DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0042 BZ 2020; 113(3): 981–1024

Charles Pazdernik Breaking silenceinthe historiography of Procopius of Caesarea Abstract: Procopius employs the motif of “grievinginsilence” to describethe deliberations preceding Justinian’sinvasion of Vandal North Africa in 533 (Wars 3.10.7– 8) and his vendetta against the urban prefect of Constantinople in 523(HA 9.41). Theparticularity of Procopius’ languageinthese passages makes their collocation especiallypronounced. The distance between the Wars and the Secret History,which represents itself breakingthe silence between what the Wars can state publiclyand the unvarnished truth (HA 1.1–10), may be measured by two “wise advisers” who speak when others are silent: the quaestor Proclus, warmlyrememberedfor his probity,and the praetorian prefect John the Cappadocian, afigure universallyreviled.Discontinuities between the presentation of John in the Wars and the merits of the policies he endorses prob- lematize readers’ impressions of not onlyJohn but alsothe relationship between the Wars and the historical reality the work claims to represent.

Adresse: Prof.Dr. Charles F. Pazdernik, Grand Valley StateUniversity,DepartmentofClassics, One Campus Drive, Allendale, MI 49401, USA; [email protected]

I

Twointerrelated episodes in Procopius of Caesarea’s Wars and Secret History,re- spectively,present similar but incongruous images of deliberations within high councils of state in the later Romanempire. The more straightforward of the two concerns the fateofTheodotus “the Pumpkin,”¹ an urban prefect of Constantinople duringthe reign of Justin I, whose success in cracking down against the excesses of the Blue circus faction in 523CEthreatened the interests of Justin’snephew, the future emperor Justi- nian I. In the Secret History,Procopius tells us that Justinian retaliated by trump-

 PLRE :Theodotusqui et Colocynthius . 982 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung ing up chargesagainst Theodotus and was on the point of securing his condem- nation (HA 9.41 [A3²],trans. Dewing):

πάντων δέ οἱἐκποδὼν ἱσταμένων καὶ σιωπῇ τὴν ἐςτὸνΘεόδοτον ὀδυρομένων ἐπιβουλὴν, μόνος ὁ Πρόκλος τὴντοῦκαλουμένου κοιαίστωρος ἔχων ἀρχὴνκαθαρὸν ἀπέφαινε τοῦ ἐγκλήματος εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ θανάτου οὐδαμῆἄξιον. And as all stood aloof from him and in silence grieved over the plot against Theodotus, Proclusalone, whoheld the officeofquaestor,asits incumbent was called, declared that the man was innocent of the charge and in no wayworthyofdeath.

Procopius employs the same motif of “grieving in silence” to describe the delib- erations preceding Justinian’sdecision to invade Vandal North Africa in 533. The prospect of an expedition was opposed by Justinian’sministers and generals alike (Wars 3.10.7– 8 [A1],trans. Dewing):

Βασιλεῖ μέντοι εἰπεῖντιἐπὶκωλύμῃ τῆςστρατιᾶςοὐδεὶς, ὅτι μὴὁΚαππαδόκης Ἰωάννης, ἐτόλμησεν, ὁ τῆςαὐλῆςἔπαρχος, θρασύτατόςτεὢνκαὶδεινότατος τῶνκατ’ αὐτὸν ἁπάντων. οὗτος γὰρ Ἰωάννης, τῶν ἄλλων σιωπῇ τὰςπαρούσας ὀδυρομένων τύχας, παρελθὼν ἐςβασιλέα ἔλεξε τοιάδε … But as for sayinganythingtothe emperor to prevent the expedition, no one dared to do this except John the Cappadocian, the praetorian prefect,aman of the greatest daring and the cleverest of all men of his time.³ Forthis John, while all the others were bewailing in silence the fortune which was upon them, came beforethe emperor and spokeasfollows …

The episode is modeled on Artabanus’ warningagainst Xerxes’ expedition (Hdt. 7.10.1,trans. Purvis with modifications):⁴

σιωπώντων δὲ τῶν ἄλλων Περσέων καὶ οὐ τολμώντων γνώμην ἀποδείκνυσθαι ἀντίην τῇ προκειμένῃ, ᾿Aρτάβανος ὁὙστάσπεος, πάτρως ἐὼνΞέρξῃ, τῷ δὴ καὶ πίσυνος ἦν, ἔλεγε τάδε …

