5. Emergence of Byzantium

5.
Emergence of Byzantium

Procopius, Secret History (550 C.E.)

The emperors of the eastern Roman provinces successfully resisted the tides of change that engulfed the West. In the process, they forged a new empire, Byzantium. Emperor Justinian (r. 527–565 C.E.) played a pivotal role in shaping Byzantium’s emerging identity as a bastion of Roman imperial glory and civilization. Byzantine historian and courtier Procopius of Caesarea (c. 490/510–560s C.E.) provides unrivaled information about Justinian’s rule, including two official histories presenting the emperor’s legal, military, and architectural accomplishments as expressions of his strong leadership and divine favor. Procopius also wrote a Secret History, excerpted below, which likewise described the achievements of Justinian and his wife, Theodora (c. 500–548 C.E.). The book casts them in a highly unfavorable light, however, so much so that it was not published until after Procopius’s death out of fear of reprisal for its contents.

From Procopius, Secret History, trans. Richard Atwater (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1961), 40–44, 55, 58, 60, 75–76.

Character and Appearance of Justinian

I think this is as good a time as any to describe the personal appearance of the man. Now in physique he was neither tall nor short, but of average height; not thin, but moderately plump; his face was round, and not bad looking, for he had good color, even when he fasted for two days. . . .

Now such was Justinian in appearance; but his character was something I could not fully describe. For he was at once villainous and amenable; as people say colloquially, a moron. He was never truthful with anyone, but always guileful in what he said and did, yet easily hoodwinked by any who wanted to deceive him. His nature was an unnatural mixture of folly and wickedness. What in olden times a peripatetic philosopher said was also true of him, that opposite qualities combine in a man as in the mixing of colors. I will try to portray him, however, insofar as I can fathom his complexity.

This Emperor, then, was deceitful, devious, false, hypocritical, two-faced, cruel, skilled in dissembling his thought, never moved to tears by either joy or pain, though he could summon them artfully at will when the occasion demanded, a liar always, not only offhand, but in writing, and when he swore sacred oaths to his subjects in their very hearing. Then he would immediately break his agreements and pledges, like the vilest of slaves, whom indeed only the fear of torture drives to confess their perjury. A faithless friend, he was a treacherous enemy, insane for murder and plunder, quarrelsome and revolutionary, easily led to anything evil, but never willing to listen to good counsel, quick to plan mischief and carry it out, but finding even the hearing of anything good distasteful to his ears.

How could anyone put Justinian’s ways into words? These and many even worse vices were disclosed in him as in no other mortal: nature seemed to have taken the wickedness of all other men combined and planted it in this man’s soul. And besides this, he was too prone to listen to accusations; and too quick to punish. For he decided such cases without full examination, naming the punishment when he had heard only the accuser’s side of the matter. Without hesitation he wrote decrees for the plundering of countries, sacking of cities, and slavery of whole nations, for no cause whatever. So that if one wished to take all the calamities which had befallen the Romans before this time and weigh them against his crimes, I think it would be found that more men had been murdered by this single man than in all previous history.

He had no scruples about appropriating other people’s property, and did not even think any excuse necessary, legal or illegal, for confiscating what did not belong to him. And when it was his, he was more than ready to squander it in insane display, or give it as an unnecessary bribe to the barbarians. In short, he neither held on to any money himself nor let anyone else keep any: as if his reason were not avarice, but jealousy of those who had riches. Driving all wealth from the country of the Romans in this manner, he became the cause of universal poverty.

Now this was the character of Justinian, so far as I can portray it. . . .

How the Defender of the Faith Ruined His Subjects

As soon as Justinian came into power he turned everything upside down. Whatever had before been forbidden by law he now introduced into the government, while he revoked all established customs: as if he had been given the robes of an Emperor on the condition he would turn everything topsy-turvy. Existing offices he abolished, and invented new ones for the management of public affairs. He did the same thing to the laws and to the regulations of the army; and his reason was not any improvement of justice or any advantage, but simply that everything might be new and named after himself. And whatever was beyond his power to abolish, he renamed after himself anyway.

Of the plundering of property or the murder of men, no weariness ever overtook him. As soon as he had looted all the houses of the wealthy, he looked around for others; meanwhile throwing away the spoils of his previous robberies in subsidies to barbarians or senseless building extravagances. And when he had ruined perhaps myriads in this mad looting, he immediately sat down to plan how he could do likewise to others in even greater number. . . .

Moreover, while he was encouraging civil strife and frontier warfare to confound the Romans, with only one thought in his mind, that the earth should run red with human blood and he might acquire more and more booty, he invented a new means of murdering his subjects. Now among the Christians in the entire Roman Empire, there are many with dissenting doctrines, which are called heresies by the established church: such as those of the Montanists and Sabbatians, and whatever others cause the minds of men to wander from the true path. All of these beliefs he ordered to be abolished, and their place taken by the orthodox dogma: threatening, among the punishments for disobedience, loss of the heretic’s right to will property to his children or other relatives.

