1. Emphasis will be placed on works published between 1995 and 2003. A useful résumé of work published up to 1996 may be found in Tougher, S., ‘Cameron and Beyond: Review-discussion of Averil Cameron: Procopius and the Sixth century ’, Histos 1 (1997) [http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1997/tougher.html]Google Scholar. I am grateful to Juan Signes Codoñer and Anthony Kaldellis for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.

2. AnTard 8 (2000).

3. Cf.Mango, C. and Scott, R., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford 1997), 344 n.lGoogle Scholar: ‘The absence of other material for this year (A.M. 6052) must cause some suspicion about the accuracy of Theophanes’ dating.’ Another recent work on Procopius, Codoñer, J. Signes, Procopio de Cesarea – Historia Secreta (Madrid, 2000), 73-6Google Scholar, also accepts the later dating of the Buildings, cf. idem, ‘Prokops Anecdota und Justinians Nachfolge’, JÖB 53 (2003), 47-81.

4. Kislinger, E., ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, BZ 91 (1998), 49–58 Google Scholar (not cited by any of the contributors to the AnTard volume).

5. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 53 and n.49.

6. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 54-6.

7. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 55 nn.56, 58. His arguments for the late dating of sections of Wars VIII (following J.A.S. Evans) will be examined below.

8. ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 53.

9. See in general Stein, E., Histoire du bas-empire, vol.2 (Paris 1949), 521-35Google Scholar with M. Whitby, ‘The Balkans and Greece, 420-602’ in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins and Whitby, M., eds, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol.14 (Cambridge 2000), 714-15Google Scholar (stressing the variety of groups attacking the Balkans during the period).

10. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 54, cf.Greatrex, G., ‘The composition of Procopius’ Persian Wars and John the Cappadocian’, Prudentia 17 (1995), 3–4 Google Scholar. Note also possible references to other raids, e.g. at Wars VII.14.11 (an attack by the Antae in the 540s).

11. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’ 56 and n.60 identifies the first of the two subsequent raids with some rather vague references to Hunnic invasions in Wars VIII (e.g. VIII.21.21) and places it therefore in 551. Given that the invasion of 544, noted above, is said to have been undertaken by Huns, one might just as well suppose that it was this one which is referred to at Wars II.4.8-9 (which should be identified with the ‘recent’ attack on the Thracian Chersonese by unspecified invaders noted at Buildings IV. 10.9, discussed further below). One does not have the impression that Procopius was interested in being especially precise about the identity of the various invaders, whether Huns, Slavs, or a combination, preferring rather to emphasise the scale of their depredations.

12. Cf. e.g. Stein, , Bas-empire, vol.2, 309 Google Scholar and Greatrex, G., ‘Procopius and Agamias on the defence of the Thracian Chersonese’, in Mango, C. and Dagron, G., eds, Constantinople and its hinterland (Aldershot 1995), 126 Google Scholar.

13. Cf. Greatrex, ‘The Composition of Procopius’ Persian Wars’, 4-9.

14. As noted above in the case of Jeffreys. Kislinger too sets much store by the Sanagarius entry, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 59 n.56, citing Whitby’s positive assessment of the chronicler’s chronology here (‘Justinian’s Bridge over the Sangarius and the Date of Procopius’ De Aediflciis’, JHS 105 (1985), 140).

15. Mango and Scott suggest that this entry too is misdated, cf. 358 n.2.

16. Cf.Croke, B., ‘Malaas, the man and his work’ in Jeffreys, E., ed., Studies in Malalas (Sydney 1990), 24-5Google Scholar, doubting the likelihood that the chronicle continued beyond 565.

17. See nn.14-15 above. Note also Greatrex, G., ‘The dates of Procopius’ works’, BMGS 18 (1994), 110-11Google Scholar, for other chronological inaccuracies of Theophanes in this period.

18. Whitby, M., ‘Pride and prejudice in Procopius’ Buildings: imperial images in Constantinople’, AnTard 8 (2000), 59–66 Google Scholar.

19. It is true, of course, that one cannot put too much weight on such words; Procopius is somewhat vague in his use of chronological indicators. Cf.Palmer, A., ‘Procopius and Edessa’, AnTard 8 (2000), 135 Google Scholar, arguing that Procopius’ ‘immediately’, concerning repairs to the city of Edessa, should not be taken literally, and that work was only undertaken c.540, fifteen years after the flood of 525. See n.ll above on the date of this invasion.