 Refer to Table  infra for the relative arrangement of the keypassagesunder discussion.  On Procopius’ description of John the Cappadocian, see further Section III below with note .  See H. Braun,Die Nachahmung Herodots durch Prokop. Nuremberg , ;onthe “tragic warner” figure,see R. Lattimore,The wise advisor in Herodotus. ClassicalPhilology  (), –,esp. –.Onthis episode, see J. A.S. Evans,Christianityand paganism in Procopius of Caesarea. GRBS  (), –: –;R.Scott,The classical tradition in Byzantine historiography, in M. Mullett /R.Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the classical tradition. Birmingham , –,esp. –;A.Kaldellis,Procopius of Caesarea: tyranny, history,and philos- ophyatthe end of antiquity.Philadelphia , –. C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 983

Now the rest of the Persians remained silent and did not dare to express an opinion in opposition to the one that had been offered; but then Artabanus son of Hystaspes,relying on the fact that he was Xerxes’ uncle, spokeasfollows …

If, for Herodotus, “the silence that holds the Persian courtiers is the mark of their condition as subjects,”⁵ the samemay be said for Procopius. The particularityof Procopius’ languageinthese passages in the Wars and the Secret History,how- ever,makes their collocation especiallypronounced.⁶ The expression “grieving in silence” (σιωπῇ … ὀδύρεσθαι)isotherwise attested anywhereinthe TLG cor- pus onlyatWars 3.25.19 [A2] (σιωπῇ … ὠδύροντο)⁷ – apassagetowhich we will turn presently.

 See S. Montiglio, Silenceinthe land of logos. Princeton , .V.Zali,The shape of Herodotean rhetoric: astudyofthe speechesinHerodotus’ Histories with special attention to Books –.Leiden , –,with notes –,citesasparallel instances Hdt. .. (Socles the Corinthian replies to the Spartan proposal to reinstall Hippias in Athens;see also ..), .. (Mardonius addresses his assembled officers) and suggests as epic exemplars Hom. Il. .– (Athena replies to Zeus), Od. .– (Amphinomus relies to Antinous). On Herodotus’ portrayal of the Persian court,see now C.B.R. Pelling,Herodotusand the ques- tion why. Austin , –;also L. Belloni,Unaposiopesi in Erodoto(..). Lexis  (), –;P.Hohti,Freedomofspeech in speech situations in the Histories of Herodotus. Arctos  (), –.  The distinctiveness and interrelatedness of the two episodes becomes all the moreapparent in comparison with an incident in book seven of the Wars that presents adilemma virtuallyiden- tical to the one facingProclus in the Secret History. Procopius praises Marcellus (PLRE  Marcel- lus ), whoascomes excubitorum proceeded with painstaking care and deliberation in exposing the conspiracy of Arsaces and Chanaranges against Justinian and subsequentlydemonstrated his personal integrity in shieldingGermanus from the emperor’swrath; Procopiusdescribes him as incorruptible, profoundlyinvestedinthe observance of justice,and of sober and forbid- ding mien (Wars ..). He was learned in the law, havingbeen appointed iudex pedaneus by Justinian in  (Just. Nov. .). Procopius recounts ascene in the consistorium in which the emperor,egged on by twounnamedofficials,was ragingagainst Germanusfor failingto bringthe matter to his attention immediately. “The other [officials], cowed by fear,remained si- lent and yielded to [Justinian]bynot resisting his will. Marcellus alone managedtosavethe man by speakingcandidly” (οἱ δὲἄλλοι κατεπτηχότες σιωπῇ εἴχοντο, τῷ μὴἀντιστατεῖν ἃ βούλοιτο ἐγχωροῦντες αὐτῷ· Μάρκελλος δὲ μόνος ὀρθοστομήσας διασώσασθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἴσχυσε, ..). The languagehere is marked (ὀρθοστομεῖν is hapax legomenon), and the contrasting languageand details between the twoscenes show that neither is stereotyped or formulaic.  This investigation is based on alemmatized proximity search of the TLG corpusfor ὀδύρομαι within fifteen words of σιωπή, ‑ῆς.Cf. Suda Ο. Adler s.v. Ὀδύρω: … καὶὁΛιβάνιος. νυνὶ δὲ τὴνκόνιν σιγῇὀδύρωμαι (“and Libanius [writes]: ‘but now the ash in silenceIwould bewail,’” trans. Whitehead), evidentlyacorruption of Or. .: ἐγὼ δὲ τὴνΝικομήδους πόλιν … ταύτην δὴ τὴν ἔναγχος μὲνπόλιν, νυνὶ δὲ κόνιν σιγῇ δακρύσω …;(“and shall Icry in silencefor the city of Nicomedia … acity no longer,reduced to ashes?”). On the distinctiveness of these episodes, see also note  infra. 984 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

