Procopius’ Secret History: a realistic account of the reign of Justinian and

Theodora?

Procopius’ Anecdota, better known as his ‘Secret History’ is the most valuable
source written by an eyewitness available to modern historians for the reign of the
Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora. Procopius was a secretary to Belisarius,
Justinian’s most trusted general, and his writing certainly suggests that he knew
the public and possibly the private life of his subjects intimately. As respected a
historian as Procopius was, the Secret History remains a stunning and vicious
attack upon a reigning monarch during his lifetime, replete with invective and
bile. It is highly critical of not just their reign but also their character, morals and
public and private behaviour. How accurate a reflection of the reign of Justinian
and Theodora it actually is will be examined by comparison with other sources,
including two other works by Procopius, History of the Wars and Buildings which
do not contain quite such scathing condemnation.

As stated, Procopius of Caesarea was a secretary to Justinian’s general

Belisarius, and accompanied him on his wars in the Empire in the 6th century. He
was the author of three books and a participant in many of the events he wrote
about. His History of the Wars is a multi-volumed work regarding the Empires’
wars against the Persians, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. Buildings is a history
of the building and expansion program undertaken by Justinian and the Secret
History is his final work, an unedited version of these events and the people who
participated in them. Procopius therefore, was well placed to comment on his
subjects.

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

examined, as the Secret History is without doubt an assault upon her character and
her actions. In the Secret History, Procopius vilifies Theodora for her background,
as the daughter of an actress and a bear-trainer who herself became an actress but
this is the least of her sins.1 He accuses her in turn of anal intercourse due to her
youth, prostitution, immodesty, public nudity, lasciviousness, group sex, multiple
abortions and infanticide, and hedonistic, shameless behaviour.2 And this was just
Theodora’s background prior to meeting Justinian, but in Procopius view, this is
the most damning evidence of her character, despite her later behaviour as
Empress. It would appear that he has chosen to give such a detailed and vivid
description of Theodora’s early life to damn her in the eyes of his audience, who
were accustomed to a more gentile type of Roman matron. Averil Cameron argues
that Theodora, in her time as Empress acted just as an Empress should, so that the
only way for Procopius to attack her was to attack what he knew, or had heard,

1 Procopius, The Secret History, trans. G.A. Williamson, London, 2007 (9), p.36-37.
2 Ibid., p 37-39.

1
regarding her private life.3 Elizabeth Fisher expands on this to argue that
Procopius relied on gossip and slander for his background comments on
Theodora, and presents them in such a way that they appear as historical fact.4

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

portraying Theodora’s early life in such a monstrous fashion that it has become
accepted as history. That Justinian changed the laws after his aunt’s death to allow
marriage to courtesans, such as Theodora, is recorded by Procopius and is well
known.5 Judith Herrin states that at this time in Byzantium, actresses and other
entertainers were in fact treated almost as prostitutes in law.6 Knowing that
historically actresses were mostly also courtesan and prostitutes, with all the
reputations that those occupations held, his exaggerations were probably
unquestioned.

It is in his detail of Theodora’s role as Empress, however, that his misogynistic

opinions truly are shown. Cameron argues that he was ‘deeply suspicious’ of
women but especially powerful ones like Theodora, and therein lies his hostility
toward her.7 Cameron goes on to state that Procopius disliked the ‘feminine’,
disliked women in power so intensely that it offended his sensibilities and caused
him to write in a ‘one-sided and biased’ manner that in fact weakens, and not
strengthens, his argument.8 Fisher agrees, stating that his portrayal of Theodora,
and in turn Belarius’ wife Antonina, were indicative of the stereotype of powerful
women in the 6th century, and this would have made his attack acceptable to many
at that time.9 This literary device, of invective, generalisation and exaggeration,
was in fact a common technique used by Procopius’ contemporaries and therefore
quite acceptable.10 That Theodora’s background is accepted now as historically
accurate, as seen in dramatisations of her life, seem to indicate that Procopius was
successful in his aims.11

Procopius’ main objection to Theodora seem to be that she wielded power over
Justinian inappropriately. His criticism of Theodora includes being ‘perpetually
fixed upon inhumanity’, clearly lacking in mercy and acting in an autocratic
manner. She was vain and frivolous, spending hours upon her appearance to the

3 Averil Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century, London, 1985, p. 75.
4 Elizabeth.A.Fisher, ‘Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana: History and/or Fiction?’, Arethusa,
11,1973, p. 273-274.
5 Procopius, The Secret History, p. 42.
6 Judith Herrin, ‘In Search of Byzantine Women’, in Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron &
Amélie Kuhrt, London & Canberra, 1983, p. 170.
7 Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century, p. 81.
8 Ibid., p. 82-83.
9 Fisher, ‘Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana’, p. 275.
10 P. Allen, ‘Contemporary Portrayals of the Empress Theodora’, in Garlick, B. et al, (eds), Stereotypes of
Women in Power, New York, 1992, p. 96.
11 See ‘Theodora: Slave Empress’ (1954) at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047567/, ‘Theodora” (1921 ) at
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0010764/ and ‘Theodora: Actress, Empress, Whore’ by Stella Duffy as evidence
of her modern reputation.

