as soldiers of Christ would have appealed to many Christians within the Empire. The concept
that anyone, Roman or barbarian, rich or poor, had the potential to become a Christian hero
dramatically altered a key component of Roman ethnic identity. Procopius writings exhibit
this reality. Although he attempted to write as a classicizing historian, Procopius could not
escape Christianitys influence. All of his secular leaders had serious flaws. It was only when
he described the actions of holy men that some men manage to attain a semblance of
perfection.
A vital facet of any culture is a shared sense of values and history. Therefore, the rise
of the pious hero, in the form of the holy man of the desert and the wise bishop in the city,
served as a serious challenge to the secular authorities and the assemblage of Classical heroes
whose deeds and conduct, though still admired, could never quite match those of the holy
heroes of Christ.
111
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Agathias. The Histories. Translated by Joseph D. Frendo. New York: de Gruyter, 1975.
Cassiodorus. The Varia of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator. Translated by S. J. B.
Barnish. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Chronicon Paschale: 284-628 AD. Translated by Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989.
Eusebius. The History of the Church. Translated by G. A. Williamson. London: Penguin
Books, 1965.
. Life of Constantine. Translated by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1999.
Evagrius Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus. Translated by
Michael Whitby. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000.
Homer. The Iliad. Translated by E. V. Rieu. London: Penguin Books, 1950.
Jordanes. The Origins and Deeds of the Goths. Translated by Charles C. Mierow. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1908.
Joshua the Stylite. The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. Translated J. Watt and F. Trombley.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000.
Justinian, Digest of Justinian. Edited and Translated by Alan Watson, et al. 2 Volumes.
Philadelphia. University of Pennslyvania Press, 1997.
Marcellinus, Ammianus. The Later Roman Empire: AD 354-378. Translated by Walter
Hamilton. London: Penguin Books, 1986.
Plutarch. Fall of the Roman Republic. Translated by Rex Warner. London: Penguin Books,
1958. Reprint, 1976.
. Plutarchs Lives. Translated by Hugh Clough. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.
F. Collier & Son, 1969.
Polybius. The Histories. Translated by Mortimer Chambers. New York: Twayne, 1966.
112
Procopius. Wars. Edited by J. Haury. Translated by H. B. Dewing. Loeb Classical Library. 5
Volumes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914-28. Reprint, 2000.
. Buildings. Edited by J. Haury. Translated by H. B. Dewing. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935. Reprint, 1954.
. The Secret History. Translated by G. A. Williamson. London: Penguin Books,
1966. Reprint, 1981.
Socrates Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History: A History of the Church from 305-439 AD.
Anonymous Translation. London: George Bell & Sons, 1892.
Sozomen. The Ecclesiastical History: A History of the Church from 324-440 AD.
Anonymous Translation. London: H. G. Bohn. 1855.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. Edited by Robert
B. Strassler. London: Penguin Books, 1954, Reprint, 1972.
Victor of Vita. History of the Vandal Persecution. Translated by John Moorhead. Liverpool,
Liverpool University Press, 1992.
Zosimus. New History. Translated by Ronald T. Ridley. Canberra: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1982.
Secondary Sources
Allen, Pauline. Contemporary Portrayals of the Byzantine Empress Theodora (A.D. 527548). In Stereotypes of Women in Power: Historical Perspectives and Revisionist
Views. Edited by Barbara Garlick, Suzanne Dixon, and Pauline Allen. New York:
Greenwood Press, 1992.
Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy: 489-554. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997.
Binns, John. Ascetics and Ambassadors of Christ: The Monasteries of Palestine 314-631.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Bowersock, G. W. Peter Brown, Oleg Grabar, eds. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the
Postclassical World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Brown, Peter. The World of Late Antiquity AD 150-750. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.,
1971.
113
. The Body and Society: Men Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.
. Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of the Christianisation of the Roman World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996. Reprint, 1997.
. Holy Men. In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 14, Late Antiquity: Empire
and Successors A.D. 425-600. Edited by Averil Cameron, Bryn Ward-Perkins, and
Michael Whitby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Browning, Robert. Justinian and Theodora. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971.
Bury, J. B. A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene, 395 to 800. 2
Volumes. London: Macmillan, 1889.
Bynum, Caroline Walker. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity in Western
Christianity, 200-1336. New York: Columbia Press, 1995.
Cameron, Alan. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford:
Cameron, Averil. Procopius and the Sixth Century. London: Duckworth, 1985.
. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1993.
Cavallo, G., ed. The Byzantines. Translated by Thomas Dunlap, Teresa Lavender Fagan, and
Charles Lambert. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Christian, David. A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia: Volume I Inner Eurasia
from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Collins, Roger. Early Medieval Europe 300-1000. London: Macmillan, 1991.
Cooper, Kate. The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996.
de Selincourt, Aubrey. The World of Herodotus. San Francisco: North Point Press, 1982.
Duff, Tim. Plutarchs Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
114
Eckstein, Arthur M. Moral Vision in the Writings of Polybius. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1995.
Elm, Susanna. Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford:
Elsner, Jas. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art From the Pagan World
to Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Evans, J. A. S. Procopius. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1972.
. The Age Of Justinian: The Circumstances of Imperial Power. London: Routledge,

