What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱爻乇賷
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 氐乇禺丞 丕丨鬲噩丕噩 賲丿賵賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賱胤睾賷丕賳 賵丕賱丿賷賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 賲賳匕 毓賴丿 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇 丕賱賲爻鬲亘丿 噩賵爻鬲賳賷丕賳 丕賱匕賷 丕禺鬲夭賱 賮賷 卮禺氐賴 賰賱 賲夭丕賷丕 丕賱胤睾丕丞 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺. 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賮囟丨 賵賷毓乇賾賷 丕賱胤睾賷丕賳 賵丕賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 賵丕賱乇毓亘貙 賵賷賰卮賮 丕賱噩乇丕卅賲 丕賱亘卮毓丞 賵丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱卮賳賷毓丞 亘賰賱 氐丿賯 賵氐乇丕丨丞貙 廿賳賳丕 賳噩丿 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 廿囟丕賮丞 賱賲丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷賴 氐賮丨丕鬲賴 賲賳 鬲丕乇賷禺 爻賷丕爻賷 賵毓爻賰乇賷貙 賮囟丕卅丨 賲禺夭賷丞貙 賵賵氐賮丕賸 丨賷賾丕賸 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱亘賷夭賳胤賷丞貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳鬲 亘賷夭賳胤丞 丌賳丕賰 鬲賮賷囟 噩賲丕賱丕賸 賵乇賵毓丞 賵毓馗賲丞貙 賲孬賱賲丕 鬲賮賷囟 賮爻丕丿丕賸 兀禺賱丕賯賷丕賸 賵丿賷賳賷丕賸. 賰賲丕 賷賯丿賲 賱賳丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲亘氐乇丕賸 賳賮丕匕丕賾 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 丕賱丨夭賷賳 賵丕賱賰卅賷亘 賱賱賰賳賷爻丞貙 賵賷胤賱毓賳丕 毓賱賶 禺爻賾丞 賵丨賯丕乇丞 亘毓囟 丕賱賲胤丕乇賳丞 賵丕賱兀爻丕賯賮丞 丌賳匕丕賰貙 賵兀爻丕賱賷亘賴賲 丕賱廿噩乇丕賲賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賴亘貙 賵丕賱丕亘鬲毓丕丿 毓賳 丕賱毓賮丞 賵丕賱胤賴丕乇丞 賵丕賱賯賷賲.
195 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 550
236 people are currently reading
5248 people want to read
About the author
Procopius
192听books76听followersProcopius of Caesarea was born in the latter years of the fifth century at Caesarea in Palestine. He originated from the land-owning provincial upper class and, like Zosimus, became a civil servant. As early as A.D. 527, before the emperor Justin's death, Procopius became counsellor, assessor, and secretary to Belisarius, whose fortunes and campaigns he followed for the next twelve or fifteen years. Small wonder he became very knowledgeable of military affairs through this service. He has long been respected as a historian of the emperor Justinian鈥檚 wars, and is reckoned the greatest of the later Greek historians. Procopius was finally raised to the dignity of an illustrius, and died not earlier than A.D. 562.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 355 reviews
July 7, 2022
When some people fall out with their boss, they鈥檒l write a post on Facebook about how much of a scumbag their boss is. Procopius wrote a book.
Once the official court historian of the emperor and an important member of the Byzantine Imperial court, Procopius wrote the History of the Wars of Justinian and worked on his great chronicles for decades. Then things changed...
The Secret History is his story of how things really were in the dark heart of the Byzantine Empire, meant to be published only after his death. The emperor Justinian was a power-hungry bastard who 鈥漵poiled the beauty of the cities and plundered the poor鈥�. His wife Theodora was a lying whore whose depravities knew no bounds. The great general Belisarius was a worthless idiot who was duped by everyone. And they were all 鈥漟iends in human form鈥� and, of course, created by the devil.
This book is filled to the brim with tales of the evil deeds of Justinian and his vile courtiers. You get to learn how the emperor was personally responsible for the deaths of one trillion people (Procopius provides a fully coherent argument where he arrives at this number), and much, much, more鈥�
All in all, this might be the most entertaining medieval book ever.
Once the official court historian of the emperor and an important member of the Byzantine Imperial court, Procopius wrote the History of the Wars of Justinian and worked on his great chronicles for decades. Then things changed...
The Secret History is his story of how things really were in the dark heart of the Byzantine Empire, meant to be published only after his death. The emperor Justinian was a power-hungry bastard who 鈥漵poiled the beauty of the cities and plundered the poor鈥�. His wife Theodora was a lying whore whose depravities knew no bounds. The great general Belisarius was a worthless idiot who was duped by everyone. And they were all 鈥漟iends in human form鈥� and, of course, created by the devil.
This book is filled to the brim with tales of the evil deeds of Justinian and his vile courtiers. You get to learn how the emperor was personally responsible for the deaths of one trillion people (Procopius provides a fully coherent argument where he arrives at this number), and much, much, more鈥�
All in all, this might be the most entertaining medieval book ever.
February 19, 2021
Warning: this review is short. Because, YES, I can do short and almost-to-the-point when I really want to. It's just that I don't really want to very often.
You gotta give it to the Byzantines, these guys and gals really knew how to live: debauchery, greed, cruelty, a total lack of morals, corruption, duplicity, wickedness, mass slaughter, mean-spiritedness, spite, shrewdness...They really had the seven deadly sins more than covered. If you believe Procopius, that is. Considering he used to be Justinian's official court historian, and wrote The Secret History after he got the sack, you might not want to take everything he says here for granted. I mean, there is a slight possibility that his only reason for writing this book was good old retaliation.
Despite this probably being nothing more than a bunch of delicious lies meant to demolish Justinian (the most useless, vile, impulsive, treacherous, homicidal, corrupted emperor ever), his lovely wife Theodora (basically a crazy, bloodthirsty, capricious whore/slut/bitch), his first councilor Belisarius (the lamest, most pathetic, cuckolded Roman general ever), and Belisarius' wife Antonina (a sex-crazed, utterly depraved, calculating whore/slut/bitch), it is still lots of fun to read. And had Procopius not asked for this delightful piece of slightly biased literature to be published only after his death , I'm pretty sure Justinian would have gone all libel suit on his lovely derri猫re. I mean, this kind of ruins his image of saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If some of you silly people are petrified and terrified at the thought of reading books like this one because it is History written by an Ancient Dude (insert sudden bouts of uncontrollable shuddering here), don't be. Petrified and terrified, I mean. This malicious bit of defamatory fun reads as easily as your average tabloid. So much so that even my 13-year-old niece could read it. Well, being my niece she is obviously superiorly intelligent and probably cleverer than most of you, but you know what I mean. Even total nitwits with half a grey cell should be able to understand what this book is about, so there's a good chance you will, too, my Little Barnacles!
鉃� And the moral of this non-review is: Ancient Historian Dudes cannot be trusted.
鉃� And the other moral of this non-review is: Justinian can't have been THAT bad. I mean, the guy even got a named after him, which obviously means he was super cool and extra awesome and stuff.
鉃� And the other, other moral of this non-review is: Procopius, you rock.
You gotta give it to the Byzantines, these guys and gals really knew how to live: debauchery, greed, cruelty, a total lack of morals, corruption, duplicity, wickedness, mass slaughter, mean-spiritedness, spite, shrewdness...They really had the seven deadly sins more than covered. If you believe Procopius, that is. Considering he used to be Justinian's official court historian, and wrote The Secret History after he got the sack, you might not want to take everything he says here for granted. I mean, there is a slight possibility that his only reason for writing this book was good old retaliation.
Despite this probably being nothing more than a bunch of delicious lies meant to demolish Justinian (the most useless, vile, impulsive, treacherous, homicidal, corrupted emperor ever), his lovely wife Theodora (basically a crazy, bloodthirsty, capricious whore/slut/bitch), his first councilor Belisarius (the lamest, most pathetic, cuckolded Roman general ever), and Belisarius' wife Antonina (a sex-crazed, utterly depraved, calculating whore/slut/bitch), it is still lots of fun to read. And had Procopius not asked for this delightful piece of slightly biased literature to be published only after his death , I'm pretty sure Justinian would have gone all libel suit on his lovely derri猫re. I mean, this kind of ruins his image of saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
If some of you silly people are petrified and terrified at the thought of reading books like this one because it is History written by an Ancient Dude (insert sudden bouts of uncontrollable shuddering here), don't be. Petrified and terrified, I mean. This malicious bit of defamatory fun reads as easily as your average tabloid. So much so that even my 13-year-old niece could read it. Well, being my niece she is obviously superiorly intelligent and probably cleverer than most of you, but you know what I mean. Even total nitwits with half a grey cell should be able to understand what this book is about, so there's a good chance you will, too, my Little Barnacles!
鉃� And the moral of this non-review is: Ancient Historian Dudes cannot be trusted.
鉃� And the other moral of this non-review is: Justinian can't have been THAT bad. I mean, the guy even got a named after him, which obviously means he was super cool and extra awesome and stuff.
鉃� And the other, other moral of this non-review is: Procopius, you rock.
March 3, 2025
The secrets of a state often remain secret 鈥� locked away in a dusty file somewhere, until the file itself crumbles into dust. But Procopius of Caesarea evidently had no intention of allowing what he considered the key state secrets of the Eastern Roman Empire to vanish thus. While writing official histories that glorified the achievements of the Byzantine Empire and its 6th-century emperor Justinian, Procopius was privately working on an unofficial history, a sort of minority report; and the 峒埾€蠈魏蟻蠀蠁畏 峒瓜兿勎肯佄�, under its customary modern title of The Secret History, is one of the most challenging and ambiguous works of its time.
Procopius, whose classical education seems to have prepared him for a career in the law, became an advisor to Justinian鈥檚 top general, Belisarius, and accompanied Belisarius on a wide-ranging set of military campaigns through which Justinian hoped to recover the lands that had been lost to Rome when the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D.
As a sort of aide-de-camp to Belisarius, Procopius became highly placed in the Byzantine court at Constantinople; and eventually, he was trusted with the tasks of writing the eight-volume History of the Wars of Byzantium, as well as a book called The Buildings that praised Justinian鈥檚 public-works projects like the Hagia Sophia cathedral, then the largest church in Christendom. Procopius鈥� fulsome praise of Justinian and his works in these two books is counterpointed by his bitter, scabrous criticism of Justinian, and of Justinian鈥檚 entire inner circle, in The Secret History.
But why the disconnect? Why is the emperor Justinian praised in such elaborate terms in Procopius鈥� other works, and denounced in such a harshly personal manner in The Secret History? Before we try to answer that question, we may want to address the image of Justinian that prevails in Western history 鈥� largely a positive one.
Justinian, who reigned as emperor from 527-565 A.D., is sometimes called 鈥淭he Last Roman鈥� -- and not just because he was the last Roman emperor, of East or West, to speak Latin (his Byzantine successors all spoke Greek). With Justinian, I still feel that I鈥檓 in an historical moment where the classical sensibility, at some level, lives on; it鈥檚 still the Eastern Roman Empire, and calling the people of the empire 鈥淩omans鈥� doesn鈥檛 seem affected. After Justinian, by contrast, things seem thoroughly Byzantine 鈥� and completely, dishearteningly medieval.
Justinian certainly had the Caesarian taste for military conquest. Not one bit daunted by the fact that the Western empire had fallen 50 years before his accession to the throne, Justinian set himself the task of reconquering as much of the lost empire as he could 鈥� and was successful in recovering all of Italy, a long stretch of the North African coast from Libya to Morocco, and a decent-sized part of southern Spain.
Justinian was also an important legal reformer. Any practicing attorney, or student of the law, knows that Justinian鈥檚 Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), a radical rewriting of Roman law set down between 529 and 534 A.D., established an important precedent for how civil law would be organized in nations around the world, including modern democracies like Great Britain and the United States of America.
And any visitor to contemporary Istanbul will see the public-works projects with which Justinian transformed Constantinople 鈥� the Hagia Sophia cathedral, as mentioned above, but also the Basilica Cistern that shows Justinian鈥檚 determination to provide his people with a safe, stable supply of clean fresh water.
The impression that I had of Justinian, before reading this book, was of an active, energetic, effective, and successful monarch 鈥� much like his image in the mosaic that one can see on one鈥檚 way out of Hagia Sophia. The Virgin Mary and the Christ Child are at the center of the mosaic: on one side, the emperor Constantine offers them the city of Constantinople; on the other, the emperor Justinian offers them the cathedral of Hagia Sophia. The image of Justinian that emerges from The Secret History, by contrast, is utterly different.
How unfavourable is Procopius鈥� portrayal of Justinian in The Secret History? Well, for starters, the author claims that he can鈥檛 even be sure that Justinian is fully human: 鈥淚t is said that Justinian鈥檚 own mother told some of her close friends that he was not the son of her husband Sabbatius, or of any man at all. For when she was about to conceive him, she was visited by a demon, who was invisible but who gave her the distinct impression that he was really there with her鈥� (pp. 51-52).
The story that Procopius tells here is a kind of demonic inversion of the legends that sprang up about Alexander the Great, who was said to be truly a son of Zeus rather than of Philip of Macedon. And Procopius鈥� Justinian behaves exactly as would be expected of an Omen-style demon-son. 鈥淚n a word,鈥� Procopius writes, Justinian was 鈥渁 great destroyer of well-established institutions鈥�, and the author adds further that 鈥渋t gave [Justinian] no satisfaction merely to ruin the Roman Empire: he insisted on making himself the master of Libya and Italy for the sole purpose of destroying their inhabitants along with those already subject to him鈥� (pp. 26-27).
It is as far as one can get from the traditional picture of Justinian as an emperor who is busy conquering new territory for his people, and rewriting the legal code, and building cathedrals and cisterns. 鈥淲hile he ruled the Romans,鈥� Procopius insists, 鈥渘either faith nor doctrine about God continued stable, no law had any permanence, no business dealing could be trusted, no contract meant anything鈥� (p. 56).
