Secret History Procopius Primary Sources

The first source that will be discussed in this essay is an extract from a book by Procopius, a prominent Byzantine scholar, entitled Secret History. Written circa 550 AD, the book itself heavily criticises the emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, and its disparaging, subjective, and almost anecdotal tone is reflected in the source. The author of the book is of significance- not only was Procopius potentially the most well-known Byzantine historian, but he had previously written another book, History of the Wars, which was extremely complementary of Justinian and Theodora. This means that, because Secret History took such a vastly different tone, the authorship of the book has been brought into question, especially since it was published

The source, from his Histories, talks of the Merovingian king Chilperic, and much like the first source, is incredibly critical of its subject, describing his remorseless pillaging and burning of districts. It is significant that Gregory of Tours was Gallo-Roman, as it provides a perspective that may take into account the views of both the Romans and the “barbarians”. However, the source is incredibly disparaging of Chilperic; like Procopius’ account of Justinian, Gregory of Tours’ scathing and somewhat anecdotal account uses incredibly strong language to portray Chilperic as cruel, violent, greedy and foolish, stating that the works he produced were poorly written and unusable, and that he hated poor people and Christians. He even compares him to the infamous Roman emperor Nero, who frequently tortured and executed Christians. This is where the main significance of this source in terms of studying the Middle Ages can be seen- it reflects its author’s, and perhaps even Chilperic’s subjects’ strongly pro-Christian, anti-Pagan beliefs. Because Gregory of Tours was a bishop, he may have had personal reasons for claiming Chilperic hated Christianity (for example, he talks of Chilperic accusing bishops of crime and rarely electing churchmen to bishoprics), and by stating that he was anti-Christian, this account attempts to negatively influence its readers’ perspective of the king as perhaps a sort of vengeance for what the author deems to be unchristian acts. This is especially due to the fact the source comes from a book, which would have been for wider consumption, and thus Gregory of Tours attempts to alter contemporary and modern historians’ views of Chilperic by portraying him as heretical and barbaric. Therefore, this source is significant in the study of the Middle Ages because it presents the growing