Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Penguin Classics (1985), Paperback, 208 pages
Description
A trusted member of the Byzantine establishment, Procopius was the Empire's official chronicler, and his History of the Wars of Justinian proclaimed the strength and wisdom of the Emperor's reign. Yet all the while the dutiful scribe was working on a very different - and dangerous - history to be published only once its author was safely in his grave. The Secret Historyportrays the 'great lawgiver' Justinian as a rampant king of corruption and tyranny, the Empress Theodora as a sorceress and whore, and the brilliant general Belisarius as the pliable dupe of his scheming wife Antonina. Magnificently hyperbolic and highly opinionated, The Secret Historyis a work of explosive energy, depicting holy Byzantium as a hell of murder and misrule.
User reviews
LibraryThing member AnnieMod
If anyone thought that the yellow press is an invention of the modern times, they need to think again. Nowadays we have all the tabloids and the shows; the 6th century had Procopius. Yes - it was not published until much later but the scholars' opinion is that he wrote the book.
Roman history can
I quite enjoyed the book - it is obvious that you cannot take everything he says for truth but it makes Justinian, Belisarius and Theodora sound as human being (even when one is compared to a demon). It is good to see that the old historians could write something different and that the world had not changed that much after all - the olden and golden days are not so perfect after all.
All this does not make the book perfect - it gets repetitious in places and some of the "truths" are as vulgar as one can imagine (but then... so is the human nature sometimes).
Now my big problem is that I really want to go back and read some of his other books - he has a flowing style that just works for me and short of passages, I've never really read anything he had written.
Roman history can
Show More
be an interesting subject - especially in the hands of a talented historian. And Procopius knows how to write. However - this book is not for people that don't know the period - he is referring to his early books quite often and mentions actions that the reader is supposed to know about. As such, this is hardly a book for someone that is not interested in history; at the same time it is a 6th century version of a tabloid. I quite enjoyed the book - it is obvious that you cannot take everything he says for truth but it makes Justinian, Belisarius and Theodora sound as human being (even when one is compared to a demon). It is good to see that the old historians could write something different and that the world had not changed that much after all - the olden and golden days are not so perfect after all.
All this does not make the book perfect - it gets repetitious in places and some of the "truths" are as vulgar as one can imagine (but then... so is the human nature sometimes).
Now my big problem is that I really want to go back and read some of his other books - he has a flowing style that just works for me and short of passages, I've never really read anything he had written.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Greatrakes
Procopius was the perfect civil servant, seemingly efficient and trustworthy and obsequious. He wrote fawning works in praise of The Emperor Justinian, and was evidently trusted as he advanced steadily when all around him were losing position, life or both. But on his death, he left this work; a
Show More
scathing attack on Justinian and his wife Theodora. Their sex lives, their treachery and greed and their destruction of what remained of the Roman West are all detailed in the most over the top terms. This probably the most ruthless political hatchet job of all time. Show Less
LibraryThing member denmoir
The interest in this book is the fact of its existence. Within the first few pages you discover that Justinian and Theodora were not nice people, that they were incompetent in everything but villainy and that every calamity of the age was directly due to them. This is repeated in a general way for
Show More
another 135 pages. Show Less
LibraryThing member AlexTheHunn
In The Secret History, Procopius indulged his vituperative nature to the ex-tent that he may be regarded as writing history in spite of himself. Just as an at-torney can wring valuable testimony from a hostile witness, even when that wit-ness has no desire to cooperate, so to may the reader glean
Procopius was in a position of access to the Imperial court. He assisted Belisarius on his campaigns and wrote other works in which he praised Justinian and Theodora. Yet, in The Secret History, he dipped his quill in vitriol to produce a work that stuns the reader by its unmitigated biases. Whereas Ammianus Marcellinus strove diligently for objectivity, Procopius entirely disregarded the concept of a balanced view of events and characters.