Procopius leaves no travertine limestone unturned in his determination to depict Justinian as a corrupt and immoral ruler. A characteristic Procopian example of Justinian鈥檚 supposed corruption relates to Constantinople鈥檚 strategic position between the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the two straits that connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. Procopius tells us that
Directly as Justinian took over the Empire he established official customs houses on both straits and regularly sent out two salaried officers. He arranged for the salaries to be paid to them, it is true, but he impressed on them that they must use every endeavour to see that he received as much money as possible from their operations. The officers, having no ambition than to convince him of the strength of their loyalty to him, forced the seamen to hand over the entire cash value of their cargoes. That was the course he followed at both straits. (pp. 101-02)
And this, Procopius tells us, is no isolated incident; rather, it is characteristic of Justinian鈥檚 rulership of the empire. After commenting extensively on Justinian鈥檚 cruelty and injustice, Procopius provides the following devastating overall assessment of Justinian鈥檚 reign:
Such were the disasters which in the time of this demon in human form befell the entire human race 鈥� disasters for which Justinian, as the reigning Emperor, provided the causes鈥�.For while this man administered Roman affairs, there was a continuous series of catastrophes, which as some maintained were due to the presence here of this wicked demon and to his machinations, though others argued that the Divinity, hating all that Justinian did and turning away from the Roman Empire, granted the avenging demons licence to effect such things in this manner. (p. 76)
And Justinian is hardly alone among those who suffer the jabs of Procopius鈥� poison pen. His wife, the empress Theodora, is in Procopius鈥� formulation a former sex worker and sexually insatiable wanton, constantly cheating on her imperial husband and forever seeking to gratify her increasingly kinky tastes (I won鈥檛 go into details, but Procopius does). Belisarius, the general who conquered all that territory for Justinian, emerges here as a weak-minded fool, easily manipulated by his money-hungry, power-starved, sex-crazed, and forever revenge-minded wife Antonina.
You get the idea. It can be heavy going, at times.
Procopius concludes The Secret History by looking ahead toward the death of Justinian, writing that 鈥渨henever Justinian, if he is a man, departs from this life, or, as the Chief of the Demons, sets this mortal life aside, then all those who have the fortune still to be alive will know the truth鈥︹€� (p. 123) Clearly, Procopius wanted to keep The Secret History secret until after he died, or after Justinian died; and it stayed hidden much longer than that 鈥� until the early 1620鈥檚, in fact, when a researcher found it in the archives of the Vatican Library.
So, why did Procopius write this strange and troubling little book? I have seen a couple of different possible explanations. One school of thought is that Procopius, loyal at first to the Emperor, became disillusioned over time and turned against Justinian, resulting in the broadside and jeremiad that is The Secret History. A second is that Procopius, knowing which side his imperial bread was buttered on, set down the official history for public consumption, and saved The Secret History as his private expression of what he really thought 鈥� to be published after his death as a sort of raised middle finger against Justinian and Theodora, once he was safely beyond their vengeful reach.
Yet if either of those possible explanations is true, then why 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 Procopius arrange for the publication of The Secret History? How is it that the document disappeared for 1100 years, existing only as a rumour in the writings of others?
There are two other possible explanations, both of which I find more intriguing than the two mentioned above. One is that Procopius, seeing how uncertain the reign of even the mightiest emperor could be, may have written The Secret History as a sort of insurance policy, in case the day might come when Justinian and Theodora might be overthrown and deposed. In such an eventuality, Procopius, even though he had been Justinian鈥檚 court historian, could present The Secret History to the new rulers of Byzantium and say, 鈥淪ee? This is how I really felt about them!鈥�
And the last possibility is even more intriguing. Translator Peter Sarris of Cambridge University, in a helpful introduction, points out that Procopius鈥� classical education would have exposed him to many prominent literary genres of classical times, including the psogos or invective. To anyone who might point out (correctly) that The Secret History does not seem fair or objective, Procopius might reply that the psogos was not supposed to be fair or objective; rather, the author was expected to demonstrate a sort of fierce ingenuity in launching unrelenting attacks on the man or woman unfortunate enough to be chosen as the subject for such an invective. Think Alexander Pope鈥檚 Dunciad (1728), only more so.
Did Procopius write The Secret History as a sort of private rhetorical challenge for himself? Having dutifully set forth Justinian鈥檚 military and architectural achievements in his other writings, did he want, for his own amusement, to "flip the script," with as much emphasis in denouncing Justinian as he had once utilized in praising him? Was it nothing more than a naughty little literary exercise, to be kept carefully under lock and key? It is an intriguing question 鈥� and is one of many troubling questions that are likely to flash across the modern reader鈥檚 mind as he or she reads The Secret History.
Procopius, whose classical education seems to have prepared him for a career in the law, became an advisor to Justinian鈥檚 top general, Belisarius, and accompanied Belisarius on a wide-ranging set of military campaigns through which Justinian hoped to recover the lands that had been lost to Rome when the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D.
As a sort of aide-de-camp to Belisarius, Procopius became highly placed in the Byzantine court at Constantinople; and eventually, he was trusted with the tasks of writing the eight-volume History of the Wars of Byzantium, as well as a book called The Buildings that praised Justinian鈥檚 public-works projects like the Hagia Sophia cathedral, then the largest church in Christendom. Procopius鈥� fulsome praise of Justinian and his works in these two books is counterpointed by his bitter, scabrous criticism of Justinian, and of Justinian鈥檚 entire inner circle, in The Secret History.
But why the disconnect? Why is the emperor Justinian praised in such elaborate terms in Procopius鈥� other works, and denounced in such a harshly personal manner in The Secret History? Before we try to answer that question, we may want to address the image of Justinian that prevails in Western history 鈥� largely a positive one.
Justinian, who reigned as emperor from 527-565 A.D., is sometimes called 鈥淭he Last Roman鈥� -- and not just because he was the last Roman emperor, of East or West, to speak Latin (his Byzantine successors all spoke Greek). With Justinian, I still feel that I鈥檓 in an historical moment where the classical sensibility, at some level, lives on; it鈥檚 still the Eastern Roman Empire, and calling the people of the empire 鈥淩omans鈥� doesn鈥檛 seem affected. After Justinian, by contrast, things seem thoroughly Byzantine 鈥� and completely, dishearteningly medieval.
Justinian certainly had the Caesarian taste for military conquest. Not one bit daunted by the fact that the Western empire had fallen 50 years before his accession to the throne, Justinian set himself the task of reconquering as much of the lost empire as he could 鈥� and was successful in recovering all of Italy, a long stretch of the North African coast from Libya to Morocco, and a decent-sized part of southern Spain.
Justinian was also an important legal reformer. Any practicing attorney, or student of the law, knows that Justinian鈥檚 Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), a radical rewriting of Roman law set down between 529 and 534 A.D., established an important precedent for how civil law would be organized in nations around the world, including modern democracies like Great Britain and the United States of America.
And any visitor to contemporary Istanbul will see the public-works projects with which Justinian transformed Constantinople 鈥� the Hagia Sophia cathedral, as mentioned above, but also the Basilica Cistern that shows Justinian鈥檚 determination to provide his people with a safe, stable supply of clean fresh water.
The impression that I had of Justinian, before reading this book, was of an active, energetic, effective, and successful monarch 鈥� much like his image in the mosaic that one can see on one鈥檚 way out of Hagia Sophia. The Virgin Mary and the Christ Child are at the center of the mosaic: on one side, the emperor Constantine offers them the city of Constantinople; on the other, the emperor Justinian offers them the cathedral of Hagia Sophia. The image of Justinian that emerges from The Secret History, by contrast, is utterly different.
How unfavourable is Procopius鈥� portrayal of Justinian in The Secret History? Well, for starters, the author claims that he can鈥檛 even be sure that Justinian is fully human: 鈥淚t is said that Justinian鈥檚 own mother told some of her close friends that he was not the son of her husband Sabbatius, or of any man at all. For when she was about to conceive him, she was visited by a demon, who was invisible but who gave her the distinct impression that he was really there with her鈥� (pp. 51-52).
The story that Procopius tells here is a kind of demonic inversion of the legends that sprang up about Alexander the Great, who was said to be truly a son of Zeus rather than of Philip of Macedon. And Procopius鈥� Justinian behaves exactly as would be expected of an Omen-style demon-son. 鈥淚n a word,鈥� Procopius writes, Justinian was 鈥渁 great destroyer of well-established institutions鈥�, and the author adds further that 鈥渋t gave [Justinian] no satisfaction merely to ruin the Roman Empire: he insisted on making himself the master of Libya and Italy for the sole purpose of destroying their inhabitants along with those already subject to him鈥� (pp. 26-27).
It is as far as one can get from the traditional picture of Justinian as an emperor who is busy conquering new territory for his people, and rewriting the legal code, and building cathedrals and cisterns. 鈥淲hile he ruled the Romans,鈥� Procopius insists, 鈥渘either faith nor doctrine about God continued stable, no law had any permanence, no business dealing could be trusted, no contract meant anything鈥� (p. 56).
Procopius leaves no travertine limestone unturned in his determination to depict Justinian as a corrupt and immoral ruler. A characteristic Procopian example of Justinian鈥檚 supposed corruption relates to Constantinople鈥檚 strategic position between the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the two straits that connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. Procopius tells us that
Directly as Justinian took over the Empire he established official customs houses on both straits and regularly sent out two salaried officers. He arranged for the salaries to be paid to them, it is true, but he impressed on them that they must use every endeavour to see that he received as much money as possible from their operations. The officers, having no ambition than to convince him of the strength of their loyalty to him, forced the seamen to hand over the entire cash value of their cargoes. That was the course he followed at both straits. (pp. 101-02)
And this, Procopius tells us, is no isolated incident; rather, it is characteristic of Justinian鈥檚 rulership of the empire. After commenting extensively on Justinian鈥檚 cruelty and injustice, Procopius provides the following devastating overall assessment of Justinian鈥檚 reign:
Such were the disasters which in the time of this demon in human form befell the entire human race 鈥� disasters for which Justinian, as the reigning Emperor, provided the causes鈥�.For while this man administered Roman affairs, there was a continuous series of catastrophes, which as some maintained were due to the presence here of this wicked demon and to his machinations, though others argued that the Divinity, hating all that Justinian did and turning away from the Roman Empire, granted the avenging demons licence to effect such things in this manner. (p. 76)
And Justinian is hardly alone among those who suffer the jabs of Procopius鈥� poison pen. His wife, the empress Theodora, is in Procopius鈥� formulation a former sex worker and sexually insatiable wanton, constantly cheating on her imperial husband and forever seeking to gratify her increasingly kinky tastes (I won鈥檛 go into details, but Procopius does). Belisarius, the general who conquered all that territory for Justinian, emerges here as a weak-minded fool, easily manipulated by his money-hungry, power-starved, sex-crazed, and forever revenge-minded wife Antonina.
You get the idea. It can be heavy going, at times.
Procopius concludes The Secret History by looking ahead toward the death of Justinian, writing that 鈥渨henever Justinian, if he is a man, departs from this life, or, as the Chief of the Demons, sets this mortal life aside, then all those who have the fortune still to be alive will know the truth鈥︹€� (p. 123) Clearly, Procopius wanted to keep The Secret History secret until after he died, or after Justinian died; and it stayed hidden much longer than that 鈥� until the early 1620鈥檚, in fact, when a researcher found it in the archives of the Vatican Library.
So, why did Procopius write this strange and troubling little book? I have seen a couple of different possible explanations. One school of thought is that Procopius, loyal at first to the Emperor, became disillusioned over time and turned against Justinian, resulting in the broadside and jeremiad that is The Secret History. A second is that Procopius, knowing which side his imperial bread was buttered on, set down the official history for public consumption, and saved The Secret History as his private expression of what he really thought 鈥� to be published after his death as a sort of raised middle finger against Justinian and Theodora, once he was safely beyond their vengeful reach.
Yet if either of those possible explanations is true, then why 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 Procopius arrange for the publication of The Secret History? How is it that the document disappeared for 1100 years, existing only as a rumour in the writings of others?
There are two other possible explanations, both of which I find more intriguing than the two mentioned above. One is that Procopius, seeing how uncertain the reign of even the mightiest emperor could be, may have written The Secret History as a sort of insurance policy, in case the day might come when Justinian and Theodora might be overthrown and deposed. In such an eventuality, Procopius, even though he had been Justinian鈥檚 court historian, could present The Secret History to the new rulers of Byzantium and say, 鈥淪ee? This is how I really felt about them!鈥�
And the last possibility is even more intriguing. Translator Peter Sarris of Cambridge University, in a helpful introduction, points out that Procopius鈥� classical education would have exposed him to many prominent literary genres of classical times, including the psogos or invective. To anyone who might point out (correctly) that The Secret History does not seem fair or objective, Procopius might reply that the psogos was not supposed to be fair or objective; rather, the author was expected to demonstrate a sort of fierce ingenuity in launching unrelenting attacks on the man or woman unfortunate enough to be chosen as the subject for such an invective. Think Alexander Pope鈥檚 Dunciad (1728), only more so.
Did Procopius write The Secret History as a sort of private rhetorical challenge for himself? Having dutifully set forth Justinian鈥檚 military and architectural achievements in his other writings, did he want, for his own amusement, to "flip the script," with as much emphasis in denouncing Justinian as he had once utilized in praising him? Was it nothing more than a naughty little literary exercise, to be kept carefully under lock and key? It is an intriguing question 鈥� and is one of many troubling questions that are likely to flash across the modern reader鈥檚 mind as he or she reads The Secret History.
December 26, 2020
I read it for a second time because I had absolutely no memory of it. I do, however, vividly remember Robert Graves鈥檚 , which used this text as a source. The avarice and rapacity of Emperor Justinian and his Empress Theodora, a former prostitute, are truly, I think, what Trump would be doing now if he could. Murdering on impulse, forging wills of the deceased that assigns themselves as heirs, paying tribute to the so-called barbarians.
鈥淭hey were a pair of bloodthirsty demons and what poets call 鈥榩laguers of mortal men.鈥� For they plotted together to find the easiest and swiftest means of destroying all races of men and all their works, assumed human shape, became man-demons, and in this way convulsed the whole world.鈥� (p. 58)
That鈥檚 right, it鈥檚 Procopius鈥檚 contention that Justinian was not a man but a demon. He based this assessment on two witnesses who independently saw Justinian鈥檚 head briefly vanish, so that his body continued to walk on headless for a time, before the head returned to its shoulders. Moreover, Justinian, like any demon, needed little to no sleep. Wild stuff, probably calumny, but outrageous and fun to read.
鈥淭hey were a pair of bloodthirsty demons and what poets call 鈥榩laguers of mortal men.鈥� For they plotted together to find the easiest and swiftest means of destroying all races of men and all their works, assumed human shape, became man-demons, and in this way convulsed the whole world.鈥� (p. 58)
That鈥檚 right, it鈥檚 Procopius鈥檚 contention that Justinian was not a man but a demon. He based this assessment on two witnesses who independently saw Justinian鈥檚 head briefly vanish, so that his body continued to walk on headless for a time, before the head returned to its shoulders. Moreover, Justinian, like any demon, needed little to no sleep. Wild stuff, probably calumny, but outrageous and fun to read.
March 11, 2013
I found this book after reading Bird Brian鈥檚
terrific review. First, though, I read , a work of historical fiction by Robert Graves (author of ) written about the same people - the Byzantine/Roman Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora, and leading general Belisarius and his wife, Antonina. In Graves鈥檚 novel, Belisarius emerges as a sympathetic character. In Procopius鈥檚 contemporary history - not so much.
