| Title | : | Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0812237870 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780812237870 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Hardcover |
| Number of Pages | : | 320 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 2004 |
Breaking from the scholarly tradition that views classicism as an affected imitation that distorted history, Kaldellis argues that Procopius was a careful student of the classics who displayed remarkable literary skill in adapting his models to the purposes of his own narratives. Classicism was a matter of structure and meaning, not just vocabulary. Through allusions Procopius revealed truths that could not be spoken openly; through anecdotes he exposed the broad themes that governed the history of his age.
Elucidating the political thought of Procopius in light of classical historiography and political theory, Kaldellis argues that he owed little to Christianity, finding instead that he rejected the belief in providence and asserted the supremacy of chance. By deliberately alluding to Plato's discussions of tyranny, Procopius developed an artful strategy of intertextuality that enabled him to comment on contemporary individuals and events. Kaldellis also uncovers links between Procopius and the philosophical dissidents of the reign of Justinian. This dimension of his writing implies that his work is worthy of esteem not only for the accuracy of its reporting but also for its cultural polemic, political dissidence, and philosophical sophistication.
Procopius of Caesarea has wide implications for the way we should read ancient historians. Its conclusions also suggest that the world of Justinian was far from monolithically Christian. Major writers of that time believed that classical texts were still the best guides for understanding history, even in the rapidly changing world of late antiquity.
Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity Reviews
-
Utterly astounded by Anthony Kaldellis' book, Procopius of Caesarea. Whereas Averil Cameron's
Procopius and the Sixth Century left me incredulous with questions, I found this book answered all I had and more. Not only am I wholly convinced of Procopius' authorship of the infamous Secret History, I now understand why he wrote what he did. If you have any interest in Justinian, the reconquest of Rome, or Procopius himself, you must read this book. After reading it, I now feel so intensely gripped by the thought of Procopius that I want to write a book of his experiences at court from his point of view, much like Gore Vidal's Julian. Astonishing insight and mastery of the subject. -
This is an excellent addition to the growing bibliography on the Emperor Justinian and his historian, Procopius. Kaldellis' analysis of both the cultural setting behind the various historical works of Procopius as well as his historiographical/literary analysis of the works themselves is both detailed and, usually, convincing. In particular, Kaldellis is adept at detecting intertextuality between Procopius and his two great models, Herodotus and Thucydides- Thucydides having pride of place. He brings out the creative connections made by Procopius; thus, enlivening a historian frequently consider as something of a cipher. Kaldellis' explanation for the wide variance in tone in Procopius' work as a result of the tyrannical conditions under Justinian is compelling, even if not without problems.
The basis of Kaldellis' argument is that Procopius' seeming inconsistencies were the results of the authoritarian atmosphere in Byzantium in the era of Justinian, especially for those who did not share Justinian's Christian faith. That probably is true, although Procopius' identification as a non-Christian is, perhaps, not as easily established as Kaldellis thinks. Kaldellis' argument is that any stated dissent, no matter how subtle, should be taken seriously as the dis-incentive for heterodox views in an oppressive society is so serious that any statement of heterodoxy should be taken as truly held, while expressions of orthodoxy should be taken as ambiguous as one might well be dissembling. While this argument has some force, I don't think that it quite takes into account the possibilities of just simple muddle- a factor ruled out because, in effect, Procopius was too smart to be muddled. That counter-argument doesn't quite hold as it is entirely possible for intelligent people to get quite muddled in the very eclecticism of their reading/thinking.
Despite this flaw, Kaldellis is well worth reading. His writing is clear and his literary sensitivities well considered.