20. For detailed argumentation see Greatrex, ‘The dates’, 108-9 and ‘Procopius and the defences of the Thracian Chersonese’, 125-7. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 55 n.56, does not accept this point, but his reasoning is unclear. The implication of this whole section of the Buildings (IV.10.1-23) is that Justinian has vastly improved the defences of this region, which had been proved inadequate. It would therefore be odd indeed for Procopius to fail to report the successful defence of the peninsula by a favoured general of the emperor if he was writing after these events.

21. The second argument could be swept aside if one took the view that Buildings I was composed earlier, as Haury long ago proposed. I fail to see the force of Evans’ suggestion, ‘The Dates of Procopius’ Works: A Recapitulation of the Evidence’, GRBS 37 (1996), 306 n.12, that the reference to Justinian’s clemency would be more appropriate after the memory of the conspiracy had faded. This might be true (though it is not obvious), but fails to address the accuracy of Procopius’ claim.

Signes Codoñer, ‘Prokops Anecdota’, 66 n.54, makes the interesting suggestion that it was precisely Justinian’s clemency towards these conspirators that inclined Procopius to look more favourably on Justinian’s régime and to embark on the Buildings (although he prefers the later dating of the work).

22. Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 54-5 for his dating. See Signes Codoñer, ‘Prokops Anekdota’, sections 1 and 3; he draws particular attention to the concluding chapters of Wars VII, some sections being written before Germanus’ unexpected death, others afterwards. Whether he is right to suppose that the Anecdota could have been added on at the end of Wars VII.39, had Germanus lived and gained the throne, seems more doubtful.

23. The articles in nn.17 and 21 above.

24. The Greek is simply the usual vague hypo ton khronon touton. In this case, the events must have taken place somewhat after the siege of Edessa.

25. Kislinger, E. and Stathakopoulos, D., ‘Pest und Perserkrieg bei Prokop. Chronologische Überlegungen zum Geschehen 540-545’, B 69 (1999), 76–98 at 95-6Google Scholar. They arrive at their conclusion by placing the abortive Roman incursion into Persarmenia in 542, following Khusro’s premature withdrawal from Roman territory, cf. pp.94-5. The standard view is still to be found (e.g.) in Whitby, ‘Pride and prejudice’, 61. For an overview of this campaign, taking into account the new chronology, see Greatrex, G. and Lieu, S., The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, A.D. 363-630 (London 2002), 112 Google Scholar.

26. Croke, , The Chronicle of Marcellinus (Sydney 1995), 137 Google Scholar rejected the continuator’s statement out of hand, supposing it to be a year too late. See Kislinger and Stathakopoulos, ‘Pest’, 97.

27. Proc. Wars II.28.1-5 with Agathias, Hist. IN.29.1 on Khusro’s habit of spending the summer in a mountainous region.

28. Cf.Stein, , Bas-empire, vol.2, 604 Google Scholar and n.l and Signes Codoñer, Historia Secreta, 33. Procopius refers to the Roman capture of Cumae in the same section, although it was not taken until the following year (as is clear from Agathias): Teias’ brother Aligern declined to hand over the city. If we suppose that Procopius was writing up this section in Constantinople – the usual view – then such an error is quite understandable, since the terms imposed on the Goths by Narses demanded that those south of the Po surrender to them (Proc. loc. cit. and Stein, loc. cit.).

29. The Greek term used, to metopôron, is translated by LSJ as either ‘autumn’ or ‘late autumn’.

30. Procopius VIII.15.12 explicitly dates the second truce to the twenty-fifth year of Justinian’s reign, i.e. April 551-March 552. Dewing’s translation mistakenly proposes 552/3 as the equivalent of Justinian’s regnal year, p.211.

31. Stein, Bas-empire, vol.2, 502; Martindale, J., The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol.3 (Cambridge 1991), 334 Google Scholar.

32. Cf. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus comes, 137.

33. Evans, ‘The dates’, 306. Strictly speaking, the second truce expired in autumn 556; and one might presume that Roman payments would be made at the start of the year in question, so that a date of spring 556 would be more appropriate. Cf. Menander Protector, ed. Blockley, frg.6.1.148-54 (also in Greatrex and Lieu, Roman Eastern Frontier, 131-2) for the mechanisms of truce payments according to the treaty of 562.