Procopius opened with a chapter on Belisarius and his wife, Antonina. These he described as small-minded and money-grubbing. He portrayed Belisa-rius as cowardly and hen-pecked, while Antonina was given over to the attrac-tions of the flesh. The remainder of the book centered upon Justinian and Theo-dora. One gains the impression that in the initial chapter Procopius was merely warming up to the real character assassinations that followed.
The author could scarcely bring himself to write a complimentary phrase about Justinian or Theodora. He faulted Theodora for sleeping too much and contrasted that habit with Justinian’s tendency to sleep very little. The implication should be that Justinian’s habits were thereby better; yet Procopius would not admit that to be the case. He described Justinian as a demon. To the modern reader that, does not seem so surprising until one discovers that Procopius was not writing metaphorically. He continued to explain how Justinian liked to pace but sometimes his head would disappear. He cited another witness:
. . . His face suddenly transformed to a shapeless lump of flesh: neither eyebrows nor eyes were in their normal position, and it showed no other distinguishing feature at all; gradually, however, he saw the face return to its usual shape. I did not myself witness the events I am describing, but I heard about them from men who insist that they saw them at the time.
By the time the reader slogs through the entire work, Justinian and Theo-dora appear somewhat tarnished but by no means the Hell-spawn of Satan as Procopius suggested. He failed to persuade by vastly overstating his case. If anything, one rather pities Justinian and Theodora for having such a false friend as Procopius in their court.
However, Procopius did manage to provide a window into the late Roman Empire through which useful information may be learned. His descriptions of the economic / client relationships people formed documents ways people conducted their personal business. His accounts of military affairs and political offices help to show ways people interacted with these social structures. Similarly, even when spewing his vicious froth about Justinian and Theodora, Procopius pro-vided a useful template for attitudes of his time. Whether or not he was one hun-dred percent correct or totally off the mark with regard to his accusations, what his writing does show is the belief of how things should be. By reading Procopius one could piece together a map of what a general, an emperor or a wife should be in the view of an educated man of the Sixth Century. Thus, Procopius legiti-mately belongs in the ranks of historians, if only as a hostile witness.
Show More
much valuable in-formation from Procopius.Procopius was in a position of access to the Imperial court. He assisted Belisarius on his campaigns and wrote other works in which he praised Justinian and Theodora. Yet, in The Secret History, he dipped his quill in vitriol to produce a work that stuns the reader by its unmitigated biases. Whereas Ammianus Marcellinus strove diligently for objectivity, Procopius entirely disregarded the concept of a balanced view of events and characters.
Procopius opened with a chapter on Belisarius and his wife, Antonina. These he described as small-minded and money-grubbing. He portrayed Belisa-rius as cowardly and hen-pecked, while Antonina was given over to the attrac-tions of the flesh. The remainder of the book centered upon Justinian and Theo-dora. One gains the impression that in the initial chapter Procopius was merely warming up to the real character assassinations that followed.
The author could scarcely bring himself to write a complimentary phrase about Justinian or Theodora. He faulted Theodora for sleeping too much and contrasted that habit with Justinian’s tendency to sleep very little. The implication should be that Justinian’s habits were thereby better; yet Procopius would not admit that to be the case. He described Justinian as a demon. To the modern reader that, does not seem so surprising until one discovers that Procopius was not writing metaphorically. He continued to explain how Justinian liked to pace but sometimes his head would disappear. He cited another witness:
. . . His face suddenly transformed to a shapeless lump of flesh: neither eyebrows nor eyes were in their normal position, and it showed no other distinguishing feature at all; gradually, however, he saw the face return to its usual shape. I did not myself witness the events I am describing, but I heard about them from men who insist that they saw them at the time.
By the time the reader slogs through the entire work, Justinian and Theo-dora appear somewhat tarnished but by no means the Hell-spawn of Satan as Procopius suggested. He failed to persuade by vastly overstating his case. If anything, one rather pities Justinian and Theodora for having such a false friend as Procopius in their court.
