Quite honestly, I am eternally fascinated with Justinian, his legacy, his relationship with Theodora, and the conflicting nature of descriptions of him. He is the quintessential problem child of AP World History. What is reliable, factual information? What isn't? Justinian's largely unsuccessful attempt to reconquer the West was not his only misstep. A sincerely but narrowly pious man who took seriously his duties as God-anointed emperor, Justinian also promoted the cause of Christian Orthodoxy (correct thinking) in a cosmopolitan empire that contained many variant Christian beliefs and ways of interpreting the faith. The result was deep alienation, especially among Egyptian and Syrian subjects of the empire, and a consequent weakness that Islamic Arab forces exploited in the next century.Regardless of his failures, Justinian achieved many successes. Among his accomplishments, he ordered and saw to completion the codification of imperial Roman law, and he commissioned the rebuilding of many of Constantinople's churches and public buildings following an especially destructive urban riot in 532, the Nika Rebellion. The greatest of all these edifices was the massive domed church of Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom), the first great example of a distinctly Byzantine style of architecture.
To celebrate Justinian's building projects, a Palestinian courtier named Procopius composed a work entitled On the Buildings around 553-554. Earlier he had composed the first seven books of his History in Eight Books, also known as The Wars, a largely eyewitness account of Justinian's wars against the Persians, Vandals, and Goths, which he waged between 527 and 553. Both of these works were meant for widespread distribution and praised the emperor's actions and character in a most dutiful manner. Unknown to Justinian and the imperial censors, Procopius also wrote, probably in the year 550, a work he never intended to be seen in his own lifetime. Known today as The Secret History, this work purports to be a corrective to the laudatory Wars, the inside story of court life and policy-making, and a true description of the characters of the emperor and his empress, Theodora.
The two excerpts that I would like you to read come first from The Buildings (which you can read by clicking here) and the slightly earlier Secret History (you can read the first excerpt by clicking here and the second excerpt by clicking here). Together they illustrate how and why Justinian the Great was and still is such a controversial individual.
Once you have read the excerpts, I'd like you all to discuss the following: According to On the Buildings, what were Justinian's greatest accomplishments? According to The Secret History, what specific evils was Justinian guilty of? Consider Justinian's supposed character flaws and vices. How do you think a supporter of Justinian would interpret those qualities? How does The Secret History appear to be as a source? What about On the Buildings? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ANSWER. This really is a wonderful opportunity to discuss the reliability of sources--both historic and current media sources. Most historians rely on Procopius' On the Buildings for crucial information about the early Byzantine years. What are we to make, then, of his Secret History? The obvious conversation is: Who is the real Justinian? However, another important question to ask would be: Who is the real Procopius? Could possibly both visions of Procopius be accurate? Your thoughts?
23 comments:
I love how "The Buildings" talk about how he conquered barbarians and was kind to his enemies, and in "Secret History" He mentions expansion as just a want to conquer Rome and kill people. And how Justinian just hate everyone who comes upon him This reminds me of the stuff we read for Latin. The history accounts were always speaking of the great things the emporers did, because 90% of the time the historians were hired by the emporers! Livy was. And Vergil somehow managed to make Augustus related to Aeneas! Julius Ceasar wrote history too, I wonder what he thought of himself! Most likely the same thing happened with Procopius, and after Justinian died he decided to let the truth out with "Secret History".
well in the building ones it's talking about the land he had conquered, and in the other one it's talking about all of the people he killed. it could be that the guy wanted to write the second one but couldn't due to censorship. as to which one is right, both are probably right. of course he conquered lands and had a great city. but there are also the means to that that may be described in the second document.
as to which document should be believed, the positive or negative one, no leader is ever perfect. there could be a group of people who love a leader, but another group that hates the leader. it depends whether that group of people were benefitted or not by the emporer.
It was weird, about Justinian, Justinian a weird guy didn't want to be friends with enemies and was aways that way as for his friends and allies it was inconstant. He had two faces to himself. Even his closest friends, associates and even his wife were betrayed by him. He took away land from his subjects little by little. He never swayed when he saw the people that he hated or showed the slightest affection for the people he loved. He was apathetic, you could say. He did make his empire grow and conquered land showing no mercy to enemies, but I think he was a little crazy. I don't think cared for anyone, and was secretly power-hungry. Justinian I would have to say he was a devil, just using people to get what he wanted, but isn't it familiar?
One of Justinian's greatest acomplishments as written in "The Buildings" is the expanision of the region. This was major expansion of lost land and also new states. Although in the secret documents it is revealed that he was not all he was cracked up to be. He never showed a sign of caring or sorrow or guilt after killing innocent people, yet he never showed anger to the people who frustrated him. He seems to be a very two sided person which makes it hard to fully understand.
i think anybody and everybody sees something different even if their watching the same thing.
just like in "the buildings" when its talking about how he conquered the barbarians and was kind to his enemies.
and then in the "secret history"
he says something about how expansion is just a ploy to take over rome and kill people.
as to which document is to be believed is up soley to the reader, in my opinion
nobody can really truly KNOW unless they were there..
and no leader is ever or can ever do EVERYTHING perfect
"The Buildings" & "Secret History" are two totally different stories, but they're about the same person. Procopius was a great writer, & wrote great things about Justinian when he was alive & ruling the Byzantine empire, & as soon as he died, Procopius writes things that were 180 degrees different from writings that he wrote when Justinian was alive. I seriously tell which one could be real, & I surely definitely don't know which one could be the real story about this man, Justinian.
My idea about justinian, is that he's a little weird. I can understand why no one liked him, but it's amazing how even the people he knew, didnt liked him.