Procopius lived during the first half of the 6th century. He was secretary to Belisarius and is known for writing several sober histories of the period. In The Secret History, though, he lets it all out, attacking his subjects with a lurid fervor unmatched by any modern day tabloid. The narrator in Count Belisarius described the origins of The Secret History, saying, 鈥淭hen Procopius in the bitterness of his heart wrote a book of libels not only upon Belisarius and my mistress Antonina but upon the Emperor himself and dead Theodora. Sometimes he told the truth, sometimes he distorted the facts, sometimes he lied - according to his vindictive purposes.鈥�
That鈥檚 putting it mildly. In his section on 鈥淭he Tyranny of Women,鈥� Procopius makes sure that we are left with no doubt that Theodora and Antonina were wanton sluts who manipulated their husbands shamelessly and had no regard for the collateral damage wreaked on the Roman empire. The conservative Procopius was no fan of powerful women in general, and the Empress Theodora, demanding displays of servile obeisance from patricians as she pulled Justinian鈥檚 strings, made him apoplectic. But in her younger days, according to Procopius, the future Empress could sleep with more than 30 men at a single dinner party, and she had a trick involving nudity, barley grains, and geese that it鈥檚 best not to get into on a family website.
Procopius doesn鈥檛 spare Emperor Justinian or Belisarius, though. He tells us Justinian is worse than the bubonic plague (with the plague, 鈥渏ust as many people escaped as had the misfortune to succumb - either because they escaped the infection altogether, or because they got over it if they happened to be infected. But this man not a single person in the Roman Empire could escape.鈥�)
Justinian may also, in fact, have been a demon. Justinian鈥檚 mother said she conceived him not with a man but with a demon (I wonder what Byzantine had to say about that). Later on, a witness noticed the Emperor鈥檚 head disappearing from his body while he paced the floor, and then returning spontaneously to its usual location, a sure sign that something was up.
Procopius tell us that the greedy Justinian was the worst Emperor the Roman empire has seen, which is saying a lot: 鈥淪o that if one chose to add up all the calamities which have befallen the Romans from the beginning and to weight them against those for which Justinian was responsible, I feel sure that he would find that a greater slaughter of human beings was brought about by this one man than took place in all the preceding centuries.鈥� He also blames him for floods, earthquakes, and the plague, since he feels anyone that awful surely must have provoked divine retribution.
As history books go, this one may not be the most reliable, but it has to be the most entertaining. It makes seem like a tame and sedate analysis. I鈥檓 not sure what exactly Justinian and Theodora did to Procopius to make him so mad, but he certainly has his revenge here. He tells us he writes for the 鈥渆nlightenment of future generations,鈥� and it turns out he gets the bonus of giving tabloid journalists something to aspire to.
Empress Theodora, as depicted by Procopius
terrific review. First, though, I read , a work of historical fiction by Robert Graves (author of ) written about the same people - the Byzantine/Roman Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora, and leading general Belisarius and his wife, Antonina. In Graves鈥檚 novel, Belisarius emerges as a sympathetic character. In Procopius鈥檚 contemporary history - not so much.
Procopius lived during the first half of the 6th century. He was secretary to Belisarius and is known for writing several sober histories of the period. In The Secret History, though, he lets it all out, attacking his subjects with a lurid fervor unmatched by any modern day tabloid. The narrator in Count Belisarius described the origins of The Secret History, saying, 鈥淭hen Procopius in the bitterness of his heart wrote a book of libels not only upon Belisarius and my mistress Antonina but upon the Emperor himself and dead Theodora. Sometimes he told the truth, sometimes he distorted the facts, sometimes he lied - according to his vindictive purposes.鈥�
That鈥檚 putting it mildly. In his section on 鈥淭he Tyranny of Women,鈥� Procopius makes sure that we are left with no doubt that Theodora and Antonina were wanton sluts who manipulated their husbands shamelessly and had no regard for the collateral damage wreaked on the Roman empire. The conservative Procopius was no fan of powerful women in general, and the Empress Theodora, demanding displays of servile obeisance from patricians as she pulled Justinian鈥檚 strings, made him apoplectic. But in her younger days, according to Procopius, the future Empress could sleep with more than 30 men at a single dinner party, and she had a trick involving nudity, barley grains, and geese that it鈥檚 best not to get into on a family website.
Procopius doesn鈥檛 spare Emperor Justinian or Belisarius, though. He tells us Justinian is worse than the bubonic plague (with the plague, 鈥渏ust as many people escaped as had the misfortune to succumb - either because they escaped the infection altogether, or because they got over it if they happened to be infected. But this man not a single person in the Roman Empire could escape.鈥�)
Justinian may also, in fact, have been a demon. Justinian鈥檚 mother said she conceived him not with a man but with a demon (I wonder what Byzantine had to say about that). Later on, a witness noticed the Emperor鈥檚 head disappearing from his body while he paced the floor, and then returning spontaneously to its usual location, a sure sign that something was up.
Procopius tell us that the greedy Justinian was the worst Emperor the Roman empire has seen, which is saying a lot: 鈥淪o that if one chose to add up all the calamities which have befallen the Romans from the beginning and to weight them against those for which Justinian was responsible, I feel sure that he would find that a greater slaughter of human beings was brought about by this one man than took place in all the preceding centuries.鈥� He also blames him for floods, earthquakes, and the plague, since he feels anyone that awful surely must have provoked divine retribution.
As history books go, this one may not be the most reliable, but it has to be the most entertaining. It makes seem like a tame and sedate analysis. I鈥檓 not sure what exactly Justinian and Theodora did to Procopius to make him so mad, but he certainly has his revenge here. He tells us he writes for the 鈥渆nlightenment of future generations,鈥� and it turns out he gets the bonus of giving tabloid journalists something to aspire to.
Empress Theodora, as depicted by Procopius
December 4, 2016
罢丑茅辞诲辞谤补
L鈥檋omme de main du fameux B茅lisaire est, outre d'une histoire des guerres Byzantines, l鈥檃uteur de cet ouvrage qui contient de mordantes invectives contre l鈥檈mpereur Justinien(483-565) et surtout contre l鈥檌mp茅ratrice 罢丑茅辞诲辞谤补 (morte en 548). Leurs r茅formes furent en effet tr猫s mal re莽ues par la classe de poss茅dant, et cette dent dure de Procope de C茅sar茅e (premi猫re moiti茅 du VIeme si猫cle) est l鈥檈xpression de l鈥檈xasp茅ration que suscit猫rent les imp么ts et expropriations rendues n茅cessaires par les nombreuses campagnes qui devaient rendre 脿 l鈥檈mpire sa grandeur.
Rien n鈥檈st 茅pargn茅 脿 Justinien, compar茅 脿 un ant茅christ, affubl茅 de toutes les tares et de tous les vices, inculte notoire, v茅ritable g茅nie du mal, ne m茅nageant pas sa peine pour inventer de nouveaux tourments, r茅compensant ceux qui se distinguaient dans le crime. Son 茅pouse ne lui est pas inf茅rieure en turpitudes, et l鈥檃uteur se complait dans la description de ses luxures les plus scandaleuses et les plus extravagantes. Bien s没r, une telle outrance dans la virulence fait na卯tre des soup莽ons et requiert une certaine circonspection. Le commentaire 茅rudit et p茅n茅trant d鈥橢rnest Renan qui accompagne l鈥檕uvrage est particuli猫rement instructif.
January 21, 2016
This author is the definition of this meme, I am very pleased.
November 4, 2020
袙袧袠袦袗袧袠袝!!!
效械褌械褌械 褋 褎懈薪芯 薪邪褋褌褉芯械薪芯 泻褉懈褌懈褔薪芯 屑懈褋谢械薪械 懈 褋 泻芯褎邪 锌芯写 褉褗泻邪 胁 褋谢褍褔邪泄, 褔械 褉械褕懈褌械 写邪 锌芯胁褗褉薪械褌械.
袨褖械 芯褌 褍褔械薪懈褔械褋泻懈褌械 屑懈 谐芯写懈薪懈 褋锌芯屑械薪邪胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 "孝邪泄薪邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟" 屑械 懈蟹锌褗谢胁邪褕械 褋 褍褋械褖邪薪械褌芯, 褔械 褋褗屑 写芯泻芯褋薪邪谢邪 薪械褖芯 褋谢褍蟹械褋褌芯 懈 谐薪褍褋薪芯. 袠 泻芯谐邪褌芯 褋褌懈谐薪邪褏 写芯 泻褉邪褟 泄 (褋谢械写 褌褉懈 薪械褍褋锌械褕薪懈 芯锌懈褌邪 写邪 褟 蟹邪胁褗褉褕邪), 褉邪蟹斜褉邪褏, 褔械 褋褗屑 斜懈谢邪 锌褉邪胁邪 写邪 褋械 芯褌胁褉邪褖邪胁邪屑. 袟邪褖芯褌芯 "孝邪泄薪邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟" 薪械 械 泻褉懈褌懈泻邪, 邪泻芯 懈 写邪 懈屑邪 褏芯褉邪, 泻芯懈褌芯 褌胁褗褉写褟褌 褌芯胁邪. 袝写薪邪 锌褉械锌芯写邪胁邪褌械谢泻邪 褟 薪邪褉械褔械 "卸褗谢褌邪褌邪 卸褉芯薪懈泻邪 薪邪 小褉械写薪芯胁械泻芯胁懈械褌芯", 泻芯械褌芯 薪邪屑懈褉邪屑 蟹邪 写芯褋褌邪 锌芯-褌芯褔薪芯. 孝芯胁邪 械 褌褉褍写, 褋褗蟹写邪写械薪 褔褉械蟹 褋褗蟹薪邪褌械谢薪芯 懈蟹泻褉懈胁褟胁邪薪械 薪邪 褉械邪谢薪懈褌械 褎邪泻褌懈, 褋褌懈谐邪褖芯 写芯 谐褉芯褌械褋泻薪懈 懈 褍卸邪褋褟胁邪褖懈 芯斜褉邪蟹懈, 胁 泻芯懈褌芯 胁褋械泻懈 褋褗褋 蟹写褉邪胁 褉邪蟹褍屑 斜懈 褋械 褍褋褗屑薪懈谢.
袧械 卸懈胁械褟 褋 懈写械褟褌邪, 褔械 挟褋褌懈薪懈邪薪 械 褋褗胁褗褉褕械薪. 孝芯泄 械 斜懈谢 褋胁褉褗褏邪屑斜懈褑懈芯蟹械薪, 褋邪屑芯屑薪懈褌械谢械薪, 锌褉械泻邪谢械薪芯 褉械胁薪芯褋褌械薪 褏褉懈褋褌懈褟薪懈薪 蟹邪 写芯斜褉芯褌芯 薪邪 锌芯写邪薪懈褑懈褌械 屑褍. 袧芯 褋褗褋 褋懈谐褍褉薪芯褋褌 薪械 械 "蟹械屑薪芯褌芯 锌褉械胁褗锌谢褗褖械薪懈械 薪邪 褑邪褉褟 薪邪 写械屑芯薪懈褌械" 懈 薪械 械 胁褗褉褕械谢 蟹谢懈薪懈 褋邪屑芯 蟹邪褖芯褌芯 屑褍 械 褏邪褉械褋胁邪谢芯 写邪 谐谢械写邪 泻邪泻 褏芯褉邪褌邪 褋褌褉邪写邪褌. 袗 泻邪泻胁芯褌芯 懈 写邪 械 胁褗褉褕懈谢邪 孝械芯写芯褉邪 薪邪 屑谢邪写懈薪懈, 薪械 械 褋褌懈谐薪邪谢邪 写芯 懈屑锌械褉邪褌芯褉褋泻懈褟 锌褍褉锌褍褉 斜械蟹 写邪 械 锌褉懈褌械卸邪胁邪谢邪 芯褋褌褗褉 褍屑 懈 褋懈谢械薪 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉.
袦芯褌懈胁懈褌械 薪邪 袩褉芯泻芯锌懈泄 蟹邪 薪邪锌懈褋胁邪薪械褌芯 泄 褋邪 褋锌芯褉薪懈. 袣邪褌芯 邪褉懈褋褌芯泻褉邪褌 褌芯泄 薪邪胁褟褉薪芯 械 斜懈谢 薪械写芯胁芯谢械薪 芯褌 懈屑锌械褉邪褌芯褉, 懈蟹写懈谐薪邪谢 褋械 芯褌 薪懈蟹懈薪懈褌械; 邪 褋谢褍卸斜邪褌邪 屑褍 胁 写胁芯褉邪 械写胁邪 谢懈 屑褍 械 锌芯蟹胁芯谢褟胁邪谢邪 懈谢褞蟹懈懈 锌芯 芯褌薪芯褕械薪懈械 薪邪 懈屑锌械褉邪褌芯褉褋泻邪褌邪 写胁芯泄泻邪. 袦芯卸械 锌褗泻 啸械薪懈薪谐 袘褜芯褉屑 写邪 褋械 芯泻邪卸械 锌褉邪胁 懈 "孝邪泄薪邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟" 写邪 褋械 芯泻邪卸械 蟹邪褋褌褉邪褏芯胁泻邪褌邪 屑褍 胁 褋谢褍褔邪泄 薪邪 写胁芯褉褑芯胁 锌褉械胁褉邪褌. 袗泻芯 谢懈 薪械, 褌芯 褌芯泄 械 斜懈谢 锌褉芯褋褌芯 锌褉芯褎械褋懈芯薪邪谢械薪 谢懈褑械屑械褉.
效械褌械褌械 褋 褎懈薪芯 薪邪褋褌褉芯械薪芯 泻褉懈褌懈褔薪芯 屑懈褋谢械薪械 懈 褋 泻芯褎邪 锌芯写 褉褗泻邪 胁 褋谢褍褔邪泄, 褔械 褉械褕懈褌械 写邪 锌芯胁褗褉薪械褌械.