Although the close parallelism at these two moments between the Wars and the Secret History has been discussed with reference to the pragmatics of courtly etiquette in late antiquity,⁸ more relevant here is the self-characterization of tra- ditional Greco-Roman historiography as an exercise in bridging the silence be- tween the present and an otherwise evanescent past and in recovering and reha- bilitatingtruths that are otherwise concealed by the dissimulating effects of power.⁹ In this connection, the relationship thatProcopius constructs between the Wars and the Secret History is strikingly figured. If the Wars is apublic, and thereforeanecessarilycircumspect and carefullyhedged, account of arecent past that cannot be fullydisclosed while the principals are still alive (HA 1.1– 3), the Secret History represents itself as the breaking of the silence marked by the distance between what is able to be stated publiclyand the frank and un- varnished truth (4–10). The differenceand the distance between the two works,aswell as Proco- pius’ own, necessarilyambivalent and conflicted, self-representationasasi- lence-breaking historian, maybemeasured by the gulf that separates the two “wise advisers” who venturetospeak when others are silent: on the one hand, Proclus,¹⁰ afigure warmlyrememberedfor his probity,whose unwavering stance against patent injusticeispresented without irony; on the other,John the Cappadocian,¹¹ afigure universallyreviled upon his fall from Justinian’sfavor,

 See C. Pazdernik, ‘Howthen is it not bettertoprefer quiet,than the dangers of conflict?’:The imperial courtasthe siteofshiftingculturalfrontiers,inD.Brakke/D.Deliyannis /E.Watts (eds.), Shiftingculturalfrontiers in late antiquity.Farnham /Burlington, VT , –: –.  See C.W. Hendrick,Jr.,History and silence: purge and rehabilitation of memory in lateantiq- uity.Austin ,esp. –.Appositeisthe so-called sphragis with which AmmianusMar- cellinus closes (..): opus veritatem professum numquam, ut arbitror,sciens silentio ausus corrumperevel mendacio (his is “awork which claims truthfulness and which,soIthink, I have never knowinglydared to warp with silenceorfalsehood,” trans. G. Kelly,The sphragis and closureofthe Res Gestae, in J. den Boeft /J.W.Drijvers /D.den Hengst /H.C.Teitler (eds.), Ammianusafter Julian. The reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books – of the Res Gestae. Leiden/Boston , –: ), an allusion to Cicero, de Orat. .: nam quis nescit primam esse historiae legem, ne quid falsi dicereaudeat? deinde ne quid veri non au- deat? (“for whodoes not know the first lawinwritinghistory to be that the historian must not daretotell anyfalsehood,and the next that he must not dare to suppress anypart of the truth?”). On the truth claims offered by the Wars,which areundercut by the SecretHistory, see Section III below.  PLRE  Proculus .See D. Liebs,Hofjuristen der römischen Kaiser bis Justinian. Munich , –;C.Pazdernik,The quaestor Proclus. GRBS  (), –.  PLRE  Ioannes . C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 985 whose opposition to the Vandal expedition is compromised by narrowly self- serving ends. In patterningthe deliberations over the Vandal expedition upon Herodotus, Procopius is signalingthe structural importance of the scene, which punctuates amajor turning point in his narrative and amoment of great historical consequence.¹² Importantquestions of interpretation hinge upon whether John the Cappadocian creditablyacquits himself as an Artabanus-likewise advisor and whether his advice is validated by the subsequent course of events. Consen- sus on these matters has eluded scholars.¹³ It has been suggested, for example, that, “while condemningJohn the Cappadocian … Procopius admits thatJohn acted bravelyand reasonablyinarguing against the African expedition.”¹⁴ As