However, Procopius did manage to provide a window into the late Roman Empire through which useful information may be learned. His descriptions of the economic / client relationships people formed documents ways people conducted their personal business. His accounts of military affairs and political offices help to show ways people interacted with these social structures. Similarly, even when spewing his vicious froth about Justinian and Theodora, Procopius pro-vided a useful template for attitudes of his time. Whether or not he was one hun-dred percent correct or totally off the mark with regard to his accusations, what his writing does show is the belief of how things should be. By reading Procopius one could piece together a map of what a general, an emperor or a wife should be in the view of an educated man of the Sixth Century. Thus, Procopius legiti-mately belongs in the ranks of historians, if only as a hostile witness.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jukke
After having published six books of histories Procopius wrote his Secret History, one of the vilest invectives known, mostly about the emperor Justinian and his wife Teodora. not forgetting his one-time friend, the warlord Belisarius. the stories resemble in a striking way the reports told of
Show More
political leaders always - for instance of John F. Kennedy etc. Show Less
LibraryThing member questbird
History. Procopius bottled up quite a bit of bitterness about his king.
LibraryThing member jcovington
Procopius has an axe to grind here and he grinds it well, despoiling the memories of both Theodora and Justinian. He's really hard on Theodora.
LibraryThing member Florentius
A book to be read with caution. It presents a scurrilous litany of scandal in the court of Justinian, but really, how seriously can we take a source, purportedly written by an otherwise sober-minded historian, which claims that Justinian was the spawn of a demon, that he was witnessed walking
My suggestion: read Procopius's non-secret histories before you read this one. Then, at the very least, you'll have a more well-rounded view of the time and the people.
Show More
around the palace without a head, and that he was responsible for the death of a trillion people? Add to this the fact that the supposed author, Procopius, wrote a book praising Justinian *after* this one and the confusion really mounts.My suggestion: read Procopius's non-secret histories before you read this one. Then, at the very least, you'll have a more well-rounded view of the time and the people.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pepys
This book can be interesting from the historical standpoint, and I learned a lot indeed about Byzantium, Justinian, and Theodora. But the litany of all the misdeeds committed by the emperor and the empress becomes tedious after a while. And besides: how to believe all what Procopius reports? When I
Show More
compare it to the Justinian entry in my 10-volume Larousse encyclopaedy, it doesn't seem to be the same person. The Secret History is finally a puzzling book. Show Less
LibraryThing member cweller
The scandalous accusations that Procopius makes must be weighed carefully. For me the personal attacks against Justinian and Theodora were used to support Procopius' arguments against the way they ruled the Roman Empire. Many of the accusations are obviously exaggerated. Overall, the book was
Show More
enlightening and enjoyable. I would highly recommend that Procopius' other works were read first to give the reader a better picture of events. Show Less
LibraryThing member ivonapoyntz
OK, so we'll never know if Procopius indeed even wrote this book. But is it believable? you bet. The strangest, most exhilirating behind the scenes expose of roman emperors ever: and even if it didn't all happen verbatim: well, as the saying goes, theres no smoke without fire. The general gist of
Show More
it rings true. Show Less
LibraryThing member jonfaith
My day to day involves routine investigations regarding incidents and accidents involving the significantly disabled. Most of the actual conversation is with caretakers. I go home often feeling drowned in bullshit, well maybe dunked with spittle-some baiting in between the submersions. I can handle
It shouldn’t be surprising then that this book wasn’t fun. No tales of trained geese pleasuring the nympho queen of Byzantium could lift this from being labor. The last forty percent of the account regards the rapine corruption of the regime. Measure upon measure robbing the populace and all without recourse. Somewhere Steven Pinker is saying, see I told you it was all improving.
