Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 4 (1897).djvu/537

APPENDIX ol3 was ignorant of the Prsefect's misdeeds. At the end of forty years' work, having passed successively through the grades of notary, chartulary, augustalis, and finally that of cornicularius (a. u. 551) — his promotion being facilitated by his knowledge of the Latin language, which was supposed to be exceptional, but was really very slight, — John retired to literary leisure, honoured but impoverished. His other'estant works are de Ostentis (ed.'Wachsmuth) and dc Mensibus. _ But he was employed by Justinian to write a Panegyric on that Emperor and a history of the Persian war"(cp. de Mag. iii. 28) ; these and his poems have been lost. To the account which Gibbon has given of the career of Pbocopius of C^saeea little need be added except on a few doubtful points. There is no record of the date of his birth, but it must have been before the end of the fifth century (c. 490, Dahn suggests) ; he was probably in the fifties when he began to write his history. The political sympathies apparent in his writings (noticed by Dahn, and elucidated more fully by Panchenko) suggest that he belonged to the official aristocracy ; and there is plausibility in the hypothesis of Haury that his father may have been the Procopius of Edessa,* whom he mentions himself in his L'diticen (p. 236, ed. Bonn) as governor of the First Palestine in the reign of Anastasius ; this receives some support from the interest manifested by Procopius in Edessene affairs. The exact nature of the post which Procopius occupied in regard to Belisarius has been questioned. Three questions have been raised: (1) in a.d. 527 waa Procopius appointed an asseisor or consiliarius by Belisarius himself or by the Emperor ? (2) did he occupy in the African and Italian Wars the same official post which he held in the Persian War? (3) are we right in supposing that he was officially a legal adviser to Belisarius at any time ? Though the third question has been raised last, it comes logically first. In a recent study on the historian M. Bruckner has pointed out ^ («) that Procopius never displays legal knowledge, and avoids juristic questions, (6) that hi.s contemporary Agathias calls him not ^vfx^ovXo^, but prJTojp (SuidaS calls him vKoypathfif;, fnqrojp, o-o<>iO-T>j;, aKoAovSoi BeKiaapiov), (c) that, if the father of Procopius was an Edessene as Haury suggests, the law that no one could be assessor in his native land would have jirevented Procopius from being chosen to that post when Belisarius was general in Meso- ])otamia, for the law could hardly have been evaded bj- the accidental birth of Procopius in Caesarea. Hence he doubts whether Procopius was an official assessor of Belisarius. The second argument does not carry much weight, and the third depends on a hypothesis — a plausible hypothesis, no doubt. Procopius himself states that when Belisarius was api)ointed commander of the regiments of Daras in 527 he was chosen as his fii^/SouAo^ (B. P. i. 12) ; and he describes himself as irdpeopo? of Belisarius on his Vandalic expedition (B. V. i. 14). It is usually assumed that both words designate the same official position, Jiiju/SouAos corresponding to consiliarius and napeSpo<; to assessor. There can, I think, be no question that napeipot is intended to designate an official post (elsewhere Pro- copius explains it as qucestur) ; and, if Bruckner were right, Procopius would have made a distinctly false statement about his own position. It is otherwise with fv/i/3oiiAo?, which need not impl}' an official post. The right inference may be that on the first occasion (in the Persian War) Procopius accompanied Belisarius as his private secretary and adviser on civil matters ; but that on the second occasion (for the Vandal War) he was appointed official assessor by the Em|)eror at the wish of Belisarius. It has been well pointed out by Dahn that Procopius is not given to varj'ing his phrases and seeking synonyms but rather to using the same stereotyped expressions for the same things ; and therefore (in absence of otlier knowledge) the j)re.-<umption is that fiV^ouAos does not express the same [losition as n-apt5pu?. I may be met by the objection that the passive Dpe'e.) in B. P. i. 12 (rore Si) avTov fufxPouAo? >7Pf9r) npoKOTrios) sug- gests an official appointment independent of Belisarius (cp. Dahn, op. rit. p. 16) ; • Procopiana (ist Progr.), p. 35-37- 8 Zur Beurteilung des Geschichtschreibers Prokopius von C, p. 42-3. VOL. IV. 38