After this he passed a law prohibiting pederasty:1 a law pointed not at offenses committed after this decree, but at those who could be convicted of having practiced the vice in the past. The conduct of the prosecution was utterly illegal. Sentence was passed when there was no accuser: the word of one man or boy, and that perhaps a slave, compelled against his will to bear witness against his owner, was defined as sufficient evidence. Those who were convicted were castrated and then exhibited in a public parade. . . .

How All Roman Citizens Became Slaves

Theodora too unceasingly hardened her heart in the practice of inhumanity. What she did, was never to please or obey anyone else; what she willed, she performed of her own accord and with all her might: and no one dared to intercede for any who fell in her way. For neither length of time, fullness of punishment, artifice of prayer, nor threat of death, whose vengeance sent by Heaven is feared by all mankind, could persuade her to abate her wrath. Indeed, no one ever saw Theodora reconciled to any one who had offended her, either while he lived or after he had departed this earth. Instead, the son of the dead would inherit the enmity of the Empress, together with the rest of his father’s estate: and he in turn bequeathed it to the third generation. For her spirit was over ready to be kindled to the destruction of men, while cure for her fever there was none.

To her body she gave greater care than was necessary, if less than she thought desirable. For early she entered the bath and late she left it; and having bathed, went to breakfast. After breakfast she rested. At dinner and supper she partook of every kind of food and drink; and many hours she devoted to sleep, by day till nightfall, by night till the rising sun. Though she wasted her hours thus intemperately, what time of the day remained she deemed ample for managing the Roman Empire.

And if the Emperor intrusted any business to anyone without consulting her, the result of the affair for that officer would be his early and violent removal from favor and a most shameful death.

It was easy for Justinian to look after everything, not only because of his calmness of temper, but because he hardly ever slept, as I have said, and because he was not chary with his audiences. For great opportunity was given to people, however, obscure and unknown, not only to be admitted to the tyrant’s presence, but to converse with him, and in private.

But to the Queen’s presence even the highest officials could not enter without great delay and trouble; like slaves they had to wait all day in a small and stuffy antechamber, for to absent himself was a risk no official dared to take. So they stood there on their tiptoes, each straining to keep his face above his neighbor’s, so that eunuchs, as they came out from the audience room, would see them. Some would be called, perhaps, after several days; and when they did enter to her presence in great fear, they were quickly dismissed as soon as they had made obeisance and kissed her feet. For to speak or make any request, unless she commanded, was not permitted.

Not civility, but servility was the rule, and Theodora was the slave driver. So far had Roman society been corrupted, between the false geniality of the tyrant and the harsh implacability of his consort. For his smile was not to be trusted, and against her frown nothing could be done. There was this superficial difference between them in attitude and manner; but in avarice, bloodthirstiness, and dissimulation they utterly agreed. They were both liars of the first water.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. What might have been Procopius’s goals in writing this book?

    Question

    qPT6kZJiemfvPwJJ4XwWtZFXAhR/Ha/CmcgF4fNz7jYQnWhd6wbRWARPYJq06p+pNTVMCmomFvmJoRtkOHQYQzEgoh81OACEnYMrvNrC4Xiqgo3bOrKKwrbD4u21+MYe4JkRr53nyzA=
    What might have been Procopius’s goals in writing this book?
  2. How does Procopius’s animosity toward Justinian and Theodora shape his account of their reign? Does this mean we cannot trust it as a historical source?

    Question

    A1RS2NxbogtkMfFoL15mRD4BBz1dKcUp/j9AYMRqPHYN39KRUn0Jnz9z1DiL26Tyo/lRVcn1PPRzdvuGSK8CP/sYo3EQG9ceGz2CY5PUNxi6CaGRLv0z+NImNopBGZwI4gs6XRbuqPGyKznLky64fFxrHJHJr+k8lBxVUYABgLtlLh0uW+MjJKesntQrq/pQrpJC1Zq0X65rBC4hDJ0htk9Bp3KyG6p0UaKS5dhzlxVzLv0FeiR1xnLWVH5ygR3HTL6paA==
    How does Procopius’s animosity toward Justinian and Theodora shape his account of their reign? Does this mean we cannot trust it as a historical source?
  3. Do you see any evidence embedded within Procopius’s attacks that may explain the reasons for Justinian’s short-term success at reuniting the empire and enhancing imperial rule and its long-term costs?

    Question

    iDeawRgzjavAlP3N45UC6cplsBHdGqcoYUep3fQ/Y3jVsCy1NgO3d2/fg6KEoKq+zAHnEj7rBb5mSj7/z+erPyNLfisGfz51ofQJMpIzan50Ysij6eNL4e0a6Qczv+lhtLrKUo3FxKt3E82NvEGzPAkfCbzNww201P9tLmLyjx73JVgPXvX52lxiZibK2PPNdSpx9THtWJ1u+oHhwhBW6ShB944dAS5+lnD+t4O6oQVbkFboM40XIxTbSUNtU02f9KJnHyc1gnemrzbZBaqRhUnf9KoY4DphqnUpD/2yZSsuiVQcqSdnIcfUtkJU2fBVBJrF4ud9Vso=
    Do you see any evidence embedded within Procopius’s attacks that may explain the reasons for Justinian’s short-term success at reuniting the empire and enhancing imperial rule and its long-term costs?