2
detriment of the Empire. To ascertain just how accurate his portrayals of
Theodora, and by extension Justinian, are, however, it is necessary to examine
how he portrayed them in his earlier works and also how other sources viewed the
couple. Generally, both Justinian and Theodora come off favourably in both
circumstances. Agapetus, a deacon in the Church in the 6th century, praises
Justinian’s’ office as being ‘illustrious, tempering the pomp of authority with your
gentleness, and vanquishing the fears of those who approach you by your
goodness.’12 Of course, he was advising his Emperor, so one would expect flattery
of this kind. Yet other sources also praise the Emperor. John the Lydian, who also
held high positions in Justinian’s administration, called him a ‘good and fair
ruler.’13 And finally, Malalas, a Greek chronicler, gives us a very different view
again from Procopius in his Chronicles. Roger Scott argues that Malalas’ ‘bland
but generally favourable account’ is important as it supports many of Procopius’
claims as fact but presents an alternative view to his criticisms of Justinian, as we
shall see when examining his actions in more detail.14

Malalas, argues Scott, supports many of the facts in the Secret History but
presents an alternative assessment of those events, which in itself, is just an
alternative propaganda.15 An example of this is the way in which both Procopius
and Malalas interpret Justinian’s treatment of heretics, Hellenes, pagans, Jews,
homosexual and astrologers. Procopius is damning in Justinian’s treatment yet
Malalas sees this ‘reign of terror’ as ‘proper and right’, arguing that ‘fear exists
along with such blessings as peace and security.’16 One could argue that the two
interpretations represent the opposing pro and anti-Justinian camps in the Empire,
depending of course on where one was placed in that society.

This, in fact, is a common criticism of Procopius, that ultimately Justinian’s

reforms threatened the position of many within the Byzantine establishment. Scott
continues to state that Procopius wrote the Secret History to criticise what he saw
as a challenge to the authority of the Byzantine ruling establishment.17 J.A.S
Evans supports this argument, stating that Procopius was speaking with the voice
of the Establishment.18 By his reforms, it does appear that Justinian may have
offended the ruling aristocracy in Byzantine society, particularly by his elevation
of Theodora. Timothy Gregory agrees with this theory, arguing that Procopius
objected to the way that the ‘newcomers’ acted without consideration to the

12 Agapetus, ‘Philosophical Advice to the Emperor Justinian (c.530)’ in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5,
Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.1.
13 John the Lydian, ‘John the Lydian gives a Public Servant’s View of Justinian’s Administration’, in
HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.9.
14 Roger.D.Scott, ‘Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
Vol.39 (1985), p. 99. Scott, ‘Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda’,p. 102.
15 Ibid.,p.104.
16 Procopius, The Secret History, p.45-50. Scott, ‘Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda’,
p.103.
17 Scott, ‘Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda’,p. 106.
18 J.A.S.Evans, ‘Justinian and the Historian Procopius’, in Greece and Rome, Second Series,Vol. 17, No. 2
(Oct, 1970), p. 219.

3
‘privileges and sensitivities of the contemporary aristocracy’ on which Procopius
felt he was a part.19Certainly, the tone of the Secret History is vastly different
from those of the History of the Wars and Buildings, and one can attribute that in
part to the changing attitude, and possibly position, of Procopius himself.

The differing portrayals of Justinian and Theodora in the Secret History are
glaringly obvious when one examines Procopius earlier works. The most obvious
discrepancy is in his treatment of Theodora. In the History of the Wars, Procopius
has her make a speech during the Nika riots. While Justinian and his generals
were preparing to flee, it is Theodora who rouses the men to action and to honour
‘the purple’ by standing their ground.20 It is Theodora who is wielding power and
influence and Procopius appears to be praising her for it. Yet in the Secret
History, he damns Theodora and Justinian for their actions, calling them
‘bloodthirsty demons.’21 Lynda Garland, as do many modern sources, argue that
Theodora did not actually say the speech Procopius attributes to her in the Wars
but goes on to state that rather than set to praise Theodora it actually was designed
to damage Justinian’s reputation.22 No one disputes that Theodora wielded power
though her husband but Garland argues that the speech shows Theodora taking on
the masculine role that should have been occupied by her husband.23 This then,
rather than being a piece of pro-Justinian propaganda, could perhaps be
interpreted as an early foreshadowing of Procopius’ anti-Justinian opinion in the
Secret History.