1996.
. The Dates of Procopius Works. Greek and Byzantine Studies 37 (1996): 301320.
. The Empress Theodora: Partner of Justinian. Austin: University of Texas Press,
2002.
Fletcher, Richard. The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1997.
Foss Clive. The Empress Theodora. Byzantion 72 (2002): 141-176.
Fowden Elizabeth Key. The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Frankforter, Daniel A. Amalasuntha, Procopius and a Womans Place. Journal of
Womens History 8 (1996): 41-57.
Frye David. Althalaricss Health and the Ostrogothic Character. Byzantium 65 (1995): 244251.
Garlick, Barbara, Suzanne Dixon, and Pauline Allen, eds. Stereotypes of Women in Power:
Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992.
Goehring, James E. Ascetics, Society and the Desert: Studies in Early Egyptian Monasticism.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999.
Goffart, Walter. Narrators of Barbarian History: Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and
Paul the Deacon A.D. 550-800. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Graf, Fritz. Magic in the Ancient World. Translated by Franklin Phillip. Cambridge: Harvard
115
Greatrex, Geoffrey. The Dates of Procopius Works, BMGS 18 (1994): 101-14.
. Stephanus, the father of Procopius of Caesarea? Medieval Prospography 17
(1996): 122-45.
. The Classical Past in the Classicising Historians. The Reception of Classical
Texts and Images. Milton Keynes: Open University, 1996.
. The Nika Riot: A Reappraisal, Journal of Hellenic Studies CXVII (1997): 60-86.
. Rome and Persia at War: 502-532. Francis Cairns, 1998.
. Recent work on Procopius and the Composition of Wars VIII. Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 27 (2003): 45-67.
Hackel, Sergei, ed. The Byzantine Saint. London: Bemrose Press 1981.
Haldon, J. F. Byzantium and the Seventh Century: the Transformation of a Society.
Hall, Edith. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition Through Tragedy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989.
Hallett, Judith. Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Harrison, Thomas, ed. Greeks and Barbarians. New York: Routledge, 2002
Heather, Peter. The Goths. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Heinzelmann, Martin. Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth Century. Translated
by Christopher Carroll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Helgeland, John, et al. Christians and the Military: The Early Experience. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985.
Herrin, Judith. In Search of Byzantine Women: Three Avenues of Approach. In Images of
Women in Antiquity. Edited by Averil Cameron and Amelie Kuhrt. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1983.
Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Companion to Classical
Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Education and Expertise of Procopius. Antiquit tardive 8
(2000): 19-30.
116
James, Liz. Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium. London: Leicester University Press,
2001.
Kaldellis, Anthony. Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the end of
Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 2004.
Kaegi, Walter. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
. Procopius the Military Historian, Byzantinische Forschungen 15 (1990): 53-85.
Kuefler, Mathew. The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian
Ideology in Late Antiquity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Laiou, Angeliki, ed. Consent and Coercion to Sex in Ancient and Medieval Society.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. Influential Women. In Images of Women in Late Antiquity. Edited by
Averil Cameron and Amelie Kuhrt. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of
Arcadius and Chrysostom. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
. The End of the Ancient City. In The City in Late Antiquity, Edited by John Rich
London: 1992.
Lieu, Samuel. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1985.
Maas, Michael. John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of
Justinian. London: Routledge, 1992.
Maenchen-Helfen, Otto. The World of the Huns: Studies in their History and Culture.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.
Markus, R. A. The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990.
Martin, Richard. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1989.
Matthews, John. The Roman Empire of Ammianus. London: Duckworth, 1989.
McCash, June Hall, ed. The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women. Athens, Ga.: The
University of Georgia Press, 1996.
117
Moorhead, John. Theoderic in Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
. Justinian. London: Longman, 1994.
. Totila the Revolutionary, Historia 49 (2000): 382-6.
. The Roman Empire Divided 400-700. London: Longman, 2001.