According to " The Building" expansion was key along with his recover out of all the rebellions.
and then the "Secret History" is bashing Justinian from the left and right...
hhhhhhmmmm which one do you believe..?? This procopius guy reminds me of a slimy media reporter.??
In "The Buildings" the man writing the book says that Justinian was kind to his enemies and counquered the barbarians like it was really good for his people and he also says that the best thing he did was stop the rebel wars against him making him such a good leader and emporer, but then in the "Secret History" he completely condradicts himself saying that he was not nice to his enemies and if he did not like the person or wanted to conquer them, he would kill them and not think a thing about it and be able to sleep well that night.
In "The Buildings" it says that his greatest accomplishment is conquering the west and how nice he was but in the "Secret History" it says that he was a horrible person. I don't see how the same person can have all of these traits with be hypocritical. Also, I can't image being the one to write two totally different things about the same person.
the buildings tells about all the good he did, and how amazing he was. But after Justinian was gone, he finally had the freedom to come out and say what really went on. this leads me to believe that Justinian was not a very good leader, and due to censorship (thanks for the word alina) he wasnt able to say these kinds of things. i personally would believe the secret history.
"The Buildings" is a completly different story than "Secret History". For some reason, I can't help but think the "trash talk" is the real story. It seems noone liked him. The truth really comes out when the person is no longer present.
I enjoyed this, especially the killing of a trillion people. I love how he ranted all his anger and frustration of Justinian into a book. It is interesting that he writes two collections on books, each displaying an entirely different side of Justinian.
The building of the Hagia Sophia was a major up for Justinian, and the rebuliding gave a good name to him, even if he was evil... He stopped the rebellion-successfully, even if highly brutally. Procopius wrote the faked out verson because he was told to and was afraid of being killed, and it also seems that he liked flattery, which he used a lot. This source has skewed facts. The "How Justinian killed a trillion..." was later on, when he could let out his true feelings of his emperor, also skewed, in the opposite direction. The blending of the two could revel truth. Also, where would he get his facts? People near to him, who are also needing to flatter him for their own sake? Libaries of books doing what he did? Later on, more sources, doing similar things to him, letting out angry truth? Nearly all of it is emotion, so, I say blend... Or find another source, like an enemy country or friendly country-bound to be fact in there. Or a literate peasant who doesn't care what the emperor thinks...but that would be harder to find... :)
wow. so, was he a murderer or a savior? talk about double standards and two-headedness! i love how J could do no wronge! he is a god!!! and then he dies and it's all like, BOOM, he's a trator, murderer, coward, and just plain EVIL!!! lol. and i agree w/Matthew about how, this is what a "friend" said. what did others say? hmmm...
randome- i really don't like this font. it's so boring!**i can just see your head shaking to this M PR....lol. w/e. i still don't like it.
im kinda on both sides on the fence with thinking which story was true.like i kinda think the secret history is the true one. i mean, if he killed the rebellion people, it kinda shows his other side. so maybe the secret history was the real truth. like the guy who wrote both stories could have just been afraid to actually publish the truth while justinian was alive because he didnt want to be killed.
although it is hard to believe because since justinian was gone, he could have just wanted to ruin like his reputation...
It seems to me like neither of these documents are completely accurate. In the first Procopious talks as if Justinian can do no wrong and in the second he talks as if he can do no right. In the first book he probably felt that he had to praise Justinian and say everything he did was good, even though it probably wasn't, or he could be harmed for talking badly of the emporer. Conversely in the seond book, he probably felt resentment toward Justinian and decided to make him look worse than he might have been in reality. Both these documents really show the importance of analyzing the point of view of the author to really determine how accurate the document is.
Procopious in one word: Undecisive
he just put in words what Justinan most likely wanted to hear..and that doesnt help anyone haha
So I can see how Procopius wasnt really decided of which Justinian was the true one. In "The Bulidings", he writes about Justinian being this great emperor who was nice to the enemies, and so forth. But, in "the Secret History", he really does contratict himself by revealing how Justinian was actually killing people and so forth. I wonder which is his true side, but i would like to say "The Secret History". I say this because Procopius did not have to worry about lying or keeping any truths since Justinian had just died.
Both of these documents are so contraversial, there is really no good place to start. Honestly, i have no idea which document to believe anymore. In " the Buildings", is states that he is a great leader who conquered many territories, which he did do, and got "rid" of the nomadic invaders. Then, procopious suddenly says he is a killing machine to everyone, along with his wife Thoedora, being equally evil. Maybe he is bipolar or something, because now we have actual accounts from that time period, but we have no idea what to believe! So now do we use opinion to decide if he was a successful emperor or a killer? I think that the " Secret History" maybe is correct because maybe Justinain was a little power hungry and why else would it be secret. We still have no idea what to think about Justinain or Procopious though, so i don't know what to think.
I don't see how Procopious could write all of that and be so diverse about it. in "The Buildings" he talks about how wonderful Justinian was. how he was nice to his enemies and all the great things he did. he decided to let out how he felt in "Secret History" he downs Justinian to nothing besides a lying, killing, and just wanting to conquer Rome kind of guy. Since both books were public, nobody knew which one was true.
I don't get why that procopius guy woun't make up his mind about Justinian and it really hard to believe anything this guy says.
I believe that Justinian was a leader absorbed in his own power as he ruled his people through fear. Negative written interpretations of him were rewarded with execution, but when he dies, all the harsh "truth" is revealed.
A successful society must be ruled by fear to some extent, though.
i agree with alina, i think both are somewhat true, to an extent. just different details of the same story, and he probably couldnt write all the negative, but true things about justinian while he was alive.. thats kind of obvious. and i mean, im sure he really was a great conqueror and whatnot, but that doesnt mean that all his reasons were good.
Post a Comment