For in his later work, Procopius is very clear that power was shared by both
Justinian and Theodora, and that by allowing this, it was a sign of Justinian’s
weakness as an Emperor. His marriage to Theodora is, in Procopius’ view, a sign
of his ‘moral sickness.’24 The pair were ‘at one in their rapacity, their bloodlust
and their utter contempt for the truth.’25 His vindictive treatment of Theodora is
purely to serve as a sign of Justinian’s weakness and poor judgment as an
Emperor. Fisher agrees, arguing that by slandering one he can blacken the name
of both.26 Allen argues that by slandering the couple so, Procopius ‘rounds out his
misrepresentation’ of Theodora and therefore Justinian in the process.27 This is
clearly Procopius’ intent, and signs of his dissatisfaction can therefore be seen as
early as the time he wrote the History of the Wars.

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

20 Procopius, ‘Procopius’ Official Version of the Nika Riot, 1 Jan 532’, in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5,
Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.3.
21 Procopius, The Secret History, p. 51-52.
22 Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium AD 527-1204, London and New
York, 2002, p. 32.
23 Ibid., p. 32.
24 Procopius, The Secret History, p. 42.
25 Ibid., p. 62.
26 Fisher, ‘Theodora and Antonina in the Historia Arcana’, p. 276.
27 Allen, ‘Contemporary Portrayals of the Empress Theodora’, p. 98.

4
Interestingly, Buildings also shows sign of Procopius’ disillusionment with his
Emperor. Evans states that in Buildings, Justinian is the ‘chosen of God’, building
Hagia Sophia and other monuments to the Empire.28 He also argues that Buildings
was in fact a form of propaganda ordered by Justinian to be written by Procopius,
due to rising opposition to Justinian’s reforms – expensive wars, exhausted
financial reserves, plague, lack of revenue and heresy within the Empire.29
Procopius spends time praising Justinian, his expansion of the empire, his
religious reforms, and his law reforms, ‘wedding the whole state to a life of
prosperity’ in a glorifying manner reminiscent of an election campaign.30 Its
sincerity is questionable. In the Secret History, Procopius damns Justinian for the
very measures he has spent time praising in Buildings. So which work is the most
accurate?

Much has been debated about the timing of the Secret History and when it was
written, as the tone of that work differs so vastly from his earlier works, on the
whole. Garland argues that Procopius would not have written the Secret History
unless there was in existence a faction hostile to Theodora, and by extension
Justinian.31 This theory is supported by Evans, who states that by the time the
Secret History was written, Procopius was less well-informed and no longer part
of Belarius’ inner circle.32 The mood of ‘deep disillusionment’ in the tone of the
Secret History is more than apparent.33 Is the Secret History then, the vindictive
revenge of a man disillusioned by his Emperor and government, or a true and
scathing attack by someone who was once a part of the regime he later professes
to despise?

Therein lies the paradox of the Secret History – is it fact or fiction? As Gordon
argues, Procopius was too good a historian, too well-respected, to make up facts,
and while his interpretation of those facts was ‘unfair, short-sighted and
malicious’, it may have also reflected the popular feelings of the day, as well as
his own.34 Scott agrees, stating that many of the facts presented by both Procopius
in the Secret History and Malalas in his Chronicles align; it is their attitudes and
interpretations that are counter to each other.35 One has to ask then, when and why
did Procopius’ attitude change, if at all? As the secretary to Justinian’s’ most
trusted general, job security for Procopius would obviously mean professing
opinions in favour of Justinian. But it may be that in secret, Procopius was
disillusioned and possibly disgusted by the actions of his Emperor and Empress.
Evans argues that he had to supress information he later published in the Secret

28 J.A.S.Evans‘The Secret History and the Art of Procopius’, Prudentia, vol. 7 (1975), p. 108.
29 J.A.S.Evans, ‘Justinian and the Historian Procopius’, p. 223.
30 Procopius, ‘Justinian as Perfect Ruler (Procopius’ later view) in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale,
2013, Doc. 5.2.
31 Garland, Byzantine Empresses, p. 39.
32 Evans, ‘The Secret History and the Art of Procopius’, p. 106.
33 K. Adshead, ‘The Secret History of Procopius and its Genesis’, Byzantion 63 (1993), p. 6.
34 C.D.Gordon, ‘Procopius and Justinian’s Financial Policies’, Phoenix, Vol.13, No.1 (Spring, 1959), p. 29.
35 Scott, ‘Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda’, p. 104.