34. While Kislinger, ‘Ein Angriff zu viel’, 55 n.58, accepts Evans’ line, it is rejected with more argumentation by Signes Codoñer, Historia Secreta, 32 and nn.61-2 and idem, ‘Prokops Anecdota’, 51 n.l7

35. Cf.Cameron, A., Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), 241 Google Scholar, with Tougher, ‘Cameron and Beyond’; Kaegi, W., ‘Procopius the military historian’, BF 15 (1990), 53–85 Google Scholar.

36. See Greatrex, G., ‘Stephanus, the father of Procopius of Caesarea?’, Medieval Prosopography 17/1 (1996), 125-45Google Scholar.

37. Cf. Cameron, Procopius, 8, Signes Codoñer, Historia Secreta, 10-11. On the role of the assessor see Greatrex, G., ‘ Assessores kaj historiistoj en la malfrua romia imperio’, Jura Tribuno Internada 2 (1998), 33–50 Google Scholar.

38. I have discussed this point in ‘ Lawyers and Historians in Late Antiquity’, in Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. Mathisen, R. (Oxford 2001), 148-61Google Scholar. I may have overstated my case in stating that Procopius is ‘now generally accepted to have been a lawyer’, p.150: Howard-Johnston, ‘The education and expertise of Procopius’, 22 and n.19, is sceptical, although Signes Codoñer, Historia Secreta, 11-12, 95-7, finds evidence in the Anecdota for Procopius’ legal interests. Tinnefeld, F., ‘Prokopios [3]’, in Der Neue Pauly 10 (2001), 391-2Google Scholar, also accepts the traditional view, as do two other recent encyclopaedia entries on Procopius – that of Evans, J.A.S in Bowersock, G.W., Grabar, O. and Brown, P., eds, Late Antiquity. A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, Mass. 1999), 654 Google Scholar, and that by Greatrex, G. in Speake, G., ed., The Encyclopaedia of Greece and the Hellenic Tradition (London 2000), 1405-6Google Scholar.

39. References are to Howard-Johnston’s paper, ‘The education and expertise of Procopius’ AnTard 8 (2000), 19-30. Howard-Johnston strongly downplays the classicising nature of Procopius’ work. See, however, Pazdernik, C., ‘Procopius and Thucydides on the Labors of War: Belisarius and Brasidas in the Field’, Trans. Amer. Philol. Soc. 130 (2000), 149-87Google Scholar for parallels between the two authors, cf. Signes Codoñer, Historia secreta, 105-12. The evidence for the parallels between Belisarius and Brasidas discussed by Pazdernik cannot be swept aside as lightly as Howard-Johnston does (24 n.28). The work of Kate Adshead, ‘The Secret History of Procopius and its genesis’, B 63 (1993), 13-16, also argues for allusions to Thucydides, cf. e.g. eadem, ‘Procopius’ Poliorcetica: Continuities and discontinuities’ in Clarke, G., Croke, B., Mortley, R. and Nobbs, A. Emmett, Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Rushcutters Bay 1990), 93–104 Google Scholar.

40. Cf.Croke, B. in Jeffreys, E., Studies in Malalas, 3 Google Scholar (Evagrius on Malalas). I mistakenly cite this reference as p.5 in ‘Lawyers and historians’, 151 n.15. Howard-Johnston, ‘The education and expertise of Procopius’, 24, notes a few passages where Procopius discusses legal matters, arguing that they are few and insignificant. More examples, however, may be found in my article, ‘Lawyers and historians’, 150 n.ll, cf. more importantly Signes Codoñer, Historia secreta, 95-105 and Gizewski, C., Zur Normativität und Struktur der Verfassungsverhältnisse in der späteren römischen Kaiserzeit (Munich 1988), 66–147 Google Scholar.

41. Above, n.35.

42. ‘Procopius the military historian’, 83.

43. Cf.Greatrex, G., Rome and Persia at War, 502-532 (Leeds 1998), 61 and n.7Google Scholar on John’s work (referred to at De Mag. III.28.). Recently, however, Schamp, J., ‘Les débuts d’un collègue: le cas de Jean le Lydien’ in XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines. Pré-actes (Paris 2001), III, 64 Google Scholar, has argued that John refers rather to a work commemorating Khusro’s retreat from Edessa in 540.