袨褖械 芯褌 褍褔械薪懈褔械褋泻懈褌械 屑懈 谐芯写懈薪懈 褋锌芯屑械薪邪胁邪薪械褌芯 薪邪 "孝邪泄薪邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟" 屑械 懈蟹锌褗谢胁邪褕械 褋 褍褋械褖邪薪械褌芯, 褔械 褋褗屑 写芯泻芯褋薪邪谢邪 薪械褖芯 褋谢褍蟹械褋褌芯 懈 谐薪褍褋薪芯. 袠 泻芯谐邪褌芯 褋褌懈谐薪邪褏 写芯 泻褉邪褟 泄 (褋谢械写 褌褉懈 薪械褍褋锌械褕薪懈 芯锌懈褌邪 写邪 褟 蟹邪胁褗褉褕邪), 褉邪蟹斜褉邪褏, 褔械 褋褗屑 斜懈谢邪 锌褉邪胁邪 写邪 褋械 芯褌胁褉邪褖邪胁邪屑. 袟邪褖芯褌芯 "孝邪泄薪邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟" 薪械 械 泻褉懈褌懈泻邪, 邪泻芯 懈 写邪 懈屑邪 褏芯褉邪, 泻芯懈褌芯 褌胁褗褉写褟褌 褌芯胁邪. 袝写薪邪 锌褉械锌芯写邪胁邪褌械谢泻邪 褟 薪邪褉械褔械 "卸褗谢褌邪褌邪 卸褉芯薪懈泻邪 薪邪 小褉械写薪芯胁械泻芯胁懈械褌芯", 泻芯械褌芯 薪邪屑懈褉邪屑 蟹邪 写芯褋褌邪 锌芯-褌芯褔薪芯. 孝芯胁邪 械 褌褉褍写, 褋褗蟹写邪写械薪 褔褉械蟹 褋褗蟹薪邪褌械谢薪芯 懈蟹泻褉懈胁褟胁邪薪械 薪邪 褉械邪谢薪懈褌械 褎邪泻褌懈, 褋褌懈谐邪褖芯 写芯 谐褉芯褌械褋泻薪懈 懈 褍卸邪褋褟胁邪褖懈 芯斜褉邪蟹懈, 胁 泻芯懈褌芯 胁褋械泻懈 褋褗褋 蟹写褉邪胁 褉邪蟹褍屑 斜懈 褋械 褍褋褗屑薪懈谢.
袧械 卸懈胁械褟 褋 懈写械褟褌邪, 褔械 挟褋褌懈薪懈邪薪 械 褋褗胁褗褉褕械薪. 孝芯泄 械 斜懈谢 褋胁褉褗褏邪屑斜懈褑懈芯蟹械薪, 褋邪屑芯屑薪懈褌械谢械薪, 锌褉械泻邪谢械薪芯 褉械胁薪芯褋褌械薪 褏褉懈褋褌懈褟薪懈薪 蟹邪 写芯斜褉芯褌芯 薪邪 锌芯写邪薪懈褑懈褌械 屑褍. 袧芯 褋褗褋 褋懈谐褍褉薪芯褋褌 薪械 械 "蟹械屑薪芯褌芯 锌褉械胁褗锌谢褗褖械薪懈械 薪邪 褑邪褉褟 薪邪 写械屑芯薪懈褌械" 懈 薪械 械 胁褗褉褕械谢 蟹谢懈薪懈 褋邪屑芯 蟹邪褖芯褌芯 屑褍 械 褏邪褉械褋胁邪谢芯 写邪 谐谢械写邪 泻邪泻 褏芯褉邪褌邪 褋褌褉邪写邪褌. 袗 泻邪泻胁芯褌芯 懈 写邪 械 胁褗褉褕懈谢邪 孝械芯写芯褉邪 薪邪 屑谢邪写懈薪懈, 薪械 械 褋褌懈谐薪邪谢邪 写芯 懈屑锌械褉邪褌芯褉褋泻懈褟 锌褍褉锌褍褉 斜械蟹 写邪 械 锌褉懈褌械卸邪胁邪谢邪 芯褋褌褗褉 褍屑 懈 褋懈谢械薪 褏邪褉邪泻褌械褉.
袦芯褌懈胁懈褌械 薪邪 袩褉芯泻芯锌懈泄 蟹邪 薪邪锌懈褋胁邪薪械褌芯 泄 褋邪 褋锌芯褉薪懈. 袣邪褌芯 邪褉懈褋褌芯泻褉邪褌 褌芯泄 薪邪胁褟褉薪芯 械 斜懈谢 薪械写芯胁芯谢械薪 芯褌 懈屑锌械褉邪褌芯褉, 懈蟹写懈谐薪邪谢 褋械 芯褌 薪懈蟹懈薪懈褌械; 邪 褋谢褍卸斜邪褌邪 屑褍 胁 写胁芯褉邪 械写胁邪 谢懈 屑褍 械 锌芯蟹胁芯谢褟胁邪谢邪 懈谢褞蟹懈懈 锌芯 芯褌薪芯褕械薪懈械 薪邪 懈屑锌械褉邪褌芯褉褋泻邪褌邪 写胁芯泄泻邪. 袦芯卸械 锌褗泻 啸械薪懈薪谐 袘褜芯褉屑 写邪 褋械 芯泻邪卸械 锌褉邪胁 懈 "孝邪泄薪邪褌邪 懈褋褌芯褉懈褟" 写邪 褋械 芯泻邪卸械 蟹邪褋褌褉邪褏芯胁泻邪褌邪 屑褍 胁 褋谢褍褔邪泄 薪邪 写胁芯褉褑芯胁 锌褉械胁褉邪褌. 袗泻芯 谢懈 薪械, 褌芯 褌芯泄 械 斜懈谢 锌褉芯褋褌芯 锌褉芯褎械褋懈芯薪邪谢械薪 谢懈褑械屑械褉.
March 14, 2018
To sum this book up, this book is Peyton Place in Constantinople. The person who wrote this (if it was Procopius) really, really didn't like the royal family!!! He accuses the empress, Theodora, of all kinds of sexual misdeeds (before she married Justinian) and the translator says they are too deviant to translate for modern readers (this translation was first published in 1966, so it makes one wonder just what she was doing. He has already accused her of beastialty and taking on all comers in addition to being a high class courtesan.) After her marriage to the Justinian, the emperor (who had the laws changed to allow it) the author says she is fiercely faithful to him. She is portrayed as the power behind the throne. She is not above falsely accusing anyone who might threaten both her or the power of the emperor. About her only good quality is her absolute devotion to Justinian and more importantly the throne. During the Nikka Riots she is the one who insists they stay and ride it out.
Justinian does not fair any better. He is accused of being the devil's spawn and of gross corruption. According to the author he is dissolute and only caring for his worldly comforts and riches. He would falsely accuse almost any one to take there wealth. He also not above forging will for the same purpose. He is given no credit for the accomplishments of his reign - the codifying of the legal code, the great building projects - the Hagia Sophia is just one example, and lastly the reconquering of most of the Mediterranean basin for the empire.
About the person who comes out well is the general Belisarius. Even then he is painted as so besotted with his wife, who happens to be Theodora best friend, that when he catches her in bed with her stepson, he willing to disbelieve his own eyes and take no notice of it.
In some ways this reads like a novel, but doesn't flow well in spots. The transitions also are sometimes a little clunky.
All in all an eye opening look at royal life in 6th century Constantinople - 3 stars
Justinian does not fair any better. He is accused of being the devil's spawn and of gross corruption. According to the author he is dissolute and only caring for his worldly comforts and riches. He would falsely accuse almost any one to take there wealth. He also not above forging will for the same purpose. He is given no credit for the accomplishments of his reign - the codifying of the legal code, the great building projects - the Hagia Sophia is just one example, and lastly the reconquering of most of the Mediterranean basin for the empire.
About the person who comes out well is the general Belisarius. Even then he is painted as so besotted with his wife, who happens to be Theodora best friend, that when he catches her in bed with her stepson, he willing to disbelieve his own eyes and take no notice of it.
In some ways this reads like a novel, but doesn't flow well in spots. The transitions also are sometimes a little clunky.
All in all an eye opening look at royal life in 6th century Constantinople - 3 stars
February 24, 2018
My day to day involves routine investigations regarding incidents and accidents involving the significantly disabled. Most of the actual conversation is with caretakers. I go home often feeling drowned in bullshit, well maybe dunked with spittle-some baiting in between the submersions. I can handle tall tales, I could listen to Dylan spin a yarn about his upbringing amongst Chippewa carnies all night long. I just can鈥檛 handle the shit, the demonizing.
It shouldn鈥檛 be surprising then that this book wasn鈥檛 fun. No tales of trained geese pleasuring the nympho queen of Byzantium could lift this from being labor. The last forty percent of the account regards the rapine corruption of the regime. Measure upon measure robbing the populace and all without recourse. Somewhere Steven Pinker is saying, see I told you it was all improving.
It shouldn鈥檛 be surprising then that this book wasn鈥檛 fun. No tales of trained geese pleasuring the nympho queen of Byzantium could lift this from being labor. The last forty percent of the account regards the rapine corruption of the regime. Measure upon measure robbing the populace and all without recourse. Somewhere Steven Pinker is saying, see I told you it was all improving.
April 8, 2024
丨丕賱丕 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲蹖卮賴 丕蹖賳 賮丕鬲丨丕賳 賳亘丕卮賳丿 讴賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀� 丕賲丕 賴賲蹖卮賴 蹖讴 乇賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賴爻鬲 讴賴 丿蹖丿賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 蹖讴 乇賵蹖蹖 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗂ж辟囏� 乇賵蹖卮丕賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 亘賳賵蹖爻賳丿 蹖丕 噩乇丕鬲卮 乇丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿貙 乇賵蹖蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 丿爻鬲鈥屭┵� 鬲丕 賵乇賯 亘乇賳诏乇丿丿 賯乇丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賴 卮賵丿 賵 丕诏乇 禺賵丕賳丿賴 卮賵丿 賵丕蹖 亘賴 乇賵夭诏丕乇卮丕賳!
鬲毓丿丕丿 丕蹖賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗂ж辟囏� 讴賴 噩乇丕鬲 亘賴 禺乇噩 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 丕夭 丕爻乇丕乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 爻乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀� 鬲丕 丌賳 乇賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 賴賲 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 亘讴卮賳丿 亘賴 鬲毓丿丕丿 丕賳诏卮鬲丕賳 丿賵 丿爻鬲 賴賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫必池� 賵 诏賱 爻乇 爻亘丿卮丕賳 噩賳丕亘 倬乇賵讴賵倬蹖賵爻 丕爻鬲!
倬乇賵讴賵倬蹖賵爻貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗁堐屫� 賴賲 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 蹖賵爻鬲蹖賳蹖丕賳 亘蹖夭丕賳爻蹖 賵 丕賳賵卮蹖乇賵丕賳 爻丕爻丕賳蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 乇丕夭賴丕蹖 倬卮鬲 倬乇丿賴鈥屰� 丿乇亘丕乇 亘蹖夭丕賳爻 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賵 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賴 蹖丕丿诏丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 讴賴 禺賵丿卮 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫ж� 賲賳鬲卮乇 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 丕蹖賳噩丕 禺亘乇蹖 丕夭 爻鬲丕蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 讴鬲丕亘 芦鬲賵丕乇蹖禺禄 賵 趩丕倬賱賵爻蹖鈥屬囏й� 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丕賳丿丕夭賴鈥屰� 芦爻丕夭賴鈥屬囏� 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕賵 丕夭 讴孬蹖賮鈥屭┴ж臂屸€屬囏й� 丕卮乇丕賮 亘蹖夭丕賳爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫�. 丕夭 倬卮鬲鈥屬矩必団€屬囏й� 乇賵丕亘胤 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 睾蹖乇爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘夭乇诏丕賳 倬乇丿賴 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫ж必� 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 丌賳 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 蹖讴 亘丕乇 賴賲 讴賴 卮丿賴貙 乇賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇�.
鬲毓丿丕丿 丕蹖賳 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗂ж辟囏� 讴賴 噩乇丕鬲 亘賴 禺乇噩 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 丕夭 丕爻乇丕乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賵 鬲丕乇蹖禺 爻乇蹖 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟嗀� 鬲丕 丌賳 乇賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 賴賲 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 亘讴卮賳丿 亘賴 鬲毓丿丕丿 丕賳诏卮鬲丕賳 丿賵 丿爻鬲 賴賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫必池� 賵 诏賱 爻乇 爻亘丿卮丕賳 噩賳丕亘 倬乇賵讴賵倬蹖賵爻 丕爻鬲!
倬乇賵讴賵倬蹖賵爻貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺鈥屬嗁堐屫� 賴賲 丿賵乇賴鈥屰� 蹖賵爻鬲蹖賳蹖丕賳 亘蹖夭丕賳爻蹖 賵 丕賳賵卮蹖乇賵丕賳 爻丕爻丕賳蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 乇丕夭賴丕蹖 倬卮鬲 倬乇丿賴鈥屰� 丿乇亘丕乇 亘蹖夭丕賳爻 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫� 賵 讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賴 蹖丕丿诏丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必� 讴賴 禺賵丿卮 賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 丿乇 夭賲丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫ж� 賲賳鬲卮乇 賳禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 丕蹖賳噩丕 禺亘乇蹖 丕夭 爻鬲丕蹖卮鈥屬囏й� 讴鬲丕亘 芦鬲賵丕乇蹖禺禄 賵 趩丕倬賱賵爻蹖鈥屬囏й� 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丕賳丿丕夭賴鈥屰� 芦爻丕夭賴鈥屬囏� 賳蹖爻鬲. 丕賵 丕夭 讴孬蹖賮鈥屭┴ж臂屸€屬囏й� 丕卮乇丕賮 亘蹖夭丕賳爻蹖 賲蹖鈥屭堐屫�. 丕夭 倬卮鬲鈥屬矩必団€屬囏й� 乇賵丕亘胤 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賵 睾蹖乇爻蹖丕爻蹖 亘夭乇诏丕賳 倬乇丿賴 亘乇賲蹖鈥屫ж必� 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 丌賳 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 蹖讴 亘丕乇 賴賲 讴賴 卮丿賴貙 乇賵蹖 丿蹖诏乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 乇丕 亘賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屭┴簇�.
August 5, 2016
Bizans 陌mparatoru 陌ustinianos ve kar谋s谋 Theodora'n谋n ne kadar korkun莽 insanlar oldu臒unu olduk莽a ak谋c谋 bir dille anlatan "Bizans'谋n Gizli Tarihi / The Secret History", Bizans hakk谋nda harika bilgiler bar谋nd谋ran okunmas谋 gereken ders niteli臒indeki tarih kitaplar谋ndan biri. Yazar Procopius / Prokopios'un dil ve anlat谋艧 bak谋m谋nda Herodotus'tan 莽ok Plutharkos'un izinden gitti臒i kitab谋 okurken Bizans 陌mparatorlu臒u'nun neden y谋k谋ld谋臒谋n谋 daha iyi anl谋yorsunuz. Bir liderin ne kadar korkun莽 olabilece臒ini Prokopios'un zaman zaman abartarak da olsa anlatt谋臒谋 kitab谋 okumak olduk莽a e臒lenceli. Bu arada, kitapta bug眉n眉n T眉rkiye'siyle uyumlu bir s眉r眉 艧ey bulmak da m眉mk眉n ki bu durum bence kitab谋 T眉rk okuyucular i莽in daha de臒erli k谋l谋yor. Beklentim olmadan ba艧lad谋臒谋m kitab谋n Plutharkhos tarz谋nda okumas谋 keyifli bir tarih eseri 莽谋kmas谋 a莽谋k莽as谋 beni 莽ok mutlu etti.
