Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:08:41.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dates of Procopius’ works*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Geoffrey Greatrex
Geoffrey Greatrex*
Affiliation:
Exeter College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The writings of Procopius have long been a subject of controversy. First there were disputes over the authorship of the Anecdota, which finally was assigned to Procopius. Then arose the question of when his various works were written, sparking a debate which still attracts scholarly attention; this paper aims to contribute to this debate, while extending the scope of the discussion to cover all Procopius’ later works. It may be noted further that the discussions over the dating of Procopius’ works takes place against the background of continuing reassessments of the latter half of Justinian’s reign: it has been argued that a fusion of classical and Christian culture took place in the sixth century, but the processes of this transition remain unclear. A key element in this discussion is the production of literary works, which appears to have tailed off markedly towards the end of the reign of Justinian; hence whether Procopius’ works should be placed in the early or the late 550s is of import to this wider field of discussion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 18 , 1994 , pp. 101 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. On the debate over the authorship of the Anecdota, cf. Cameron, A., Procopius and the Sixth Century, London 1985, 49–50 Google Scholar. On the matter of cultural change in the sixth century, cf. Cameron, A., ‘Images of Authority: Élites and Icons in the late sixth-century Byzantium’, PP 84 (1979) 3–35 (reprinted in Continuity and change in sixth-century Byzantium [London 1981] XVIII), esp. 9–13 and The Mediterranean Worldin Late Antiquity, A.D. 395-600 (London 1993) 125–127 Google Scholar; also Scott, R., ‘Malaias, the Secret History and Justinian’s Propaganda’, DOP 39 (1985) 99–109 at 105–106.Google Scholar

2. On the challenge to the 554 date for the de Aed., cf. Whitby, M., ‘The Sangarius bridge and Procopius’, JHS 105 (1985) 129–148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the Anecdota, cf. Scott, R., ‘Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms, and the date of the Secret History’, BMGS 11 (1987) 215–221.Google Scholar

3. For Haury’s arguments regarding the date of the Anecdota, cf. his Procopiana (Programm des Königlichen Realgymnasiums [Augsburg 1890/1]) 9-26; on the de Aed., 27-34. Cf. e.g. Bury’s, acceptance of Haury’s case, History of the Later Roman Empire (New York 1958) 422 n.2 Google Scholar, where he also gives the references to the passages referring to the 32 years — xviii.33, xxiii.l, xxiv.29.

On Bella I-VII, cf. Cameron, Procopius, 8 (putting them in 550), cf. Bury, 422; Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire 2 (Amsterdam 1949) 717 Google Scholar, and Evans, J.A.S., Procopius (New York 1972) 41 in favour of 550–551.Google Scholar

4. Favouring a later dating — Bury, 428, Downey, G., ‘The composition of Procopius, De Aedificiis’, TAPA 78 (1947) 171–183 Google Scholar; Evans, , Procopius, 43–44, and ‘The dates of the Anecdota and De Aedificiis of Procopius’, CP 64 (1969) 29–30 Google Scholar, and (most recently) M. Whitby, ‘The Sangarius bridge and Procopius’. Preferring an earlier dating — Stein, 722 and Excursus V, 837; most recently Cameron, Procopius, 9-11.

5. Bella VIII, dated by Bury to 553, 422; also Stein, 717 and Cameron, 8, puts it in 554. Evans, however, argues for 556/7, Procopius, 43 and n.68.

6. ‘Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms’, 217, for the arguments on the coinage; 217-221 on Passover and Easter; Malaias, Chronographia, ed. Dindorf, L. (Bonn 1831).Google Scholar

7. Scott, ‘Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms’, 217 (cf. also his article, ‘Malaias, the Secret History and Justinian’s Propaganda’, 101), noting the objections of Bury, 427, n.1. In fact Bury was referring to Anecd. xxii.38 and not the passage discussed by Scott, , although Procopius at xxii.38 is presumably referring to the effective devaluation of the solidus as compared to the follis described in detail at xxv.l 1–12 Google Scholar, cf. the note of Dewing, , Procopius — The Anecdota (London 1935) 266 n.l.Google Scholar

Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, (Oxford 1964) 443–444 and 1185 Google Scholar n.81 on this passage, also Grierson, P., ‘The Tablettes Albertini and the value of the solidus in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D.’, JRS 49 (1959) 73–81 at 751 and 78–79Google Scholar. Grierson places the ‘calling down’ of the solidus — rejecting the term debasement, 75 n.13 — to the period 538/543 from Procopius’ account, involving Theodora and Peter Barsymes, suggesting 539 on account of the introduction of heavier copper coinage in that year, 79; Hendy, M., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (Cambridge 1985) 477,Google Scholar agrees with this dating, which is also confirmed by numismatic evidence, cf. Grierson, P., Byzantine Coins (London 1982) 60–61.Google Scholar Cf. Stein, 766-769 and 766 n.4, 767 n.l and 769 n.l (who also separates Procopius’ report from that of Malaias).