Show More
tall tales, I could listen to Dylan spin a yarn about his upbringing amongst Chippewa carnies all night long. I just can’t handle the shit, the demonizing. It shouldn’t be surprising then that this book wasn’t fun. No tales of trained geese pleasuring the nympho queen of Byzantium could lift this from being labor. The last forty percent of the account regards the rapine corruption of the regime. Measure upon measure robbing the populace and all without recourse. Somewhere Steven Pinker is saying, see I told you it was all improving.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
Procopius was probably an excellent secretary, and he certainly tried to describe the times he lived in. but this book is far more mean spirited than the rest of the canon. Was he angry because of the treatment of Belisarius by Justinian? And mad at Belisarius for taking it? Probably. well, the
Show More
translation reads well, and has been in print forevah... Obvious written by 560 CE. Show Less
LibraryThing member Fledgist
An account of the court of Justinian from an insider's perspective. An amazing work in its way.
LibraryThing member booktsunami
I've never been a great believer in the idea that there is "pure evil" or "pure good" when it comes to people. And I was never convinced about George W Bush's announcement of "An axis of Evil".....which, by implication, the "pure" side (the Americans and allies) had to eradicate. And, in this book,
And, the fact that Procopius took great pains not to publish the work in his own lifetime says something about his fears for his safety. But surely such a work ..dripping with venom and vitriol...can hardly be regarded as an objective history.
For example:
"For this man (not Justinian in this case) had devoted great attention to sorcerers and supernatural beings, admired the Manichaeans, and was not ashamed openly to profess himself their supporter. Although the Empress was not ignorant of this, she did not withdraw her favour, but resolved on this account to show even greater interest and regard for him than before, for she herself also, from her earliest years, had associated with sorcerers and magicians, since her character and pursuits inclined her towards them. She had great faith in their arts, and placed the greatest confidence in them. It is even said that she did not render Justinian susceptible to her influence so much by her flatteries as by the irresistible power of evil spirits."
And, another example: " The evil deeds of Justinian were so numerous, that time would fail me if I were to attempt to relate them all. It will therefore be sufficient, if I select some of those which will exhibit his whole character to posterity, and which clearly show his dissimulation, his neglect of God, the priesthood, the laws, and the people which showed itself devoted to him. He was utterly without shame; he had no care for the interests or advantage of the state, and did not trouble himself about excusing his misdeeds, or, in fact, about anything else but how he might plunder and appropriate the wealth of the whole world.".
It seems to me to be written as a revengeful act...something to blacken the name of Justinian and his mates. And, in this respect it seems to have been singularly successful.
Procopius, systematically undermines the personal morals of both Theodora and Justinian and then undermines their credibility as leaders, as defenders of the state and as economic managers. I think it is fair to say that there is no good word said of the court of Justinian in the whole book.....maybe apart from individuals who tried to do the right thing but were undone by Justinian and Wife.
Procopius does not shy away from naming individuals and occasions and certainly there is a wealth of detail....so maybe many or all of these events did take place. For example: "About the same time, the chief eunuch of the court, named Euphratas, also died intestate; he left behind him a nephew, who would naturally have succeeded to his property, which was considerable. The Emperor took possession of both fortunes, appointing himself sole heir, not even leaving so much as a three-obol piece to the legal inheritors. Such was the respect Justinian showed for the laws and the kinsmen of his intimate friends. In the same manner, without having the least claim to it, he seized the fortune of Irenaeus, who had died some time before". How would we ever know if this was true or if Procopius was inventing it or exaggerating?
Did I enjoy the book? Hmm....well no. I certainly didn't come away from reading all that hate, feeling better about myself or life in general. Was there some underlying lesson that one could draw from all of this. Maybe there are a few. For instance, you can never be sure that somebody is not going to blacken your name after you are gone. So maybe it's better to be a just and competent ruler than being greedy and incompetent . That much seems obvious. But maybe your name will be blackened anyway by somebody like Procopius for some real or imagined slight or setback. Anyway, "The Secret History" seems to set the standard for "tell-all" books about political dynasties and certainly pulls no punches.