05.08.2016
陌stanbul, T眉rkiye
Alp Turgut
05.08.2016
陌stanbul, T眉rkiye
Alp Turgut
August 20, 2012
Doesn't quite rank with Herodotus, and definitely not close to Thucydides, etc. To be fair to Procopius, however, I probably should have read first. This book reminds me of a score-settling memoir Dick Morris/Rumsfiled would write if either was serving Belisarius. Anyway, it was interesting even if a bit uneven and biased. It is amazing what you can still glean about a culture and time from this type of history.
August 25, 2020
If this book is to be judged as a hatchet job, then it is a spectacular failure. History has been kind to the memory of the law-giver Justinian, establishing him as one of the greatest caesars of the Byzantine Empire. That glorious reign would have been curtailed if not for his feisty Empress Theodora, who famously stood up against the danger posed by the Nika Revolt with her immortal line about the imperial purple making for a fine shroud. And what about the popular General Belisarius, who has time and again managed to snatch a miraculous victory against the jaws of certain defeat? Really - who could argue against brilliance and success?
Maybe Procopius should have toned down the hyperbole. I mean, why paint the emperor as an actual, literal demon? Indeed, the Introduction states that if all he had written were the History of the Wars, he would have been regarded as a historian of the first water, to be ranked among the likes of Thucydides and Herodotus. The survival of this Anecdota may have been detrimental to his reputation. The things a person says or writes really does reflect more on his character than on the targets he tries to malign.
But if viewed as poisonous, pseudo-historic psogos then it blossoms into something quite exceptional. The fervid detailing of unspeakable crimes, sordid passions, murderous rapacity, incompetence, corruption, perfidy, chicanery, and all manner of brazen wickedness is nothing short of inspired. As a prose stylist, Procopius holds his own against other historians. He weaves a mesmerizing tale of ultimate power wedded to the purest evil, intent on fomenting calamities, misery and bloodshed. The latter sections of the second and the entire third part are admittedly rather dry though, dealing more with administrative, judicial, and fiscal skullduggery.
In the end: well, they do say that there's no smoke without fire. The question is: how much smoke was there, really? How much of these were lies, with a view to besmirching its subjects' names in the face of posterity? If only we can get ahold of a few Constantinopolitans of the 6th century AD and listen to the whispered gossip being bandied about in the markets, in the taverns . . .
7.5/10; 4 stars.
Maybe Procopius should have toned down the hyperbole. I mean, why paint the emperor as an actual, literal demon? Indeed, the Introduction states that if all he had written were the History of the Wars, he would have been regarded as a historian of the first water, to be ranked among the likes of Thucydides and Herodotus. The survival of this Anecdota may have been detrimental to his reputation. The things a person says or writes really does reflect more on his character than on the targets he tries to malign.
But if viewed as poisonous, pseudo-historic psogos then it blossoms into something quite exceptional. The fervid detailing of unspeakable crimes, sordid passions, murderous rapacity, incompetence, corruption, perfidy, chicanery, and all manner of brazen wickedness is nothing short of inspired. As a prose stylist, Procopius holds his own against other historians. He weaves a mesmerizing tale of ultimate power wedded to the purest evil, intent on fomenting calamities, misery and bloodshed. The latter sections of the second and the entire third part are admittedly rather dry though, dealing more with administrative, judicial, and fiscal skullduggery.
In the end: well, they do say that there's no smoke without fire. The question is: how much smoke was there, really? How much of these were lies, with a view to besmirching its subjects' names in the face of posterity? If only we can get ahold of a few Constantinopolitans of the 6th century AD and listen to the whispered gossip being bandied about in the markets, in the taverns . . .
7.5/10; 4 stars.
October 19, 2022
Justinian was one of the most prominent and important of the Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium.
His brilliant general Belisarius led Byzantine armies to recapture Africa and Italy against overwhelming odds, and he patrolled the Eastern frontier against the old enemy Persia. Justinian was also a great builder, with the Hagia Sophia perhaps the pinnacle of his efforts.
Utlimately though Justinian drained the treasury through his building projects and he refused to give Belisarius enough backing to make his conquests permanent, so in a sense his reign was a failure.
As part of the setup around Belisarius Procopius was an insider who had also written a formal history of the period. The Secret History is his warts and all telling of what it was really like - secret because if it had got to Justinian it would mean execution. It is salacious and scabrous, and paints the Emperor and Belisarius as unprincipled charlatans in thrall to their wives.
It is an entertaining read but overdoes the condemnation, and loses something for that. It is not possible that Justinian caused a million million deaths in the Empire, and the tale about Empress Theodora and the geese was inventive but unlikely, just to give a couple of examples.
Read in the same spirit as you might read the Sun or the Daily Star - not for news but as titillation
His brilliant general Belisarius led Byzantine armies to recapture Africa and Italy against overwhelming odds, and he patrolled the Eastern frontier against the old enemy Persia. Justinian was also a great builder, with the Hagia Sophia perhaps the pinnacle of his efforts.
Utlimately though Justinian drained the treasury through his building projects and he refused to give Belisarius enough backing to make his conquests permanent, so in a sense his reign was a failure.
As part of the setup around Belisarius Procopius was an insider who had also written a formal history of the period. The Secret History is his warts and all telling of what it was really like - secret because if it had got to Justinian it would mean execution. It is salacious and scabrous, and paints the Emperor and Belisarius as unprincipled charlatans in thrall to their wives.
It is an entertaining read but overdoes the condemnation, and loses something for that. It is not possible that Justinian caused a million million deaths in the Empire, and the tale about Empress Theodora and the geese was inventive but unlikely, just to give a couple of examples.
Read in the same spirit as you might read the Sun or the Daily Star - not for news but as titillation
March 18, 2019
just fantastic, in both senses of the term. we know that we're in a reckless political polemic, which accounts veracity lightly, when justinian can be accused as follows:
"And that he was no human being, but, as has been suggested, some manner of demon in human form, one might infer by making an estimate of the magnitude of the ills which he inflicted upon mankind. For it is in the degree by which a man's deeds are surpassingly great that the power of the doer becomes evident. Now to state exactly the number of those who were destroyed by him would never be possible, I think, for anyone soever, or for God. For one might more quickly, I think, count all grains of sand than the vast number whom this Emperor destroyed. But making an approximate estimate of the extent of territory which has become to be destitute of inhabitants, I should say that a myriad myriad of myriads perished."
10,000 cubed is 1,000,000,000,000 human persons (1 trillion, aye?), which in my reckoning is more people than have existed throughout all history and prehistory up to the present moment. (anyone know how to count diachronic/serial population, rather than mere synchronic/parallel population, incidentally?)
"And that he was no human being, but, as has been suggested, some manner of demon in human form, one might infer by making an estimate of the magnitude of the ills which he inflicted upon mankind. For it is in the degree by which a man's deeds are surpassingly great that the power of the doer becomes evident. Now to state exactly the number of those who were destroyed by him would never be possible, I think, for anyone soever, or for God. For one might more quickly, I think, count all grains of sand than the vast number whom this Emperor destroyed. But making an approximate estimate of the extent of territory which has become to be destitute of inhabitants, I should say that a myriad myriad of myriads perished."
10,000 cubed is 1,000,000,000,000 human persons (1 trillion, aye?), which in my reckoning is more people than have existed throughout all history and prehistory up to the present moment. (anyone know how to count diachronic/serial population, rather than mere synchronic/parallel population, incidentally?)
Want to read
December 7, 2020兀賵丕卅賱 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱禺丕賲爻 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿賷 賷爻賷乇 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇 丕賱乇賵賲丕賳賷 噩賵爻鬲賳賷丕賳 亘禺胤賶 孬丕亘鬲賴 賲爻鬲賲毓丕 賱賯丕卅丿賴 丕賱毓爻賰乇賷 亘賱賷夭丕乇賷賵爻 毓賳 丌禺乇 丨賲賱丞 毓爻賰乇賷丞 卮賳賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇丕囟賷 丕賱卮乇賯賷丞 貙 賵賷鬲亘毓賴賲丕 廿賲乇兀鬲賴賲丕 孬賷賵丿賵乇丕 賵兀賳胤賵賳賷賳丕 賵賴賲爻 賷毓賯亘賴 囟丨賰丞 鬲賳賲 毓賳 丕賱禺亘孬 貙 賵亘乇賵賰賵亘賷賵爻 賮賷 賲丐禺乇丞 丕賱爻賷乇 賷爻鬲乇賯 丕賱爻賲毓 賲賳 賵乇丕卅賴賲丕 貙 賷賴賲 匕賱賰 丕賱兀禺賷乇 亘兀丿丕亍 毓賲賱賴 毓賱賶 兀賰賲賱 賵噩賴 賰兀賲賷賳 爻乇 賵賲爻鬲卮丕乇 賯丕賳賵賳賷 賵賲賳丕氐亘 兀禺乇賶 兀毓胤賷鬲 賱賴 鬲賰賱賷賮丕 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賰賵賳賴 鬲卮乇賷賮丕 !
賵丨賷賳賲丕 賷丨賱 丕賱馗賱丕賲 賷毓賵丿 廿賱賶 丨噩乇鬲賴 賵毓賱賶 兀孬乇 卮賲毓鬲賴 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 賷丿賵賳 亘乇賷卮鬲賴 " 賴賳丕 鬲賰賲賳 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 !"
賱胤丕賱賲丕 兀卮丕丿鬲 丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 丕賱鬲兀乇賷禺賷丞 亘毓馗賲丞 匕賱賰 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇 賵廿賲乇兀鬲賴 孬賷賵丿賵乇丕 賰丨丕賲賷 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賰賳爻賷丞 貙 賱賰賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賲氐丕丿乇 兀禺乇賶 鬲孬亘鬲 丕賱毓賰爻 貙 賰賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 貙 賮氐丕丨亘賴 - 兀賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘乇賵賰賵亘賷賵爻 - 賰丕賳 氐丿賷賯丕 丨賲賷賲丕 賱噩賵爻鬲賳賷丕賳 賵亘賱賷夭丕乇賷賵爻 賵賰丕賳 毓賱賶 賲賯乇亘丞 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵爻乇丕 賷丿賵賳賴丕 賷賵賲丕 亘賷賵賲賴 .
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 兀賯乇亘 賱兀賳 賷賰賵賳 爻賷乇丞 匕丕鬲賷丞 賱兀乇亘毓 卮禺氐賷丕鬲 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賲賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賰鬲丕亘 鬲兀乇賷禺賷 貙 賰賱丕 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱兀乇亘毓 賵廿賳 丕禺鬲賱賮鬲 賲賳丕氐亘賴賲 賮丕賱廿賳丨賱丕賱 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賰丕賳 丕賱賯丕爻賲 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲 賮噩賵爻鬲賳賷丕賳 " 亘胤亘賷毓鬲賴 禺賱賷胤丕 賳丕丿乇丕 賲賳 丕賱丨賲丕賯丞 賵丕賱卮乇賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賵賱毓 亘丕賱兀匕賶" 賵廿賲乇兀鬲賴 孬賷賵丿賵乇丕 匕丕鬲 賲賳亘鬲 賮丕爻丿 賵鬲賰乇丕乇 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 丕賱廿噩賴丕囟 禺賷乇 丿賱賷賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 !
兀賲丕 兀賳胤賵賳賷賳丕 賮賯丿 丕鬲禺匕鬲 賲賳 氐丿賷賯鬲賴丕 孬賷賵丿乇賵丕 賲孬賱丕 賷丨鬲匕賶 亘賴 貙 賮賴賶 賱賲 鬲毓乇賮 胤乇賷賯丕 丌禺乇 爻賵賶 丕賱乇匕賷賱丞 賵賴賶 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲氐丕丨亘 爻賵賶 丕賱爻丨乇賴 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 兀賳 鬲噩毓賱 賲賳 兀毓馗賲 賯丕丿丞 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 毓亘丿丕 賱丕 賷氐丿乇丕 賮毓賱丕 賲賳賴 廿賱丕 亘兀賲乇賴丕 賵賴賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰亘乇賴 亘賲丕 賷賯丕乇亘 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 爻賳賴 賵乇亘賲丕 兀賰孬乇 馗賱 兀爻賷乇丕 亘賴賵丕賴丕 丨鬲賶 亘毓丿賲丕 毓賱賲 賲賳 賯亘賱 廿丨丿賶 丕賱噩丕乇賷丕鬲 亘賮毓賱賴丕 丕賱賲卮賷賳 賲毓 丕亘賳賴賲丕 亘丕賱鬲亘賳賷 亘賱 乇兀賶 亘兀賲 毓賷賳賷賴 賱賰賳 丕賱爻丨乇 賰丕賳 兀賯賵賶 賲賳 兀賳 賷孬兀乇 亘禺賷丕賳鬲賴丕 賱賴 貙 賰丕賳鬲 兀賳胤賵賳賷賳丕 賲鬲毓胤卮賴 賱賱丿賲丕亍 賱丿乇噩丞 兀賳賴丕 賯丕賲鬲 亘賯胤毓 賱爻丕賳 禺丕丿賲鬲賴丕 -丕賱鬲賷 賮囟丨鬲 兀賲乇賴丕 - 賵鬲賯胤賷毓 噩爻丿賴丕 賯胤毓丕 氐睾賷乇丞 賵賲賳 孬賲 乇賲賷賴丕 賮賷 丕賱亘丨乇 .
亘賯賷 兀賳 兀卮賷乇 亘兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳卮乇 亘毓丿 賵賮丕丞 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇 賵廿賲乇兀鬲賴 賵賯丕卅丿賴 賱兀賳賴 賰丕賳 毓賱賶 賷賯賷賳 亘兀賳 賴賱丕賰賴 爻賷賰賵賳 賯丕卅賲丕 賱丕 賲丨丕賱賴 賵丿賵賳 乇丨賲賴 貙 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賲禺賱氐 賱賱毓賱賲 賵賰丕賳 賲賳 賵丕噩亘賴 賰鬲丕亘丞 賲丕賷噩亘 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 " 賮廿賳 兀爻賳丕賳賷 鬲氐胤賰 賵兀噩丿 賳賮爻賷 兀鬲乇丕噩毓 兀賰亘乇 賯丿乇 賲賲賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賴賲丞 "
毓賱賶 兀賷丞 丨丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丕賮賱 亘丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 賵丕賱爻賵丿丕賵賷丞 賵賱丕卮賷亍 丌禺乇 賷丿毓賵 賱賱亘賴噩丞 賮賴賵 兀卮亘賴 亘賯氐氐 丕賱乇毓亘 !