Noble, Thomas F. X. and Thomas Head, eds. Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints Lives
from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. University Park: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1995.
Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. Translated by Joan Hussey. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1969.
Palmer, Andrew. Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier, The Early History of Tur Abdin.
Pazdernik, Charles F. Our Most Pious Consort Given Us by God: Dissident Reactions to
the Partnership of Justinian and Theodora, A.D. 525-548. Classical Antiquity 13
(1997): 256-281.
. Procopius and Thucydides on the Labors of War: Belisarius and Brasidas in the
Field. Transactions of the American Philological Association 130 (2000): 149-187.
Reynolds, Susan. Our Forefathers? Tribes, Peoples, and Nations in the Historiography in the
Age of Migrations. In Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History: Essays
presented to Walter Goffart. Edited by Alexander Murray. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1998.
Rousseau, Philip. Monasticism. In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 14, Late
Antiquity: Empire and Successors A.D. 425-600. Edited by Averil Cameron, Bryn
Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Rubin, Zeev. The Sasanid Monarchy. In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 14, Late
Antiquity: Empire and Successors A.D. 425-600. Edited by Averil Cameron, Bryan
Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Salzman, Michele Renee. The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious
Change in Western Roman Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Shaw, Brent D. War and Violence. In Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World.
Edited by G. W. Bowersock, Peter Brown and Oleg Graber. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1999.
118
Southern, Pat and Karen Ramsey Dixon. The Late Roman Army. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
Straw, Carole. Martyrdom and Christian Identity: Gregory the Great, Augustine and
Tradition. In The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and
Culture in Honor of R.A Markus. Edited by William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey,
248-256. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Talbot, Alice-Mary. Women. In The Byzantines. Edited by Guglielmo Cavallo. Translated
by Thomas Dunlap, Teresa Lavender Fagan, and Charles Lambert. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Teale, John. The Barbarians in Justinians Armies. Speculum 40 (1965): 294-322.
Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford
Urbainczyk, Theresa. Socrates of Constantinople. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1997.
. Theodoret of Cyrrhus: The Bishop and the Holy Man. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2002.
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. The Barbarian West: 400-1000. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967. Reprint.
1997.
Whitby, Mary. Procopius Buildings, Book I: A Panegyrical Perspective. Antiquit tardive
8 (2000): 45-47.
Whitby, Michael. Greek Historical Writing after Procopius: Variety and Vitality. In The
Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: Problems in the Literary Source Material.
Edited by Averil Cameron and Lawrence Conrad. Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1992.
. Christianity and Warfare in Late Antiquity. In Modus Operandi: Essays in

Honour of Geoffrey Rickman. London: Institute of Classical Studies School of
Advanced Study, University of London, 1998.
. Pride and Prejudice in Procopius Buildings: Imperial Images in Constantinople.
Antiquit tardive 8 (2000): 59-66.
Williams, Craig A. Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988.
119
120

Between Two

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Between Two

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See

Between Two Worlds: Men's Heroic Conduct in

Available from: Michael Stewart

BETWEEN TWO WORLDS: MENS HEROIC CONDUCT IN THE

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

The Undersigned Faculty Committee Approves the

BETWEEN TWO WORLDS: MENS HEROIC CONDUCT IN THE

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Evans, Procopius, 101.

Evans, Procopius, 40.

Cameron, Procopius, 53.

Evans, Procopius, 37.

Procopius, Wars 1.1.3-4.

John Moorhead, Justinian (London: Longman, 1994), 171.

Procopius, Wars 8.23.28.

Moorhead, Roman Empire Divided, 41.

Procopius, Wars 3.6.1-27.

Procopius, Wars 5.1.9-31.

J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West: 400-1000 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), 40.

Moorhead, Justinian, 11.

Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity (Oxford:

Procopius, Wars 3.9.11.

Ostrogorsky, 72, 124.

Cameron, Procopius, 33.

Cameron, Procopius, 31, n. 7

Evans, Procopius, 80.

Cameron, Procopius, 32.

Cameron, Procopius, 239.

Procopius, Wars 3.10.18-9.

Procopius, Wars 7.1.11-2.

Procopius, Wars 1.25.8-10.

Procopius, Wars 8.22.21.

Procopius, Wars 1.1.9.

Aubrey de Selincourt, 84, Martin, 96.

Plutarch, Caesar (trans. Warner) 5.

Plutarch, Crassus (trans. Warner) 1-2.

Plutarch, Cicero (trans. Warner) 4.

Procopius, Wars 7.21.9.

Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar, 334-5.Williams, 68.

Procopius, Wars 7.14.27-8.

Procopius, Wars 1.3.3-6

Procopius, Wars 6.1.11-20.

Procopius, Wars 5.18.30-3.

Procopius, Wars 8.35.20-38.

Procopius, Wars 4.1.9, 3.12.8-2.

Procopius, Wars 1.15.25.

Procopius, Wars 4.6.5-8.

Procopius, Wars 3.10.16.

John Teall, Barbarians in Justinians Armies, Speculum 40 (1965), 297, 303-8.

Procopius, Secret History 7.20-37.

Procopius, Wars 2.8.13-31.

Procopius, Wars 5.3.1.

EMPERORS AND GENERALS

The importance of strong leadership is a central theme in all of Procopius works.

Belisarius and Totila

Procopius, Wars 5.18.5-12.

Procopius, Wars 7.24.29-31.

Evans, Procopius, 59.

Procopius, Wars 4.4.2-4.

Procopius, Secret History 5.4-7.

Procopius, Wars 7.5.19.

Procopius, Wars 7.1.9-12.

Procopius, Wars 4.14.8-10.

Procopius, Wars 5.18.40-2.