What I didn't learn from all of this was the role that Procopius was playing in all this nastiness. If he was at the court and had access to all these details what was he up to himself? How much of a role was he playing in the evil deeds?
Interesting but not a nice book. I give it 4 stars on account of it's historical significance.
Show More
Procopius goes to great pains to convince us that Justinian and Theodora (his wife) were as close to "pure evil" as it is possible to get. If only half of what he writes about them is true, they were not a nice couple.And, the fact that Procopius took great pains not to publish the work in his own lifetime says something about his fears for his safety. But surely such a work ..dripping with venom and vitriol...can hardly be regarded as an objective history.
For example:
"For this man (not Justinian in this case) had devoted great attention to sorcerers and supernatural beings, admired the Manichaeans, and was not ashamed openly to profess himself their supporter. Although the Empress was not ignorant of this, she did not withdraw her favour, but resolved on this account to show even greater interest and regard for him than before, for she herself also, from her earliest years, had associated with sorcerers and magicians, since her character and pursuits inclined her towards them. She had great faith in their arts, and placed the greatest confidence in them. It is even said that she did not render Justinian susceptible to her influence so much by her flatteries as by the irresistible power of evil spirits."
And, another example: " The evil deeds of Justinian were so numerous, that time would fail me if I were to attempt to relate them all. It will therefore be sufficient, if I select some of those which will exhibit his whole character to posterity, and which clearly show his dissimulation, his neglect of God, the priesthood, the laws, and the people which showed itself devoted to him. He was utterly without shame; he had no care for the interests or advantage of the state, and did not trouble himself about excusing his misdeeds, or, in fact, about anything else but how he might plunder and appropriate the wealth of the whole world.".
It seems to me to be written as a revengeful act...something to blacken the name of Justinian and his mates. And, in this respect it seems to have been singularly successful.
Procopius, systematically undermines the personal morals of both Theodora and Justinian and then undermines their credibility as leaders, as defenders of the state and as economic managers. I think it is fair to say that there is no good word said of the court of Justinian in the whole book.....maybe apart from individuals who tried to do the right thing but were undone by Justinian and Wife.
Procopius does not shy away from naming individuals and occasions and certainly there is a wealth of detail....so maybe many or all of these events did take place. For example: "About the same time, the chief eunuch of the court, named Euphratas, also died intestate; he left behind him a nephew, who would naturally have succeeded to his property, which was considerable. The Emperor took possession of both fortunes, appointing himself sole heir, not even leaving so much as a three-obol piece to the legal inheritors. Such was the respect Justinian showed for the laws and the kinsmen of his intimate friends. In the same manner, without having the least claim to it, he seized the fortune of Irenaeus, who had died some time before". How would we ever know if this was true or if Procopius was inventing it or exaggerating?
Did I enjoy the book? Hmm....well no. I certainly didn't come away from reading all that hate, feeling better about myself or life in general. Was there some underlying lesson that one could draw from all of this. Maybe there are a few. For instance, you can never be sure that somebody is not going to blacken your name after you are gone. So maybe it's better to be a just and competent ruler than being greedy and incompetent . That much seems obvious. But maybe your name will be blackened anyway by somebody like Procopius for some real or imagined slight or setback. Anyway, "The Secret History" seems to set the standard for "tell-all" books about political dynasties and certainly pulls no punches.
What I didn't learn from all of this was the role that Procopius was playing in all this nastiness. If he was at the court and had access to all these details what was he up to himself? How much of a role was he playing in the evil deeds?
Interesting but not a nice book. I give it 4 stars on account of it's historical significance.