賲丕 兀卮丕乇 廿賱賷賴 亘乇賵賰賵亘賷賵爻 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賱丕賷卮賵亘賴 賳賮丕賯 兀賵 鬲賱賵賷孬 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賴匕丕 賲丕 兀賰丿鬲賴 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞 亘廿毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賲乇噩毓丕 賱丕賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲睾丕囟賷 毓賳賴 !
賵丨賷賳賲丕 賷丨賱 丕賱馗賱丕賲 賷毓賵丿 廿賱賶 丨噩乇鬲賴 賵毓賱賶 兀孬乇 卮賲毓鬲賴 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 賷丿賵賳 亘乇賷卮鬲賴 " 賴賳丕 鬲賰賲賳 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 !"
賱胤丕賱賲丕 兀卮丕丿鬲 丕賱賲氐丕丿乇 丕賱鬲兀乇賷禺賷丞 亘毓馗賲丞 匕賱賰 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇 賵廿賲乇兀鬲賴 孬賷賵丿賵乇丕 賰丨丕賲賷 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賰賳爻賷丞 貙 賱賰賳 賴賳丕賱賰 賲氐丕丿乇 兀禺乇賶 鬲孬亘鬲 丕賱毓賰爻 貙 賰賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 貙 賮氐丕丨亘賴 - 兀賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘乇賵賰賵亘賷賵爻 - 賰丕賳 氐丿賷賯丕 丨賲賷賲丕 賱噩賵爻鬲賳賷丕賳 賵亘賱賷夭丕乇賷賵爻 賵賰丕賳 毓賱賶 賲賯乇亘丞 賲賳 鬲賱賰 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵爻乇丕 賷丿賵賳賴丕 賷賵賲丕 亘賷賵賲賴 .
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 兀賯乇亘 賱兀賳 賷賰賵賳 爻賷乇丞 匕丕鬲賷丞 賱兀乇亘毓 卮禺氐賷丕鬲 爻賷丕爻賷丞 賲賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賰鬲丕亘 鬲兀乇賷禺賷 貙 賰賱丕 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱兀乇亘毓 賵廿賳 丕禺鬲賱賮鬲 賲賳丕氐亘賴賲 賮丕賱廿賳丨賱丕賱 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷 賰丕賳 丕賱賯丕爻賲 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰 賮賷賲丕 亘賷賳賴賲 賮噩賵爻鬲賳賷丕賳 " 亘胤亘賷毓鬲賴 禺賱賷胤丕 賳丕丿乇丕 賲賳 丕賱丨賲丕賯丞 賵丕賱卮乇賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱鬲賵賱毓 亘丕賱兀匕賶" 賵廿賲乇兀鬲賴 孬賷賵丿賵乇丕 匕丕鬲 賲賳亘鬲 賮丕爻丿 賵鬲賰乇丕乇 毓賲賱賷丕鬲 丕賱廿噩賴丕囟 禺賷乇 丿賱賷賱 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 !
兀賲丕 兀賳胤賵賳賷賳丕 賮賯丿 丕鬲禺匕鬲 賲賳 氐丿賷賯鬲賴丕 孬賷賵丿乇賵丕 賲孬賱丕 賷丨鬲匕賶 亘賴 貙 賮賴賶 賱賲 鬲毓乇賮 胤乇賷賯丕 丌禺乇 爻賵賶 丕賱乇匕賷賱丞 賵賴賶 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲氐丕丨亘 爻賵賶 丕賱爻丨乇賴 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 兀賳 鬲噩毓賱 賲賳 兀毓馗賲 賯丕丿丞 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 毓亘丿丕 賱丕 賷氐丿乇丕 賮毓賱丕 賲賳賴 廿賱丕 亘兀賲乇賴丕 賵賴賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賰亘乇賴 亘賲丕 賷賯丕乇亘 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 爻賳賴 賵乇亘賲丕 兀賰孬乇 馗賱 兀爻賷乇丕 亘賴賵丕賴丕 丨鬲賶 亘毓丿賲丕 毓賱賲 賲賳 賯亘賱 廿丨丿賶 丕賱噩丕乇賷丕鬲 亘賮毓賱賴丕 丕賱賲卮賷賳 賲毓 丕亘賳賴賲丕 亘丕賱鬲亘賳賷 亘賱 乇兀賶 亘兀賲 毓賷賳賷賴 賱賰賳 丕賱爻丨乇 賰丕賳 兀賯賵賶 賲賳 兀賳 賷孬兀乇 亘禺賷丕賳鬲賴丕 賱賴 貙 賰丕賳鬲 兀賳胤賵賳賷賳丕 賲鬲毓胤卮賴 賱賱丿賲丕亍 賱丿乇噩丞 兀賳賴丕 賯丕賲鬲 亘賯胤毓 賱爻丕賳 禺丕丿賲鬲賴丕 -丕賱鬲賷 賮囟丨鬲 兀賲乇賴丕 - 賵鬲賯胤賷毓 噩爻丿賴丕 賯胤毓丕 氐睾賷乇丞 賵賲賳 孬賲 乇賲賷賴丕 賮賷 丕賱亘丨乇 .
亘賯賷 兀賳 兀卮賷乇 亘兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳卮乇 亘毓丿 賵賮丕丞 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇 賵廿賲乇兀鬲賴 賵賯丕卅丿賴 賱兀賳賴 賰丕賳 毓賱賶 賷賯賷賳 亘兀賳 賴賱丕賰賴 爻賷賰賵賳 賯丕卅賲丕 賱丕 賲丨丕賱賴 賵丿賵賳 乇丨賲賴 貙 廿賱丕 兀賳賴 賲禺賱氐 賱賱毓賱賲 賵賰丕賳 賲賳 賵丕噩亘賴 賰鬲丕亘丞 賲丕賷噩亘 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 " 賮廿賳 兀爻賳丕賳賷 鬲氐胤賰 賵兀噩丿 賳賮爻賷 兀鬲乇丕噩毓 兀賰亘乇 賯丿乇 賲賲賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賴賲丞 "
毓賱賶 兀賷丞 丨丕賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丨丕賮賱 亘丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 賵丕賱爻賵丿丕賵賷丞 賵賱丕卮賷亍 丌禺乇 賷丿毓賵 賱賱亘賴噩丞 賮賴賵 兀卮亘賴 亘賯氐氐 丕賱乇毓亘 !
賲丕 兀卮丕乇 廿賱賷賴 亘乇賵賰賵亘賷賵爻 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賴 賱丕賷卮賵亘賴 賳賮丕賯 兀賵 鬲賱賵賷孬 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賴匕丕 賲丕 兀賰丿鬲賴 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞 亘廿毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賲乇噩毓丕 賱丕賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲睾丕囟賷 毓賳賴 !
June 9, 2021
Delightfully scandalous and gossipy! I do wish the Penguin edition came with more context for certain events Procopius alluded to because he would frequently make mention of something he expected the reader to know all about. If I had no prior knowledge of this period, I would have struggled with it because of that. In some cases, it's difficult to take what he says seriously but that's the fun of it--is he being serious or is it all a satire?
November 28, 2018
Second Review [May 31, 2014]
Having finished reading "Count Belisarius" (Penguin Books, 2006) by Robert Graves, I thought I should reread this book to make sure if I had had the right images of Belisarius, his wife Antonina, the Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodoara so that I would compare them to what Procopius has written to record their misdeeds. ...
First Review [August 27, 2011]
I think this book is all right for those interested in ancient history since it's a bit tough to follow what the author wanted to reveal textual traces of evidence for posterity. I've never heard/read Procopius before but I decided to read him after finishing reading "The Histories" by Herodotus. It's my idea to say something as an amateur reader in history, not as a professional historian so that, I hope, some of my like-minded 欧宝娱乐 friends out there may become interested and tried to read any author he/she prefers.
First, be assured it takes time to read this obscure book and digest it as far as you can, don't worry too much if you can't remember all important years as indicated in important events/episodes. We need to read for its whole picture, not minor incidents here and there. In other words, the book has suggested such an empire pitifully, unimaginably corrupted by its emperor and empress.
Second, its title of course implies something done/hidden as 'secrets' along the developing reign of Justinian. While reading each chapter, I wondered who taught him and how. Maybe his parents or some of his teachers but, sadly, Procopius didn't mention anything about his schooling or effective ways of raising him as a good emperor worth respect, admiration and awe. Comparatively, I always admire Alexander the Great who had Aristotle, such a great formidable philosopher, as his teacher and I visualize he wisely listened to what his teacher said. Moreover, he took Homer (I'm not sure which book) to read in his various campaigns. Just imagine.
Lastly, I didn't enjoy reading this kind of biography. Sometime I asked myself if it was a waste of time, however, I kept going till the last chapter. One of the reasons is that all of those notorious secret deeds around 1,500 years ago as revealed should be applied in our daily lives so that they're definitely recorded in "the sand of time" (Longfellow). Therefore, we need to learn from the past so that we won't do anything senseless like some of our ancestors had done before.
I presume the original book was written in Greek, however, I found its Latin title [Historia Arcana] in the Wikipedia website and I wonder why the translator hasn't told his readers in the Introduction.
Having finished reading "Count Belisarius" (Penguin Books, 2006) by Robert Graves, I thought I should reread this book to make sure if I had had the right images of Belisarius, his wife Antonina, the Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodoara so that I would compare them to what Procopius has written to record their misdeeds. ...
First Review [August 27, 2011]
I think this book is all right for those interested in ancient history since it's a bit tough to follow what the author wanted to reveal textual traces of evidence for posterity. I've never heard/read Procopius before but I decided to read him after finishing reading "The Histories" by Herodotus. It's my idea to say something as an amateur reader in history, not as a professional historian so that, I hope, some of my like-minded 欧宝娱乐 friends out there may become interested and tried to read any author he/she prefers.
First, be assured it takes time to read this obscure book and digest it as far as you can, don't worry too much if you can't remember all important years as indicated in important events/episodes. We need to read for its whole picture, not minor incidents here and there. In other words, the book has suggested such an empire pitifully, unimaginably corrupted by its emperor and empress.
Second, its title of course implies something done/hidden as 'secrets' along the developing reign of Justinian. While reading each chapter, I wondered who taught him and how. Maybe his parents or some of his teachers but, sadly, Procopius didn't mention anything about his schooling or effective ways of raising him as a good emperor worth respect, admiration and awe. Comparatively, I always admire Alexander the Great who had Aristotle, such a great formidable philosopher, as his teacher and I visualize he wisely listened to what his teacher said. Moreover, he took Homer (I'm not sure which book) to read in his various campaigns. Just imagine.
Lastly, I didn't enjoy reading this kind of biography. Sometime I asked myself if it was a waste of time, however, I kept going till the last chapter. One of the reasons is that all of those notorious secret deeds around 1,500 years ago as revealed should be applied in our daily lives so that they're definitely recorded in "the sand of time" (Longfellow). Therefore, we need to learn from the past so that we won't do anything senseless like some of our ancestors had done before.
I presume the original book was written in Greek, however, I found its Latin title [Historia Arcana] in the Wikipedia website and I wonder why the translator hasn't told his readers in the Introduction.
Read
January 30, 2013I'm a bit puzzled by the allegation that the same Procopius of Caesarea wrote this as wrote because the tone is so different. The one gossipy and imprecise with millions of Ethiopians (ie inhabitants of North Africa) dying as a result of the reconquest of Vandal occupied North Africa the other careful and sober.
The Secret History is a dirt dishing account of the reign of Justinian. The validity of argument was for me undercut by its hyperbole, it's rather like reading . It has that same sense of something scurrilous that catered for the reader who loved their share of scandal. Very readable and entertaining though and your go to source for scurrilous stories about the Empress Theodora.
The Secret History is a dirt dishing account of the reign of Justinian. The validity of argument was for me undercut by its hyperbole, it's rather like reading . It has that same sense of something scurrilous that catered for the reader who loved their share of scandal. Very readable and entertaining though and your go to source for scurrilous stories about the Empress Theodora.
January 19, 2022
Prokopios o d枚nemin Filistin鈥檌nde , Caseria鈥檇a IS 500鈥檒erde do臒mu艧 bir tarih莽i. Bu sene do臒um yerini ziyaret ettikten sonra okuma listesine giren kitap, ba艧谋nda kendinin de belirtti臒i gibi korku ile yaz谋lm谋艧. Zira d枚nemin 眉nl眉 imparatori莽esi Theodora ve kocas谋 陌ustinianos ile yine 陌talya, Kuzey Afrika , Mezopotamya鈥檇a sava艧lar kazanm谋艧 ordu komutan谋 Belisarios ve kar谋s谋 Antonina鈥檔谋n Bizans鈥檃 yapt谋klar谋 k枚t眉l眉kleri, insanlara eziyetlerini, entrikalar谋 ve adaletsizlikleri anlat谋yor. 陌mparatorlu臒un resm卯 tarih莽isi olup Sava艧lar Tarihi kitaplar谋 ile bilinen ciddi bir tarih莽i olan Prokopios鈥櫮眓 bu 枚zelli臒i olmasa , anlatt谋klar谋 m眉bala臒a olarak nitelenebilir. 脰zellikle 陌ustinianos鈥檜n Ayasofya鈥檔谋n yap谋m谋 , imparatorlu臒u restore etmek i莽in yapt谋klar谋 ,hukuk k眉lliyat谋n谋 toparlamas谋 , mimari hareketlenme ile tarihte 鈥淏眉y眉k鈥� lakab谋 ile an谋lmas谋, hatta Ortodokslar i莽in aziz olmas谋 , ayn谋 艧ekilde dans莽谋 ve Prokopios鈥檃 g枚re daha da ilgin莽 bir ge莽mi艧i olan ve imparatorlu臒un y枚netiminde Osmanl谋鈥檔谋n H眉rrem鈥檌 gibi davranan ve sonunda azize ilan edilen Theodora dikkate al谋nd谋臒谋nda. G枚r眉nen o ki , ihti艧am谋n bedeli her zamanki gibi halka y眉klenmi艧. Anlat谋lanlardan bir 莽o臒unda sadece isimleri de臒i艧tirmek , bug眉n眉n y枚netim tarihlerini yazmak i莽in kolay bir y枚ntem olurdu. Bizans tarihine merakl谋 olmayanlar i莽in dahi , iktidar , toplum , tarih yaz谋m谋 gibi konular i莽in ilgin莽 bir okuma. Bu arada Orhan Duru鈥檔un ba艧lang谋莽taki k谋sa 枚zeti , Bizans tarihinden uzak olanlar i莽in kitaba iyi bir haz谋rl谋k sa臒l谋yor. Bizans鈥櫮眓 imparatorlar谋n谋n nas谋l tahta gelebildi臒i , yetkinlikler vs konusunda da iyi bir kaynak. Neticede kadim 陌stanbul鈥檜n ilgin莽 kad谋nlar谋ndan olup , Nika isyan谋nda 鈥溎癿paratorlu臒un mor rengi asil bir kefendir鈥� diye 陌ustinianos鈥檜n tahttan 莽ekilip ka莽mas谋n谋 engelleyen Theodora ve Ayasofya ile Ravenna鈥檇a mozaiklerde g枚zg枚ze gelindi臒inde Iustinianos hakk谋nda d眉艧眉nmek i莽in iyi bir kaynak.