 As I.J. F. de Jong,The anachronical structureofHerodotus’ Histories,inS.J.Harrison (ed.), Texts, ideas, and the Classics:scholarship, theory,classical literature. Oxford , –: ,points out,atrootthe technique is Homeric.  See G. Greatrex,Perceptions of Procopius in recentscholarship. Histos  (), –: –,expressingreservations about readingsofthe Wars that “can end up beingover-ingen- ious and subtle.” P. Van Nuffelen,The wor(l)ds of Procopius, in C. Lillington-Martin /E.Tur- quois (eds.), Procopius of Caesarea. Literary and historical interpretations. London , – : ,observes morebroadlythat “scholarship fails to agreeonwhatthe exact tendency of the Wars is and what message Procopius preciselywishes to convey.”  W. Treadgold,The earlyByzantine historians. Basingstoke /New York , ;likewise, Scott,Classical tradition (as footnote  above), – (“the onlyincident in the Wars where Procopius presents John without criticism”); M. Cesa,Lapolitica di Giustiniano verso l’Occi- dente nel giudizio di Procopio. Athenaeum  (), –: – (“in questa occa- sione Procopio presta insommalesue idee al Cappadoce”); eadem,Procopio di Cesarea ed al- cuni militari esovrani ‘germanici’,inV.Lica /D.Nedu (eds.), ΦΙΛΙΑ.Festschrift für Gerhard Wirth. Galați , –:  and note .P.Lamma,Giovanni di Cappadocia. Aevum  (), –: –,takes the speech at face value as an expression of John’sviews; see also A. Rodolfi,Procopius and the Vandals:how the Byzantine propaganda constructs and changesAfrican identity,inG.M.Berndt/R. Steinacher (eds.), Das Reich der Vandalen und seine (Vor‐)Geschichten. Vienna , –; –.CompareS.Barnish /A.D. Lee /M.Whitby,Government and administration, in Av.Cameron /B.Ward-Perkins /M.Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, .Cambridge , –: : “likeany cannyfin- ancier [John] was reluctant to endorse major new commitments.” Kaldellis,Procopius (as foot- note  above), –,finds that “the prefect’scaution is justified by later events.” J. A.S. Evans,The power game in Byzantium: Antonina and the empress Theodora.London /New York , ,incontrast,finds that “John the Cappadocian’sadvice was wrong as wellasneg- ative,which mayhavebeen the reason whyProcopius made apoint of puttingitonthe record.” D. Brodka,Prokopiosvon Kaisareia und JustiniansIdee ‘der Reconquista’. Eos  (), – : –,finds the attribution of the speech to John unremarkable: “Im Prinzip wirdin der Rede des Johannes nichts Neues gesagt. Der Historiker deutethier die Probleme an, auf die er schon früher aufmerksam gemacht hat”;cf. B. Rubin,Das ZeitalterIustinians,I.Berlin , –. 986 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung this statement indicates,readers of the Wars are called upon to formjudgments, not onlyabout John the Cappadocian, but also – and crucially – about the costs and benefitsofJustinian’sVandal War. Careful examination of the literary design apparent in Procopius’ narrative of that war (in many respects the most themati- callycoherent part of the Wars)indicates thatdiscontinuities between the pre- sentation of John in the work, on one hand, and the merits of the policy of con- flict aversion attributed to John, on the other,are carefullydrawn.Placing an estimable messageinthe handsofadiscreditable messenger problematizes not onlyProcopius’ presentation of John in the Wars but also the relationship between the silence-breakingclaims of the Wars and the historical reality the work claims to represent.¹⁵ Readersalert to the literaryself-consciousness apparent in the scene are equipped to appreciate how its presentation of John, which at first glance might appear to be quite positive,fails upon fuller reflection to cohere.¹⁶ The fa- miliar Herodotean templatethat presses John into serviceasawise advisor is de- familiarized by the introduction of the whollyunprecedented motif of “grieving in silence.” As will be discussed below,the superlativesthat introduce John as “a man of the greatest daring and the cleverest of all men of his time” not onlyalign his presentation here with depictions elsewhereinthe Wars stressinghis out- sized and uncannyqualities but also signal that the speech placed in John’s mouth, in direct discourse, cannot be taken at face value. The speech itself superimposes upon the scene’sHerodotean templateanunmistakable allusion to Thucydides that is jarringlyout of stepwith motivations ascribed to John by the Procopian narrator.Verbaland contextual correspondences between the scene and subsequent moments in the unfoldingnarrative of the Vandal Wares- tablish athematic through-line that offers anuanced assessment of the policyof conflict aversion attributed to John and evaluates the costs and consequences of armed conflict in light of the livedexperiencesofthose who experienceitonthe ground.