Show Less
LibraryThing member john257hopper
I was prompted to read this account of the life and times of the late Roman/Byzantine emperor Justinian and his consort Theodora from listening to a series of episodes about them on the Rest of History podcast channel this week. Procopius writing in the 6th century AD was one of the last
Show More
significant historians of the old Roman Empire, despite being from the western Latin half he wrote his works in Greek, the language of the Byzantine Empire based in Constantinople that saw itself as the inheritor of the original Roman Empire. Procopius's original work on the wars Justinian waged to expand the Empire were seen as too uncritical and propagandistic and, as if to compensate, he wrote this work in secret, only to be published after the Emperor's and his own death. Fair enough perhaps, but this work is comically absurd in its exaggerations. His hatred of Justinian and Theodora is such that he says "these two seemed not to be human beings, but veritable demons, and what the poets call vampires: who laid their heads together to see how they could most easily and quickly destroy the race and deeds of men; and assuming human bodies, became man-demons, and so convulsed the world". On various occasions he claims that "Justinian's head vanished, while the rest of his body seemed to ebb and flow" or that "of a sudden the face changed into a shapeless mass of flesh, with neither eyebrows nor eyes in their proper places, nor any other distinguishing feature". Furthermore in a claim wild even by the numerical standards of pre-modern historians, Procopius writes "Examining the countries that he made desolate of inhabitants, I would say he slew a trillion people"; a trillion is some 120 times the total world population even now in 2022, never mind in the 6th century, in the process also blaming the rulers for earthquakes and plagues. The tone of the narrative makes it difficult to take Procopius seriously as a historian, colourful and extravagant (and rather confusing) though it is. Show Less
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
The scandals of the rulers of the Byzantine Empire are chronicled in this engaging narrative. One wonders at the nature of the age and how the rulers maintained the power of the Byzantine Empire.
LibraryThing member soylentgreen23
A fascinating if depressing read, an examination of the damage that can be wrought on society by a single person and those encouraged to match them in corruption and avarice. We have learned nothing since this book was written.
LibraryThing member Medievalgirl
An unofficial history recounting what the author really thought about the 5th century Byzantine establishment. Biting, vitriolic and pulling no punches 'The Secret History' has been described as the Early Medieval version of salacious tabloid gossip. Certainly, there does seem to be an element of
However, the fact that he specifically requested that it not be published until after his and the Emperor's death does suggest that may indeed have been 'something rotten' in the heart of the Byzantine state.
Also, some useful details about social customs and institutions- like a late Roman postal service!
Show More
exaggeration because some of the events and actions the author described are almost so extreme and deplorable it is hard to believe them true. However, the fact that he specifically requested that it not be published until after his and the Emperor's death does suggest that may indeed have been 'something rotten' in the heart of the Byzantine state.
Also, some useful details about social customs and institutions- like a late Roman postal service!
Show Less
LibraryThing member Zare
Imagine a man with insider knowledge (and probably more than one ducked knife/arrow/poison during his career) and disillusioned with situation around him.
What can he do but write a publication into which he will pour as much of his poison as he can and make sure nobody finds out about it until he
Now lets make some things clear - this is period when people lose life on a basis of a gossip (advancement today is that nobody gets killed but yes it can get complicated) or simply because somebody does not like them (privileges when executioner also writes the laws). Imagine you are a writer with almost ultimate academic status and you have a very good job at court (government join with all the perks but also with all of the dangers because management anger or management change usually meant removal of entire chain). So you get a job to write historical works about the ruler's achievements (Justinian's wars and building achievements) but at the very same moment you witness things that don't go so well with you (one theory says one possible reason for this book was to secure survival in case of regime change, but I think this was product of a grudge because if it weren't I think book would not survive at all, what would be the reasoning?), some possibly set against you personally but, you know, you prefer living. So what do you do? You start writing a very sensitive document and hope nobody finds it while you are alive.