44. All these instances noted by Kaegi, ‘Procopius the military historian’, 69-73.

45. Cf. Adshead, ‘The Secret History’, 17-19, for this characterisation of these chapters.

46. Compare Cameron, Procopius, 17 with Cameron, , ‘Conclusion’, AnTard 8 (2000), 178 Google Scholar. Cf. J. Signes Codoñer, ‘Prokops Anecdota’, 49 n. 14.

47. Greatrex, ‘The composition of Procopius’ Persian Wars’, 1-13. B. Rubin long ago noted the Anecdota-like quality of the passage concerning John.

48. Greatrex, G., ‘Procopius the Outsider?’ in Smythe, D., ed., Strangers to themselves. The Byzantine Outsider (Aldershot 2000), 215-28Google Scholar.

49. Signes Codoñer, Historia secreta, 62-7 with idem, ‘Datierung und Zweck von Prokops Geheimgeschichte’, XXe Congrès international des Études Byzantines. Préactes (Paris 2001), III, 63, now developed as ‘Prokops Anecdota’. Signes Codoñer, ‘Prokops Anecdota’, 49 n.l4, remains uncertain as to whether all the somewhat disparate material collected in the Anecdota could have been deployed in the Wars.

50. ‘Plato’s Revenge: Byzantine literary criticism and the Secret History of the sixth century’. See also idem, ‘The historical and religious views of Agathias: a reinterpretation’, B 69 (1999), 206-52. Quotation from the concluding paragraph of the former paper. I am grateful to Dr Kaldellis for providing me with a copy of his seminar paper (which I was unable to attend); my aim here is merely to draw attention to his arguments and to offer a few counter-remarks. The reader will have to await his forthcoming monographs for a fuller exposition of his arguments.

51. Cf. Cameron, Procopius, ch.7 and 234-5. Evans’, J.A.S. article, ‘Christianity and Paganism in Procopius of Caesarea’, GRBS 12 (1971)Google Scholar is also an important contribution to the debate. His arguments, ibid. 86-93, for Procopius’ adherence to Christianity appear compelling.

52. (e.g.) Cf.Damascius, , Philosophical History, ed. and tr. Athanassiadi, P. (Athens 1999), §124Google Scholar.

53. Cf.Maas, M., John Lydus and the Roman Past (London 1992), 72-3Google Scholar.

54. But note Greatrex, ‘Stephanus’, 129 and references at n.9 on the question of the depth of knowledge of classical authors (perhaps limited to extracts in handbooks). Kaldellis argues (pers. cornm.) that references to Plato are particularly significant since Plato was not part of the standard curriculum in the sixth century. But cf.Wilson, N.G., Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983), 8, 19, 24, 50Google Scholar for study of Plato in late antiquity. He also notes, ibid. 30-1, how the Gaza school, where Procopius might have studied (above, n.36), was particularly influenced by Plato.

55. On Theophylact, see Whitby, M., The Emperor Maurice and his historian (Oxford 1988), 322-9Google Scholar and idem, ‘Greek Historical Writing after Procopius: Variety and Vitality’ in Cameron, A. and Conrad, L., eds, The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I, Problems in the Literary Source Material (Princeton 1992), 47–54 Google Scholar.

56. Cf.Evans, J.A.S., The Age of Justinian (London 1996), 124 Google Scholar.

57. By Evans (n.56 above), cf. idem, ‘The “Nika” rebellion and the Empress Theodora’, B 54 (1984), 380-2, as well as by Kaldellis. Cameron, Procopius, 69, is more reserved. Isocrates, Archidamus, 45 for the reference; cf. Diodorus Siculus, XIV.8. Cf.Sanders, L.J., Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny (London 1987), 33 n.16Google Scholar on Isocrates’ favourable stance; Sanders also emphasises that pro-Dionysian accounts were not entirely overshadowed by Timaeus’ hostile version, ibid, vii, 174-6.

58. Cf. Kaegi, ‘Procopius the military historian’, 81-2.

59. Menae Patricii cum Thoma referendario. De scientia politica dialogus, ed. Mazzuchi, CM. (Milan 1982), esp. book VGoogle Scholar.

60. Theoph. Sim. Dialogue of Philosophy and History 4, Hist. VIII.10.4, 13.1. On the traditions of good and bad tyrants in archaic Greece, cf.Osborne, R., Greece in the Making, 1200-479 B.C. (London 1996), 193-7Google Scholar. For harsh criticism of Roman emperors in classicising histories, cf. Greatrex, ‘Procopius the Outsider?’, 217-18.