January 10, 2009
Think of this as the Byzantine equivalent to one of those trashy pop biographies of a celebrity that consists mainly of sexual rumors. Procopius apparently harbored a secret hatred of the Empress Theodora and everyone associated with her, and, secretly, wrote this vituperative companion to his other, public, more neutral works, apparently for the point of detailing the sexual excesses and blatant immoralities of the Justinian court. Examples of the Empress' behavior include: anointing her genitalia with barley, and then having geese loosed to peck at the seeds, while she was on stage; going on a picnic to cavort with ten young men, and after exhausting their stamina, taking on their thirty servants; having dozens of abortions; making the bastard son she didn't manage to abort in time "disappear"; arranging her bastard daughter's son's marriage to the very young daughter of a rich general and forcing them to have sex so that the marriage could not be undone and she would have claim to that wealth; and various other infamous behavior.
It amazes me that this narrative is taken as a relatively accurate history. The tone is so gleefully disappointed in the behaviors therein described, the events so repeatedly unbelievable, that it seems so biased as to deserve some skepticism.
It amazes me that this narrative is taken as a relatively accurate history. The tone is so gleefully disappointed in the behaviors therein described, the events so repeatedly unbelievable, that it seems so biased as to deserve some skepticism.
Read
March 13, 2024螒蟻蠂伪委伪 螘位位畏谓喂魏萎 螞慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪
1) 螛蔚慰纬慰谓委伪 / 螆蟻纬伪 魏伪喂 螚渭苇蟻伪喂 / 螒蟽蟺委蟼 螚蟻伪魏位苇慰蠀蟼 (750-650 蟺.围.)
2) 螞蠀蟻喂魏萎 螤慰委畏蟽畏 (630-570 蟺.围.)
3) 螤苇蟻蟽伪喂 (472 蟺.围.)
4) 螖蠉蟽魏慰位慰蟼: 螇 螠喂蟽维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰蟼 (317 蟺.围.)
5) 螒蟻纬慰谓伪蠀蟿喂魏维 (283 - 221 蟺.围.)
6) 螘蟻蠅蟿喂魏维 螤伪胃萎渭伪蟿伪 (52 - 26 蟺.围.)
7) 螤蔚蟻委 韦畏蟼 螝伪蟿维 螠蠅蠀蟽苇伪 螝慰蟽渭慰蟺慰喂委伪蟼 (15/10 蟺.围. - 40 渭.围.)
8) 螜魏伪蟻慰渭苇谓喂蟺蟺慰蟼 / 螒位畏胃喂谓萎 螜蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 / 螤位慰委慰谓 萎 螘蠀蠂伪委 (120 渭.围. - 192 渭.围.)
9) 螖维蠁谓喂蟼 魏伪喂 围位蠈畏 (170 渭.围. - 200 渭.围.)
10) 螒喂胃喂慰蟺喂魏维 (370 渭.围.)
11) 韦伪 魏伪胃鈥� 螚蟻蠋 魏伪喂 螞苇伪谓未蟻慰谓, 螘位苇谓畏蟼 伪蟻蟺伪纬萎, 螁位蠅蟽喂蟼 螜位委慰蠀, 螒蟺慰蟽蟺维蟽渭伪蟿伪 (250 渭.围. - 518 渭.围.)
12) 螒谓苇魏未慰蟿伪 萎 伪蟺蠈魏蟻蠀蠁畏 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 (562 渭.围.)
蠂蟻蠈谓慰蟼 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏蟼 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎蟼: 1 位蔚蟺蟿蠈 魏伪喂 23 未蔚蠀蟿蔚蟻蠈位蔚蟺蟿伪
韦蔚位蔚蠀蟿伪委慰 尾喂尾位委慰 纬喂伪 蟿畏 4畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 蟿慰蠀 渭蔚纬伪位蔚蟺萎尾慰位慰蠀 伪蠀蟿慰蠉 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿: 蔚位位畏谓喂魏萎 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪.
螤蟻蠋蟿畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 (2020: 20慰蟼-21慰蟼 伪喂蠋谓伪蟼)
螖蔚蠉蟿蔚蟻畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 (2021: 19慰蟼 伪喂蠋谓伪蟼)
韦蟻委蟿畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 (2022: 11慰蟼-18慰蟼 伪喂蠋谓伪蟼)
韦苇蟿伪蟻蟿畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 (2023: 8慰蟼 蟺.围.-6慰蟼 伪喂蠋谓伪蟼 渭.围.)
螚 蟺苇渭蟺蟿畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 (2024: 7慰蟼 渭.围-14慰蟼 伪喂蠋谓伪蟼) 伪谓伪尾位萎胃畏魏蔚 纬喂伪 蠁苇蟿慰蟼 未喂蠈蟿喂
位委纬慰 蟿慰 未委蠂蟻慰谓慰 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿 螝伪味伪谓蟿味维魏畏蟼 (2021-2023) 蟺慰蠀 尉蔚魏委谓畏蟽伪 伪渭苇蟽蠅蟼
渭蔚蟿维 蟿慰 蟿蟻委蠂蟻慰谓慰 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿 螝蟻维喂蟿慰谓 (2019-2021), 渭伪味委 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟿蔚蟿蟻维蠂蟻慰谓慰
蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿 韦蠈位魏喂谓 (2021-2024) 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 蟿蔚位蔚喂蠋蟽蔚喂 伪喂蟽委蠅蟼 蠁苇蟿慰蟼 蟿伪 围蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠉纬蔚谓谓伪,
苇蟺伪胃伪 苇谓伪 慰尉蠉 魏慰蟻蔚蟽渭蠈 渭蔚 蠈位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿蟼 魏伪喂 位苇蠅 谓喂蟽维蠁喂 蟺喂伪, 蟽伪蟿蟽虇喂
蟺慰蠀 位苇渭蔚 魏伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 螝蠉蟺蟻慰.
螘委蟺伪 蠁苇蟿慰蟼 蠈蠂喂 维位位伪 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿蟼.
螛伪 蟿蔚位蔚喂蠋蟽蠅 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪 蟿慰谓 韦蠈位魏喂谓 谓伪 蠁苇蟻蠅 蟿慰谓 螔蔚谓苇味畏 蟽蟿伪 渭喂蟽维 (6 尾喂尾位委伪)
魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀 尾位苇蟺慰蠀渭蔚 纬喂伪 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿蟼.
桅苇蟿慰蟼 胃伪 尉蔚魏喂谓慰蠉蟽伪 螡蟿委魏蔚谓蟼 魏伪喂 螝喂谓纬魏 渭伪味委 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 韦蠈位魏喂谓 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 蟺苇渭蟺蟿畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓
蟿慰蠀 蔚位位畏谓喂魏慰蠉 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿 伪位位维 蠈蠂喂. 螒蟺蠈 蟿慰蠀 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀 蟺喂伪.
螖蔚 胃伪 维谓蟿蔚蠂伪 谓伪 蟿蟻苇蠂慰蠀谓 4 蟺蟻蠈蟿味蔚魏蟿蟼 蟿伪蠀蟿蠈蠂蟻慰谓伪.
危蟿伪 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀 蟿蠋蟻伪.
螒蠀蟿萎 畏 蟿苇蟿伪蟻蟿畏 蟽蔚味蠈谓 蟿慰蠀 project 尉蔚魏委谓畏蟽蔚 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 螚蟽委慰未慰 蟺慰蠀 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪
萎蟿伪谓 魏伪喂 蟽蠉纬蠂蟻慰谓慰蟼 蟿慰蠀 螣渭萎蟻慰蠀 魏伪喂 蠁蟿维谓慰蠀渭蔚 蟽蟿慰谓 螤蟻慰魏蠈蟺喂慰 蟺慰蠀
萎蟿伪谓 蟽蠉纬蠂蟻慰谓慰蟼 蟿慰蠀 螜慰蠀蟽蟿喂谓喂伪谓慰蠉.
螁蟻伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 慰渭畏蟻喂魏萎 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 苇蠁蟿伪蟽伪 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻蠋喂渭畏 尾蠀味伪谓蟿喂谓萎 蔚蟺慰蠂萎.
螣 螤蟻慰魏蠈蟺喂慰蟼 苇纬蟻伪蠄蔚 蟿畏谓 螜蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 畏 慰蟺慰委伪 蔚魏胃蔚喂维味蔚喂 蟽蠂蔚未蠈谓 蟽伪谓
蟺蟻慰蟺伪纬维谓未伪 蠈位慰 蟿慰 苇蟻纬慰 蟿慰蠀 螜慰蠀蟽蟿喂谓喂伪谓慰蠉 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺蠅蟼 尉伪谓维蠂蟿喂蟽蔚 魏伪喂
苇魏伪谓蔚 蟿畏谓 伪蠀蟿慰魏蟻伪蟿慰蟻委伪 蟿蟻伪谓萎 渭蔚蟿维 伪蟺蠈 渭喂伪 渭蔚纬维位畏 蠉蠁蔚蟽畏.
螘魏胃蔚委伪味蔚喂 伪蠀蟿蠈谓 魏伪喂 蟿慰谓 危蟿蟻伪蟿畏纬蠈 蟿慰蠀 蟿慰谓 螔蔚位喂蟽蟽维蟻喂慰 魏伪喂 渭蔚 维位位伪 位蠈纬喂伪
渭喂位维蔚喂 蠀蟺苇蟻 伪蠀蟿蠋谓 魏伪喂 蟿蠅谓 苇蟻纬蠅谓 蟿慰蠀蟼. 螝伪喂 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 蟿蠋蟻伪 慰 螤蟻慰魏蠈蟺喂慰蟼
谓伪 纬蟻维蠄蔚喂 渭委伪 伪蟺蠈魏蟻蠀蠁畏 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟺慰蠀 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚喂 蟿慰谓 螜慰蠀蟽蟿喂谓喂伪谓蠈 蟽伪谓
螒谓蟿委蠂蟻喂蟽蟿慰 蟿畏谓 螛蔚慰未蠋蟻伪 蟿畏谓 螒蠀蟿慰魏蟻维蟿蔚喂蟻伪 蟽伪谓 蟿畏 渭蔚纬伪位蠉蟿蔚蟻畏 未慰位慰蟺位蠈魏伪 魏伪蟻喂蠈位伪
蟺慰蠀 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 魏伪喂 蟿慰谓 螔蔚位喂蟽蟽维蟻喂慰 蟽伪谓 苇谓伪 蟺蟻蠈尾伪蟿慰 蟺慰蠀 伪魏慰蠉蔚喂 蠈,蟿喂 蟿慰蠀 蟺蔚喂 纬蠀谓伪委魏伪 蟿慰蠀.
渭蔚 维位位伪 位蠈纬喂伪 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 维尾慰蠀位慰蟼 维谓蟿蟻伪蟼 蠈蟽慰 伪蠁慰蟻维 蟿畏谓 慰喂魏慰纬蔚谓蔚喂伪魏萎 蟿慰蠀 味蠅萎.
螣蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 伪蠀蟿蠈蟼 慰 螤蟻慰魏蠈蟺喂慰蟼 苇蠁蟿喂伪尉蔚 渭蔚蟿维 伪蟺蠈 渭委伪 蟺蟻慰蟺伪纬维谓未伪, 苇谓伪谓 位委尾蔚位慰
蟺慰蠀 渭蔚 魏维谓蔚喂 谓伪 蟽魏蔚蠁蟿蠋: 蟺蠈蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿维 喂蟽蠂蠉慰蠀谓 魏喂 伪谓 喂蟽蠂蠉蔚喂 魏维蟿喂 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿维,
蟿喂 苇渭伪胃伪 蟽蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蟼 蔚纬蠋 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 尾蠀味伪谓蟿喂谓萎 蔚蟺慰蠂萎; 螒谓 蔚委谓伪喂 蠈位伪 蠄苇渭伪 苇渭伪胃伪 魏维蟿喂 萎 蠈蠂喂;
螒位位维 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏 蟽蟿喂纬渭萎 蟺慰蠀 伪蠀蟿蠈蟼 慰 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰蟼 委蟽蠅蟼 伪蠁慰蠉 苇蟺蔚蟽蔚 蟽蟿畏 未畏蟽渭苇谓喂伪
蟿慰蠀 螜慰蠀蟽蟿喂谓喂伪谓慰蠀 伪蟺慰蠁伪蟽委味蔚喂 魏维蟺蠅蟼 谓伪 蟿慰谓 蔚魏未喂魏畏胃蔚委 渭蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 苇蟻纬慰,
蔚委蟽伪喂 魏维蟺蠅蟼 伪蟺慰蟿蟻伪尾畏纬渭苇谓慰蟼, 魏伪喂 魏蟻伪蟿喂苇蟽伪喂 蟽蔚 渭委伪 伪蟺蠈蟽蟿伪蟽畏.
螖蔚谓 渭蔚蟿维谓喂蠅蟽伪 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 未喂维尾伪蟽伪 未喂蠈蟿喂 萎蟿伪谓 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟺伪蟻蠈位伪蠀蟿伪.
Read
January 21, 2025A searing indictment of horrifyingly corrupt rulers. Procopius leaves no stone unturned in enumerating the abuses and excesses of Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I, his wife Empress Theodora, Justinian鈥檚 top general Belisarius, and Belisarius鈥檚 own wife Antonina. From the tortures inflicted on individuals who displeased them to their sexual escapades to the lengths they go to to suck as much money from their officials and subjects as they can, these fabulously rich and powerful people鈥檚 horrible behavior has a certain voyeuristic attraction, I must confess. But more poignantly, while I wonder how much of this can be taken seriously as fact (I mean, Procopius does claim that Justinian is a literal demon), the important part鈥攖o me, at least鈥攊s that it is 100% believable that rulers could be just this corrupt and malicious and greedy. The rest of history before and after Procopius鈥檚 own time up to our present time鈥攄are I say up to this very day?鈥攂ears that out. So although it remains open to question whether Justinian and those closest to him deserved such a brutal screed, it is not open to question that many powerful people throughout history have deserved something like a Secret History written about them. And with that in mind, I think this is a powerful read.