The way rulers are portrayed in my opinion is not an exaggeration at all - they both are rules of life and death, capable schemers and not hesitant when it comes to stab/back-stab whoever needs it. Do we actually think that ruthlessness of old Roman Emperors died with rise of Christianity? In days when Popes were warrior Popes (not to mentione Borgias almost a millennia later - they resonate dont they?) . If you think portrayal is too much - believe me same behavior can be found in any Eastern European country post Berlin Wall fall. Some of these tyrants might be romanticized by West because of anti-Russian sentiment and "open market" approach but believe me it took around 20 years to make sure elected government officials are at least kept responsible and not constantly stealing in some of these states. And now imagine position where you can order cities completely destroyed and everyone killed. You know how they say - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And one more thing about the book itself and it possible effect on society. I am very sure that Justinians and Theodora's acts would be that shocking at the time (6th century). This could be shocking in Renaissance period but for contemporaries this would be juicy (to a degree) but condemning to initiate the revolt and overthrow - I dont think so (I mean, even from today's perspective if they had good PR Justy and Thea would not have to worry at all (and yes, that's what our society became)). When you look at what they did it differs not from any of their contemporaries in power or pretending to gain power. These were much cruder times.
And do remember Justinian and Theodora re not the only ones mentioned. There is a plethora of characters in the book that are pillaging and murdering their subjects, that work under protection of Justinian and his wife or suddenly find themselves targeted by them, then forgiven (and possibly killed immediately afterward).
Excellent little book that proves that there is an universal pattern to human behavior. And if you want to see how good is someone give then the ultimate power (but truly you should not do this ever - always elect them for a limited term and do a litmus test).
What can he do but write a publication into which he will pour as much of his poison as he can and make sure nobody finds out about it until he
Show More
is safely dead.Now lets make some things clear - this is period when people lose life on a basis of a gossip (advancement today is that nobody gets killed but yes it can get complicated) or simply because somebody does not like them (privileges when executioner also writes the laws). Imagine you are a writer with almost ultimate academic status and you have a very good job at court (government join with all the perks but also with all of the dangers because management anger or management change usually meant removal of entire chain). So you get a job to write historical works about the ruler's achievements (Justinian's wars and building achievements) but at the very same moment you witness things that don't go so well with you (one theory says one possible reason for this book was to secure survival in case of regime change, but I think this was product of a grudge because if it weren't I think book would not survive at all, what would be the reasoning?), some possibly set against you personally but, you know, you prefer living. So what do you do? You start writing a very sensitive document and hope nobody finds it while you are alive.
The way rulers are portrayed in my opinion is not an exaggeration at all - they both are rules of life and death, capable schemers and not hesitant when it comes to stab/back-stab whoever needs it. Do we actually think that ruthlessness of old Roman Emperors died with rise of Christianity? In days when Popes were warrior Popes (not to mentione Borgias almost a millennia later - they resonate dont they?) . If you think portrayal is too much - believe me same behavior can be found in any Eastern European country post Berlin Wall fall. Some of these tyrants might be romanticized by West because of anti-Russian sentiment and "open market" approach but believe me it took around 20 years to make sure elected government officials are at least kept responsible and not constantly stealing in some of these states. And now imagine position where you can order cities completely destroyed and everyone killed. You know how they say - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And one more thing about the book itself and it possible effect on society. I am very sure that Justinians and Theodora's acts would be that shocking at the time (6th century). This could be shocking in Renaissance period but for contemporaries this would be juicy (to a degree) but condemning to initiate the revolt and overthrow - I dont think so (I mean, even from today's perspective if they had good PR Justy and Thea would not have to worry at all (and yes, that's what our society became)). When you look at what they did it differs not from any of their contemporaries in power or pretending to gain power. These were much cruder times.
And do remember Justinian and Theodora re not the only ones mentioned. There is a plethora of characters in the book that are pillaging and murdering their subjects, that work under protection of Justinian and his wife or suddenly find themselves targeted by them, then forgiven (and possibly killed immediately afterward).
Excellent little book that proves that there is an universal pattern to human behavior. And if you want to see how good is someone give then the ultimate power (but truly you should not do this ever - always elect them for a limited term and do a litmus test).
Show Less
Language
Original language
Latin
Original publication date
circa 550 - 562
1935
Physical description
208 p.; 7.7 inches
ISBN
0140441824 / 9780140441826