8. ‘Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms’, 217-221.

9. I have so far been unable to find out the dates of Passover between 518 and 550; but an examination of the 30 years from 343, to be found in Grumei, V., Traité d’études Byzantines I — La Chronologie (Paris 1958) 41 Google Scholar, shows that in 16 cases Passover coincides with Easter six times, while on the remaining 10 occasions Passover precedes Easter. For a table of the dates of Easter between 518 and 550, cf. 269-270.

10. Haury, Procopiana 1, 10 on the earthquakes and for the point that all the disasters reported at Anecd. v.10-vi.28 date from Justin’s reign, cf. 18-19 for the omission of disasters post-550. On 22 he makes the point concerning the introduction of the Anecdota.

Whitby, ‘Sangarius bridge’, 144, rejects the cross-references which have been adduced to place the Anecd. after the de Aed.; his view, following Haury, that the possible backward reference at xviii.38 (concerning the flood of the river Scirtus at Edessa) refers to a lacuna at Bella II.xii.29, should be accepted, cf. Scott, ‘Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms’, 216 n.6.

11. Scott, ‘Justinian’s Coinage and Easter Reforms’, 216 n.5, for the passages; the others are Bella VIII.xxv.7ff. ana Anecd. xiii.26, which also caught the attention of Dewing, Procopius — The Anecdota, 165 n. 1. The passage in the Anecdota refers to his previous works, it is true, but I see no reason to connect it to Justinian’s decision to play off the Lombards and Gepids against one another: it just refers to his faithlessness generally — as displayed, for instance, in the abandonment of the Iberians to the Persians, despite the pledges given to them — cp. Bella I.xii.5 on the pledges with I.xxii.16, which is generally taken to imply the return of Iberia to the Persian orbit, cf. Stein, 294.

12. Evans, Procopius, 43.

13. Shahîd, I. (Kawar, I.) sought to change the publication date of Bella I at any rate on the basis of this figure — cf. ‘Arethas son of Jabalah’, JAOS 75 (1955) 211 n.37 Google Scholar and ‘Procopius and Arethas again’, B 41 (1971) 318. On the reign of al-Mundhir, cf. also Rothstein, G., Die Dynastie der Lahmiden von al Hîra(Berlin 1899) 70.Google Scholar

Given that Procopius refers at the opening of Bella VIII to the publication of the previous seven books, and how they covered the period up to 549 (i.1-3), the argument for assigning the publication of I-VII also to 554 must carry little weight.

14. Evans, Procopius, 138 n.68, noted this alternative interpretation of the passage. On the Roman payments to the Persians, which started in 545, cf. Bury, HLRE, 117 and n.3.

14a. Theophanes, , Chronographia, ed. Boor, C. de (Leipzig 1883) I, 234.Google Scholar

15. Whitby, ‘Sangarius bridge’, 142-143. For Stein’s argument on the dating, cf. Stein II, 837; cf. Evans, ‘The dates of the Anecdota and De Aedificiis of Procopius’, for another rejection of these two arguments. Although Michael Whitby considers it plausible that reference to the collapse could be avoided, ‘Sangarius bridge’, 143, Whitby, Mary, ‘The occasion of Paul the Silentiary’s Ekphrasis of S. Sophia’, CQ 35 (1985), 215–228 at 220 Google Scholar, argues that the collapse had occurred too recently to be omitted by Paul; it is difficult then to see how Procopius could have failed to refer to it.

16. For a more detailed consideration of these walls in Justinian’s reign, cf. Greatrex, G., ‘Procopius and Agathias on the defence of the Thracian Chersonese’, Proceedings of the 28th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (1993) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

17. Germanus 4 in Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE) 3, ed. Martindale, J. (Cambridge 1992) 528.Google Scholar

18. Agathias, Historiae, ed. Keydell, R. (Berlin 1967)Google Scholar. On the dates of these raids, cf. Stein, 309-310, for the first raid in 540 (which Procopius attributes to Huns and Stein to Bulgars), and 536-540 on the second. Croke, B., ‘The date of the “Anastasian Long Wall” in Thrace’, GRBS 23 (1982) 59–78 Google Scholar at 63, places the first attack in 541; Procopius, however, Wars II.iv.4-12, dates this Hunnic raid before Khusro’s attack, which implies it may even have taken place in 539.