5
History for ‘fear of the secret police’ and claims it is his apology for ever having
written the History of the Wars, and ‘having identified himself once with the
policies which had brought disaster on the empire.’36 There may be some truth in
this theory, as Procopius himself tells us that in his earlier writings he had to
conceal the truth while ‘those responsible for what happened were still alive’ and
while he felt ‘far from safe.’37 In other words, Procopius wrote what was required
of him by his employer; on the side, he kept a record of what he perceived to be
the true story.

Of the success or failure of Justinian’s reign, opinion is of course divided, and

much of this can be attributed to Procopius. Gregory argues that Justinian was one
of the few Byzantine Emperors ‘whose ideas about his power were matched by a
considerable degree of reality.’38 This is the paradox of Justinian’s reign – some
view it as a great period of art and building, culture and preservation of an Empire
while others view it as an ‘age of tyranny and fiscal excess that laid the seeds for
collapse in the decades to come.’39 Just as Procopius presents binary opposites to
the history of Justinian’s reign so is opinion divided amongst historians. While
History of the Wars and Buildings proclaimed the glory of Justinian and
Theodora, the Secret History is a behind-the-scenes look, perhaps, at the Empire,
pointing out the ‘shortcomings’ of the regime.40 One could argue that the bitter
invective shown by Procopius may have been in part because he was forced to
bend the truth and present a certain viewpoint in his earlier works to protect his
own position.

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

By dwelling on her early life with the ‘neurotic lasciviousness of a prude’ he
almost discredits how own work.41 His hatred of Theodora is obvious and he uses
her past against her to discredit not only Theodora herself but her husband. But it
is the tone and language he uses that damage his work, as they are obviously not
based wholly on fact but on gossip, rumour and possibly Procopius’ own vivid
imagination. While many parts of the Secret History appear to be based in
historical fact, and can be balanced and legitimised through his earlier works and
those of others, his depiction of Theodora is so savage and full of vitriol that it is
hard to accept it as anything but a vastly exaggerated version of Theodora. A
woman described by John the Lydian as ‘superior in intelligence of any man
ever’, it is difficult not to deduce whether Procopius found Theodora threatening
purely because of her gender.42 His portrait of her was designed for an audience of
his peers, who would be as disgusted as he was by her behaviour. That is was not

36 Evans, ‘Justinian and the Historian Procopius’, p. 222.

37 Procopius, The Secret History, p.1.
38 Gregory, A History of Byzantium, p. 119.
39 Ibid., p. 140.
40 Evans, ‘The Secret History and the Art of Procopius’, p.109.
41 Robert Browning, Justinian and Theodora, London, 1971, p. 65.
42 John the Lydian, in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.9.

6
published until after her death speaks volumes – there was no way for her to
refute his claims, even if she had cared to.

The Secret History, in conclusion, has much to say about the reign of Justinian
and Theodora and doubtless therein lays much truth and fact. That Justinian
divided his critics is unquestioned; whether or not he was successful or not as an
Emperor is highly debated. What cannot be denied is that Theodora was obviously
an intelligent woman who rose to the rank of Empress despite her questionable
past, and who must have been accepted by much of Byzantine society. Procopius
character assassination in the Secret History does much to weaken his argument,
but unfortunately, it is this image of her, as an immoral whore who used her wiles
to seduce and ultimately rule through Justinian, that has prevailed. In that at least,
Procopius has succeeded in his aims. To some extent, the Secret History is a
realistic account of events and, if nothing else, provides an alternative view of the
events presented in the History of the Wars and Buildings. Viewed alongside
those works, the Secret History does provide a unique insight into two fascinating
individuals. An honest representation or a sustained attack upon his Emperor, the
Secret History remains an invaluable source for the reign of Justinian and
Theodora and must be read with due regard for the personal bias of the man who
wrote it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

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

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

John the Lydian, ‘John the Lydian gives a Public Servant’s View of Justinian’s
Administration’, in HIST305 Documents, Topic 5, Armidale, 2013, Doc. 5.9.

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

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

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

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

Secondary Sources

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

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

7
Adshead, K. ‘The Secret History of Procopius and its Genesis’, Byzantion 63
(1993), pp. 5-28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London and New York, Routledge, 2002.

Gordon, C.D. ‘Procopius and Justinian’s Financial Policies’, Phoenix, Vol.13,

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

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

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

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

Scott, Roger. D. ‘Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda’,

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

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