APPENDIX 549 of Justinian in Italy. It is noticeable that Procopius never praises Justinian in the Military History ; in the only passage in which he approaches commendation the commendation is of an ambiguous kind, and is interpreted as blame in the Secret History. 1 * Procopius admired and regretted the government of Anastasius, as we know from the Secret History ; and in his account of the Nika Sedition in the Vmidalica it is not difficult to read between the lines his veiled sympathy with the nephews of Anastasius. The first five chapters of the Secret History, relating to Belisarius and Antonina, form a sort of appendix to the Military History, and are distinguished by a re- latively large number of references to the Military History. We must assume that between a.d. 545 and 550 events had occurred which prevented Procopius from any longer seeing in Belisarius a possible leader of a successful opposition to Justinian. The rest of the work deals with the family, the court, and the domestic administra- tion of Justinian ; it is a Civil, in contrast with the Military, History. It falls into two parts, of which the first is personal, dealing with the private life of the sovran and his consort (cc. 6-17), 19 while the second treats his political administration. These parts are separated by a lacuna. In the last sentence of cap. 17 Theodora is the subject ; in the first sentence of cap. 18 Justinian is the subject. It seems more probable that this break is due to the fact that the work was never revised by the author for publication than to an accidental loss in the course of its transmission. 20 It looks as if Procopius, when he finished c. 17, had started on a new plan, and had never welded the two parts together. It should be observed that there is no literary evidence as to the existence of the Secret History before Suidas (tenth century). There is no proof that it was used by Evagrius (notwithstanding Jeep's observa- tions), 21 much less that it was known to Agathias. The publication of the Secret History raised in arms the Jurists who revered the memory of Justinian, and the work was described as Vaticana veticna. When it is recognized that there is no essential opposition between the point of view of the Military and that of the Secret History, that the hostility to the government, outspoken in the one, is present and, though veiled, constantly peers out in the other, the argument that the author's evidence is damaged by inconsistency and contradictions falls to the ground. When we make allowance for the bitter acrimony of the writer, and for his gross superstition, the fact remains that most of his state- ments as to the administration of Justinian and Theodora are perfectly credible. Many of them are directly supported by the notices of other contemporary writers ; and others are indirectly supported by parallels or analogies found in contemporary sources. It is the great merit of the Russian scholar, B. Panchenko, to have ex- amined 22 in detail the statements of the Secret History in the light of the con- temporary evidence as to Justinian's reign ; and the general credibility of the objec- tive statements of the Procopian work has strikingly emerged. Of course, Procopius can be frequently convicted of unfairness ; he always attributes the worst motives. His description of the profligacy of Theodora only proves his familiarity with the pornography of the stews of Constantinople ; but it rests on the solid fact that the youth of Theodora was disreputable. We can appeal to the testimony of John of Ephesus (comment, de beatis orientalibus, ed. van Douwen and Land, p. 68): 18 Vand. i. 9, p. 355 (ed. Hauiy), iirtvoyja-al re b£vs ical &okvos to @el3ovevfj.4va i-KireAea-ai. Hist. Arcan. c. 8, p. 55, iirivorjaeu /xev ra <pava tea] iirtTe(Tai ol-vs. Cp. Bruckner, op. cit, p. 47. 19 Cc. 6-8, early life of Justinian ; cc. 9-10, early life of Theodora, and how she ascended the throne ; 11-14, Justinian ; 15-17, Theodora. C. 17 ends with the story of John the Cappadocian, the point where the Persica also ends. Cp. Panchenko, op. cit. , ii. p. 343-4. 20 Panchenko conjectures that this lacuna might be connected with the notable omis- sion of any account of the conspiracy of Artabanns which is recorded in bk. iii. of the Gothic War. But is it meant that such an account may have fallen out or that Procopius intended to insert it here, and never did so ? See Panchenko, op. cit., ii. p. 55, cp. p. 345. Panchenko makes it probable that there was no final redaction of the Secret History (346-7). 21 Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Historikern, p. 161. Cp. the remarks of Panchenko, ib. p. 48-9. 22 Op. cit., Viz. Vrem. vol. iii.