19. Whitby, M., ‘The Long Walls of Constaninople’ B55 (1985) 560–583 Google Scholar at 582 n81, for this point, against Stein, 837.

20. Cf. PLRE 3, s.v. Artabanes 2 for his career and titles; Whitby, ‘Sangarius bridge’, 146 n.88, does not note this passage among those which can be dated to post-545 in De Aed. The other conspirators, Arsaces and Chanaranges, enjoyed much less illustrious careers both before and after the plot; nonetheless I see no reason why the Chanaranges who served under Narses in Italy in 554 (Agathias II.vi.4) should not be the same as the one who took part in the plot, despite their separation in PLRE 3, Chanaranges 2 and 3.

21. Whitby, ‘Sangarius bridge’, 137 n.29 points to a passage in Theophanes A.M. 6051 which gives the final height of S. Sophia’s dome before the work was completed; but the entry itself is concerned with the collapse of the dome, whereas in the case of the Sangarius bridge there does not appear to be any reason for drawing attention to the start of construction work.

I am indebted to Dr J.D. Howard-Johnston for the point regarding similar entries later in Theophanes; yet another reference to the start of building work can be found at A.M. 6064.

22. Whitby, ‘Sangarius bridge’, 140; Conrad, L., ‘The Plague in Bilad al-Sham in Pre-Islamic Times’, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Bilad al-Sham during the Byzantine Period, 2, eds. Bakhit, M.A. and Asfour, M. (Amman 1986) 143–163 at 148 Google Scholar, citing evidence from Evagrius (IV.29) and Agathias (V.x.3-4). Conrad considers Theophanes to describe the plague as afflicting Cilicia, Anazarbus and Antioch, although the text could be read as stating that only an earthquake (and not a plague as well) struck Antioch, A.M. 6053. This error of Theophanes contrasts with Whitby’s assertion that Theophanes is never more than one year out in his chronology for this period.

23. For the terminus date, cf. Whitby, Mary, ‘The Occasion of Paul the Silentiary’s Ekphrasis ’, 216 Google Scholar. For the destruction wrought by the earthquake of December 557, cf. Malaias, 488-489, Theophanes A.M. 6050.

24. Cameron, Procopius, 10-11; on the damage caused by the earthquake, see note 23. Even if Theophanes’ entry is completely misplaced, that the building of the Sangarius bridge was in progress around 560 is almost certain, given the mention of its completion in Paul’s Ekphrasis, ed. Friedländer, P. (Berlin 1912) 928–933.Google Scholar

25. Whitby, ‘Sangarius Bridge’, 146 nn.85-86, for his arguments. Palmer’s, A. article — ‘The Inauguration Anthem of Hagia Sophia in Edessa: a New Edition and Translation with Historical and Architectural Notes and a Comparison with a Contemporary Constantinopolitan Kontakion’, (with Rodley, L.), BMGS 12 (1988) 117–167 Google Scholar; 126-127 for the date of Amazonius’ consecration — the chronicle of Jacob of Edessa places his episcopacy between 540 and 552; also 129 for the completion of the church in the 540s or 550s.

26. Whitby, ‘Sangarius Bridge’, 146 n.88, for these post-545 passages. On the walls of Chalcis, cf. Pülhorn’s note in Veh, O., Prokop Bauten (Munich 1977) 428 Google Scholar: the inscriptions may be found in Prentice, W.K., Greek and Latin Inscriptions (Publ, of Amer. Arch. Exp. to Syria III) (New York 1908) nos. 305–306 Google Scholar. Note also Downey, ‘The Composition of Procopius de Aedificiis’, 175, on the double entry concerning the city.

27. If the de Aed. is placed in c.554, this has the consequence of making the identification of Procopius the historian with the urban prefect of 562 that much more unlikely: cf. Cameron, 12 and PLRE 3, s.v. Procopius 3. Given the apparently unfinished nature of the de Aed., it is probably best therefore to follow what Cameron describes at ‘the most economical hypothesis’ — that Procopius died in or soon after 554, loc. cit. For some interesting suggestions concerning the relationship between the prefaces of Bella VIII and the Anecdota, cf. Bury, 422 n.2.