Read
June 9, 2023this is a truly dated ! edition which describes the 'appalling vulgarity' of our girly Theodora, wife of Justinian .. (probably?) former prostitute, turned empress, nymphomaniac (according to Procopius), with a stage-show involving swan-sex, from what I can tell. it becomes clear that SHE is the reason this text is, she's , I think the centre. The stuffy intro concedes, petulantly, 'Perhaps the French can appreciate the lady better than we can'. more of her pls
February 9, 2017
Procopius is what would happen if Suetonius offered analysis and not just gossip. The Secret History is most notorious for its depiction of scandalized sex and Justinian I's demonic powers. These are, for audiences today, the fun parts. Yet, more searing is the misgovernment and bad policies of Justinian and Theodora. One might say it is only Procopius' opinion, but he tellingly explains the matrix of high taxes, religious oppression, political corruption, and military adventurism that caused the empire to decline. Without Justinian and Theodora there would be no Muslim conquest.
The Secret History is also a warning. One could look at the military conquests of Justinian and his legal code and grand buildings and deduce that he was a great man. Procopius insists we look at the cost of these grand achievements. He is telling us, perhaps only tacitly, to never take power, position, and success at face value, that we must understand its arrogance and hypocrisy. It is a lesson we should all heed.
The Secret History is also a warning. One could look at the military conquests of Justinian and his legal code and grand buildings and deduce that he was a great man. Procopius insists we look at the cost of these grand achievements. He is telling us, perhaps only tacitly, to never take power, position, and success at face value, that we must understand its arrogance and hypocrisy. It is a lesson we should all heed.
October 1, 2015
jao, koji je tra膷er bio taj Prokopije!
October 12, 2022
In the introduction the translator makes an amusing comment (that I believe he felt was quite serious and erudite) that Procopius modeled himself after a "classical" historical school and style, namely Thucydides and Herodotus. That's when I knew I was "in for it." I suspect that all of the praise Thucydides receives from non-academics is by folks who sort of read a paragraph of Pericles' funeral oration or have merely heard of the Melian dialogue. If you actually READ Thucydides you realize he was an abysmal prose stylist whose understanding of history was just as primitive as Herodotus, namely "one damn thing after another." And believe you me, there is no "good" translation as far as readability is concerned when it comes to Thucydides. Apart from the funeral oration, a few other moments of diplomatic talk, and the Melian dialogue the entire work is an awful slog unworthy of admiration apart from being a primary source. Herodotus is a little better if only because the monotony of the endeavor is broken up by his novel structure (first Egypt, then Persia, then Greece...) whereas ALL Thucydides has is "spears...hoplites...ships...fire...spears....hoplites...ships...fire" and so on and so forth ad infinitum. To return to Procopius--this is not a writer who modeled himself after Plutarch, or Polybius, or Livy but clearly does fall into the "one damn thing after another" school of "Classical Historiography" and the influence of Thucydides, even in translation, is obvious. Now, the first two sections are short and anecdotally diverting enough to make it a rather "whimsical" read (the way that one can grind through most of Herodotus without much trouble because its so full of "stories") and Procopius' utter loathing for those in charge of Byzantium is so palpably bald that one wishes to politely tap him on the shoulder and hand him a toupee. But the last section, "Anatomy of The State," was simply atrocious. The focus completely relaxes (as happens very soon after the first few books of Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War) and we are bombarded with one name after another after another after another who all did something "totally inexcusable." The charm of the polemic is eroded away and only the char remains. C'est la vie. Plutarch REMAINS the ultimate ancient historian of the West.
January 28, 2014
I鈥檝e never yet been to Istanbul 鈥� formerly Constantinople and before that Byzantium 鈥� but I have been to Ravenna on Italy鈥檚 east coast. Here the visitor can glimpse some of the glory that was Byzantium of old in the form of the magnificent mosaics, located in various surviving structures such as the Arian Baptistry, the Basilica of Sant鈥橝pollinare Nuovo and the Basilica of San Vitale. Amidst splendid religious mosaics of Christ鈥檚 baptism and the Adoration of the Magi are more secular images, in particular of the 6th-century Emperor Justinian I, his Empress Theodora and possibly the general Belisarius. These are icons meant to impress, and it鈥檚 noteworthy that the heads of the two imperial figures are each surrounded by a nimbus 鈥� what we recognise as the halo associated with Christ and the saints but which was also, as here, applied to rulers or heroes. To see these figures so bedecked with jewels and crowns and aureoles one would be rightly suspect a measure of self-glorification; but in truth, if their contemporary the writer Procopius is to be believed, no two individuals were less suited to being portrayed thus in a Christian context.
Procopius was the private secretary of Count Belisarius, long the emperor鈥檚 most trusted general, and was present when Ravenna was captured for the Byzantine Empire in 540. A score or so years later he had risen to become 鈥� we surmise 鈥� Prefect of Constantinople as well as official imperial historian, whose job was to chronicle the Emperor鈥檚 achievements in law, history and public works. Procopius did his job well, providing supporting evidence of Justinian鈥檚 vast law codification for the Empire and the raising of edifices such as the simply astounding Hagia Sophia in the 530s, with its jaw-dropping dome: 鈥渕arvellous in its grace, but by reason of the seeming insecurity of its composition altogether terrifying. For it seems somehow to float in the air with no firm basis but to be poised aloft to the peril of those inside鈥︹€�
But this seeming imperial paragon of virtue was, to Procopius, no such thing. While he was writing and publishing The Histories and Buildings the historian was also putting together The Secret History, at no great danger to himself. We are all aware of the malign propensities of modern-day tyrants and dictators 鈥� no continent seems immune from them 鈥� and it is a brave individual who attempts to record their abuses and injustices, especially one in a position of trust and authority. 鈥淚t was impossible either to avoid detection by swarms of spies, or if caught to escape death in its most agonizing form,鈥� he writes in a foreword from around 550, fifteen years before his and Justinian鈥檚 deaths. Even now, he adds, 鈥滻 envisage the probability that what I am now about to write will appear incredible and unconvincing to future generations.鈥� And, in a prescient comment, he tells the reader that he is 鈥渁fraid that I shall be regarded as a mere teller of fairy tales or listed among the tragic poets.鈥�
But despite lingering fears of reprisals on his future descendants he dares to set down the facts of Justinian鈥檚 reign secure in the knowledge that there have been ample enough witnesses to support his report, that such an account might cause future tyrants to rein back on their excesses from fear of divine retribution and, moreover, that future victims could take small comfort from knowing that they are not the only ones to suffer from misrule. With the words 鈥淭his is my justification for first recounting the contemptible conduct of Belisarius, and then revealing the equally contemptible conduct of Justinian and Theodora,鈥� Procopius embarks on a character assassination of his erstwhile employers that sickeningly outdoes any gossipy expos茅 by today鈥檚 tabloids.
He structures his report into seven chapters: first outlines the weaknesses and failings of Count Belisarius and his scheming wife Antonina, then goes on to the less than salubrious family background of the emperor, the latter鈥檚 uncle the Emperor Justin and, last but not least, the empress; these are followed by chapters on Justinian鈥檚 misgovernment and the Theodora鈥檚 crimes; then we鈥檙e treated to the consequences of their misdeeds 鈥� needless destruction, wanton ruin, pointless sacrifice 鈥� with a last word on 鈥淭he Arrogance of the Imperial Pair鈥�. Frankly, I found it hard to read this account without breaks. In terms of the scandalous doings of these two of the original quartet the sheer piling of Pelion on Ossa is mind-numbing: ruthlessness, vindictiveness, rapaciousness, disloyalty, wastefulness, greed, depravity 鈥� of the seven deadly sins only sloth and gluttony seem alien to the monsters Procopius depicts, and the imperial pair seem to have invented as many variations on the remaining five as they could.
The Latin-speaking Justinian and his soldier uncle Justin were from a Balkan village but, moving to Byzantium, Justin was fortuitously placed as captain of the guard to become Emperor, and Justinian was equally well placed to slip into the role when his time came. The actress and prostitute Theodora caught his eye on his way to the throne in 527 and together the two very strong-minded individuals weathered riots in 532 and a devastating plague 540-2 until the reconquest of Italy by Belisarius led to the completed mosaics of San Vitale in 547, a year before Theodora鈥檚 death at 48 from cancer. Orthodox historians call this a Golden Age of art and architecture and praise Justinian for his streamlining of bureaucracy and the law and his support of Catholic Christianity against heresy; Procopius had already chronicled his military and religious successes but in The Secret History more than balances this with an alternative and very disturbing view of a corrupt court aided and abetted by an equally corrupt state apparatus. Peter Brown suggests that Justinian 鈥渉as been trapped in his own image. His astute manipulation of the resources of propaganda has been taken at face value. Hence he has gained the reputation of being a romantic idealist, haunted by the mirage of a renewal of the Roman empire鈥︹€� Even if only a third or a quarter of what Procopius says is true, untainted by hyperbole, that romantic idealist image must be very far from the truth.
The San Vitale portraits, for all the drawbacks of mosaic techniques, present what seem to be very powerful individuals. It鈥檚 difficult not to look into those eyes desperately seeking answers to the apparent conundrums of later judgements, and perhaps being a little frightened by what one sees there. And that reminds me: I must re-read Donna Tartt鈥檚 novel of the same name鈥�
Peter Brown The World of Late Antiquity, Thames & Hudson 1971
Speros Vryonis Byzantium and Europe Thames & Hudson 1967
Procopius was the private secretary of Count Belisarius, long the emperor鈥檚 most trusted general, and was present when Ravenna was captured for the Byzantine Empire in 540. A score or so years later he had risen to become 鈥� we surmise 鈥� Prefect of Constantinople as well as official imperial historian, whose job was to chronicle the Emperor鈥檚 achievements in law, history and public works. Procopius did his job well, providing supporting evidence of Justinian鈥檚 vast law codification for the Empire and the raising of edifices such as the simply astounding Hagia Sophia in the 530s, with its jaw-dropping dome: 鈥渕arvellous in its grace, but by reason of the seeming insecurity of its composition altogether terrifying. For it seems somehow to float in the air with no firm basis but to be poised aloft to the peril of those inside鈥︹€�
But this seeming imperial paragon of virtue was, to Procopius, no such thing. While he was writing and publishing The Histories and Buildings the historian was also putting together The Secret History, at no great danger to himself. We are all aware of the malign propensities of modern-day tyrants and dictators 鈥� no continent seems immune from them 鈥� and it is a brave individual who attempts to record their abuses and injustices, especially one in a position of trust and authority. 鈥淚t was impossible either to avoid detection by swarms of spies, or if caught to escape death in its most agonizing form,鈥� he writes in a foreword from around 550, fifteen years before his and Justinian鈥檚 deaths. Even now, he adds, 鈥滻 envisage the probability that what I am now about to write will appear incredible and unconvincing to future generations.鈥� And, in a prescient comment, he tells the reader that he is 鈥渁fraid that I shall be regarded as a mere teller of fairy tales or listed among the tragic poets.鈥�
But despite lingering fears of reprisals on his future descendants he dares to set down the facts of Justinian鈥檚 reign secure in the knowledge that there have been ample enough witnesses to support his report, that such an account might cause future tyrants to rein back on their excesses from fear of divine retribution and, moreover, that future victims could take small comfort from knowing that they are not the only ones to suffer from misrule. With the words 鈥淭his is my justification for first recounting the contemptible conduct of Belisarius, and then revealing the equally contemptible conduct of Justinian and Theodora,鈥� Procopius embarks on a character assassination of his erstwhile employers that sickeningly outdoes any gossipy expos茅 by today鈥檚 tabloids.
He structures his report into seven chapters: first outlines the weaknesses and failings of Count Belisarius and his scheming wife Antonina, then goes on to the less than salubrious family background of the emperor, the latter鈥檚 uncle the Emperor Justin and, last but not least, the empress; these are followed by chapters on Justinian鈥檚 misgovernment and the Theodora鈥檚 crimes; then we鈥檙e treated to the consequences of their misdeeds 鈥� needless destruction, wanton ruin, pointless sacrifice 鈥� with a last word on 鈥淭he Arrogance of the Imperial Pair鈥�. Frankly, I found it hard to read this account without breaks. In terms of the scandalous doings of these two of the original quartet the sheer piling of Pelion on Ossa is mind-numbing: ruthlessness, vindictiveness, rapaciousness, disloyalty, wastefulness, greed, depravity 鈥� of the seven deadly sins only sloth and gluttony seem alien to the monsters Procopius depicts, and the imperial pair seem to have invented as many variations on the remaining five as they could.
The Latin-speaking Justinian and his soldier uncle Justin were from a Balkan village but, moving to Byzantium, Justin was fortuitously placed as captain of the guard to become Emperor, and Justinian was equally well placed to slip into the role when his time came. The actress and prostitute Theodora caught his eye on his way to the throne in 527 and together the two very strong-minded individuals weathered riots in 532 and a devastating plague 540-2 until the reconquest of Italy by Belisarius led to the completed mosaics of San Vitale in 547, a year before Theodora鈥檚 death at 48 from cancer. Orthodox historians call this a Golden Age of art and architecture and praise Justinian for his streamlining of bureaucracy and the law and his support of Catholic Christianity against heresy; Procopius had already chronicled his military and religious successes but in The Secret History more than balances this with an alternative and very disturbing view of a corrupt court aided and abetted by an equally corrupt state apparatus. Peter Brown suggests that Justinian 鈥渉as been trapped in his own image. His astute manipulation of the resources of propaganda has been taken at face value. Hence he has gained the reputation of being a romantic idealist, haunted by the mirage of a renewal of the Roman empire鈥︹€� Even if only a third or a quarter of what Procopius says is true, untainted by hyperbole, that romantic idealist image must be very far from the truth.
The San Vitale portraits, for all the drawbacks of mosaic techniques, present what seem to be very powerful individuals. It鈥檚 difficult not to look into those eyes desperately seeking answers to the apparent conundrums of later judgements, and perhaps being a little frightened by what one sees there. And that reminds me: I must re-read Donna Tartt鈥檚 novel of the same name鈥�
Peter Brown The World of Late Antiquity, Thames & Hudson 1971
Speros Vryonis Byzantium and Europe Thames & Hudson 1967
February 13, 2025
Wow! I read this for a class on Early Byzantine history and hardly know what to say about it. It was definitely a fun, quick read, but how much of it is true is up for debate. In this 鈥渦nofficial鈥� history, Procopius takes out all his hatred of Justinian, his Empress Theodora, his general Belisarius, and the wife of Belisarius Antonina. I don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any crime or personality flaw that isn鈥檛 described for at least one of them. Amongst other insults, he describes Justinian as 鈥渋nsincere, crafty, hypocritical, dissembling his anger, double-dealing 鈥︹€� and more. Seriously, how could four people find the time to do all of the vile, nasty things described of them?
I don鈥檛 know much about this period of history, and I鈥檓 not sure I know a lot more after reading this book. But, I did have fun with the read.
I don鈥檛 know much about this period of history, and I鈥檓 not sure I know a lot more after reading this book. But, I did have fun with the read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 355 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.