1. Procopius mentions the 32nd year four times viz. Secret History xviii.33; xxiii. 1; xxiv.29 and 33. Justinian dated his rule from the day of his joint appointment with Justin (1st April 527) not from Justin’s death. ( Haury, J., Procopiana Google Scholar, Programm des Kõniglichen Realgymnasiums Augsburg für das Studienjahr 1890/91 (Augsburg) 6 note 1, citing Justinian Novellae 47, Chronicon Paschale I, 617, 13). That is, Justinian’s 32nd year is 1 April 558 — 31 March 559.

2. e.g. Secret History vi. 18, p.41; vi.26, p.42-3 (= Justin). Cf. Vandal Wars, 1.9, p.351.20 — 352.3; Buildings, 1.3.3, p.20. 14-18. This was first noted by Haury, J., Procopiana, 9-27 especially 9–16 Google Scholar. Haury argues that all of the events of Secret History vi.10 — ix.54 refer to the reign of Justin.

3. Bury, J.B., History of the Later Roman Empire (London 1923) 11.422 Google Scholar; Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire (Paris 1949) 11.720 Google Scholar; Veh, O., Zur Geschichtsschreibung und Weltauffassung des Prokop von Caesarea (Bayreuth 1950-51) 1,9,Google Scholar; Rubin, B., Pro-kopios vonKaisareia (Stuttgart 1954) 81 Google Scholar (= RE, 23.1 cols. 354-5); Cameron, A.M., Procopius and the Sixth Century (London 1985) 9.Google Scholar

4. Dewing, in the footnotes to his translation, identifies 27 cross-references from the Secret History to the Wars, in addition to passages where the Secret History reports material included in the Wars.

5. Evans, J.A.S., Procopius (New York 1972) 41–2 Google Scholar ‘The first seven books were published together, as Procopius tells us himself, and this means they could not have appeared before 551 …’ (p.41). Rubin, op.cit., 80-81, summarizes earlier discussion. Most of the work was probably completed by 546. Thus the back reference from the Secret History (if published in 550) to a work not yet published is not impossible, though it does considerably weaken the case of those arguing for 549-550 as the publication date for the Secret History. Procopius also appears to include in the Secret History two cross-references to Wars VIII (ie xiii.26 may refer to Wars VIII.25.7ff; xxix.12 may refer to Wars VIII.13.19). If this is so the late date of the Secret History must be accepted as Wars VIII cannot have been completed before spring 553 (Rubin op.cit., 81) while Evans op.cit. 43 believes it could not have been completed before 556 and probably appeared in 557.

6. Secret History xviii.38. There is a textual problem here. The manuscript gives ‘it will be recorded by me in my earlier work’. Dindorf, in his Bonn edition, emended the future to a perfect, while Haury, in his Teubner edition, adopted the reverse procedure, reading ‘later’ for ‘earlier’ The back reference also involves assuming a description of the flood damage in a lacuna in Persian Wars II. 12.29. I therefore prefer the forward reference to the floods in Buildings II.7, as proposed by Haury. For the reverse argument, see Whitby, M., ‘Justinian’s Bridge over the Sangarius and the date of Procopius De Aedificiis’, JHS 85 (1985) 144.Google Scholar

7. Evans, ‘The dates of the Anecdota and the De Aedificiis of Procopius’, Classical Philology 64 (1969) 29–30 Google Scholar; idem, Procopius 43-5 (wiui some revision of the argument). G. Downey, ‘The Composition of Procopius De Aedificiis’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 78 (1947) 171-183 especially 182 n.14 (based on Buildings V.3. 8-10) with reference to the Sangarios Bridge built in 559/560 (= Theoph. AM.6052 = 559/560) and with suggested dates of 558/559 for two other projects described in Buildings IV.9.9-12; Whitby, art.cit., 129-148.

