After Procopius

THE TWO GENERATIONS that follow Procopius and the emperor Justinian encompass the last phases both of Greek historiography in classical antiquity and of the traditional Graeco-Roman world delineated in these works; in the same way as the longevity and actions (even the unsuccessful actions) of Justinian influenced and overshadowed the accomplishments of his successors, so too did the historical works of Procopius loom over later authors. The magnitude of Procopius’ achievement, whatever reservations we may now have about its qualities and characteristics as a history of its age, was real enough for his successors among the classicizing historians. Agathias refers to the accuracy of his narrative of Justinian's reign, which made it unnecessary to treat the same matters again, and compliments him on the scale of his reading- the type of activity that Agathias found was hampered by his own need to pursue his legal career. Such references should not be dismissed as “perfunctory approbation” Menander was equally effusive: “It is not possible for me, nor otherwise is it pleasant, to hold up one's own wick in response to such great splendor of words. But it is sufficient for me to be involved in my own trifles …. “ Theophylact, as in other respects, is slightly different from his classicizing predecessors in that he refers to Procopius without explicit praise: “This (the origin of the eunuch Solomon) has been recorded by the historian Procopius in the volume of his history”. The ecclesiastical historian Evagrius praised the diligence, elegance, and ability with which Procopius had narrated the Persian wars. When Agathias ventured to disagree with Procopius, he did so with deferential courtesy, emphasizing that his own account was really based on superior evidence, and noting that Procopius’ opinion about the adoption by the Persian king of the emperor Arcadius’ son, Theodosius II, was divergent because based on hindsight.

It was, however, possible to avoid the influence of Procopius. John Malalas, in the first version of his Chronicle that terminated in the 530s, had produced an account of the Persian war of 527-32 which is in some respects superior to that in Procopius Wars I: it is not distorted by bias in favor of Belisarius, and it provides a reasonable account of the events in which Procopius’ hero was not directly involved. The continuator of the Chronicle working in Constantinople ca. 565 did not consult other parts of the Wars. The anonymous Chronicon Paschale, written in the 620s, is also silent about Justinian's wars, a reflection of its general lack of interest in military matters away from the capital. It is only with Theophanes in the ninth century that parts of Procopius’ Wars are incorporated into the chronicle tradition.