8. Stein, E., op.cit., 11.837.Google Scholar

9. Cameron, Averil, Review of Evans, Procopius, JRS 63 (1973) 298.Google Scholar

10. The strongest argument for a date between 559 and 562 comes from the date of the bridge over the Sangarius. Theophanes states that work began on it in 559/60 (AM.6052), Procopius states that work was in progress when he wrote the Buildings (V.3.10), while Paul the Silentiary alludes to the work being completed by the time “of his poem on the rededication of Hagia Sophia in December 562, Ekphrasis Sanc-tae Sohpiae, 928-933. If Theophanes’ date is accurate the Buildings must be dated between September 559 and December 562. M. Whitby, art.cit., argues strongly for the accuracy of Theophanes’ dates here, as well as providing plausible answers to the objections to the late dating of the Buildings.

11. Bury, J.B., A History of the Later Roman Empire, vol.2, 427 Google Scholar, note 1.

12. Scott, R.D., ‘Malaias, The Secret History and Justinian’s Propaganda’, DOP 39 (1985) 99–109.Google Scholar

13. Malalas, , Chronographia (ed. Dindorf) 486 Google Scholar. The parallel with Malaias was noted by Haury in his edition of the Secret History, but he appears not to have realised its implications.

14. English translation by Conybeare, F.C., ‘Ananias of Shirak (AD 600-650)’, BZ 6 (1897) 572–584 Google Scholar. Cf. Dulaurier, E., Recherches sur h Chronologie Arménienne, Technique et Historique (Paris 1859) Vol. 1, 58–67 Google Scholar for other relevant Armenian sources and French translation. Mentz, A., ‘Zur byzantinischen Chronologie. Eine Osterreform zur Zeit Justinians’, BZ 17 (1908) 471–474 Google Scholar; Grumei, V., La Chronologie (Paris 1958) Ch. VII, Réformes du Comput Pascal sous Justinien, 98–110.Google Scholar

15. op.cit. 578.

16. op.cit. 578.

17. Grumei, V., La Chronologie (1958) 98.Google Scholar

18. op.cit. 579.

19. op.cit. 579.

20. op.cit. 581.

21. op.cit. 580.

22. op.cit. 580-3, ‘Cursed be he who keeps Zadik after the manner of the Jews who slew the Lord, or of the Samaritans or of the Pauliani (580)… But heaven forefend that we should feast with them and fall under the anathema. For the holy fathers took every trouble to separate our feast from theirs; unto which end we Armenians go so far as to truly name it ‘the Lord’s Zadik’, so separating it from all heathen and Jewish feasts (581)… And let us not keep our feast along with the Jews who slew our Lord; lest we share their sin and suffer their curse’ (583).

23. Grumei, V., op.cit., 99.Google Scholar

24. Ananias, , op.cit., 579, 583 Google Scholar. The date is confirmed by other Armenian sources. See Delaurier, E., op.cit., 58–67 Google Scholar. It should also be noted here that a reference in several chronicles to Justinian altering the date of Easter for 546 can have nothing to do with the Secret History reference, since first there is no suggestion of it involving the Jews; second it involved postponing the celebration of Easter (rather than delaying Passover); and third it appears to have been a change for one year only. See Malaias, , op.cit., 482–3 Google Scholar; Theophanes, AM 6038 (ed. De Boor), 1.225; George the Monk (ed. De Boor), 644; Cedrenus (Bonn), 657-8; Ps-Dionysius, year 857; Michael the Syrian IX.33 (Chabot, II.271).

25. Dulaurier, E., op.cit., 63, Grumei, V., op.cit., 102.Google Scholar

26. Ananias, op.cit., 579, points out that ‘at the expiration of Andreas’ calendar of 200 years, in the days of the emperor Justinian, there was a great deal of research on the part of the learned philosophers’ which failed to produce an acceptable solution. ‘For this reason an investigation was made at Alexandria, which is the metropolis of all sciences; and there was found a cycle free from inaccuracies’. This led to imperial intervention through Iron, who was clearly sent to reassert the decisions taken in the capital.

27. op.cit., 586.

28. At Secret History xviii.45, Procopius actually makes a distinction between Justinian’s activities as regent and those as emperor. This should confirm that Procopius felt free to include Justinian’s activities as regent while still counting the regnal years in the normal manner from the time Justinian actually became emperor.