 J. Weisweiler,Unreliable witness:failings of the narrative in Ammianus Marcellinus,inL. VanHoof/P. VanNuffelen (eds.), Literature and society in the fourth century AD: performing paideia, constructingthe present,presentingthe self. Leiden , –: ,comparably, investigates through aseries of close readings “the complex forms of authorial self-awareness displayedbyAmmianus.”  As for the availability of such readers in the period, S.D. Smith,Greek epigramand Byzan- tine culture: gender,desire, and denial in the ageofJustinian. Cambridge ,demonstrates how classical paideia equipped membersofthe literary circle around Agathias and Paul the Si- lentiary to fashion transgressive authorial personae and to authorize subversive readingswithin the genreofGreek epigram; see esp. pp. – on epigramasa“system of textual relations.” C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 987

This essay, accordingly, offers anew and anuanced readingofthe arrange- ment of these verbal and contextual correspondences, which are detailedinfour series of key passages designated A–D (see Table 1 below). It distinguishes the figure of Procopius as the implied author of the works under examination (“who is neither the historical author nor the narrator but the guiding intelligence that motivates awork”¹⁷), from that of the Procopian narrator (modelled aboveall on the Thucydidean), and again from thatofProcopius the embeddedcharacter (who likeThucydidesappears in the narrative as an agent). The interplay among these figures is an effect of Procopius’ texts (in particular, for our pur- poses, the Wars and the Secret History),¹⁸ which claim to expose the dissimulat- ing effects of power but also, as works of contemporary history,cannot avoid being implicated in those effects themselves. Consequently, this essayalso makes the argument that the relationship between John the Cappadocian in the Wars and Proclus in the Secret History,atthe point at which each emerges in their respective narratives as asilence-breakingwise advisor,issynecdochic of the relationship that the two works – the former implicitly, the latter expressly – construct between themselves. We begin by situatingthe motif of “grievinginsilence” in two moments in book threeofthe Wars that punctuate Procopius’ narrative of the Vandal Warin its ascendant phase. The stricken silence with which Justinian’sofficials greet the prospect of the expedition [A1]finds an unexpectedand ironic doublet in the shocked reaction evoked by aletter from Gelimer, the king of the Vandals, to his brother Tzazo and his forces on Sardinia, announcing the news of Belisarius’ initial victory in North Africa and subsequent occupation of Carthage[A2;see Section II]. At the sametime as the Wars constructs the subjectivity of the par- ticipants who are implicatedonbothsides of the conflict, it drawspointed con- trasts with those who are insulated from its consequences, who are figured as spectators [B1, B2]; when Tzazo is reunited with Gelimeronthe mainland at Bulla Regia as book three comes to aclose, moreover,aremarkable aside in the narratorial first person [C2]confesses the impossibility of describingthe in- tensity and interiority of the grief experienced by the Vandals, once they have

 Foranelucidation of the distinction between the implied author of one or moreworks and the narrator(s) of those work(s), see S. M. Wheeler,Adiscourse of wonders:audienceand performance in Ovid’sMetamorphoses.Philadelphia , – (esp. – on Ovid’s Meta- morphoses and Fasti as contemporaneous and complementary works); quotation at p. ,citing W. C. Booth,The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago , –, .  Insofar as the narrator of the Wars is to be distinguished from that of the Secret History,asis suggested below,these figuresbecome correspondinglymorerefractory. 988 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung been relieved of the necessityofsilencing their emotions in front of theirsubjects on Sardinia. At aprior point in the narrative,the sameexpression [C1;Section III] had announced the narrator’sinability to fathom the unscrupulousness of John the Cappadocian, whose false economies in provisioningthe expedition, once his opposition to it was overruled, imperiled its success. John’sconduct substanti- ates Procopius’ explanation of the actual motivesbehind John’sopposition, while the narratorial aside driveshome the outsized and uncannyqualities that Procopius consistentlyattributes to John. Turning now to John’sspeech [Sec- tion IV], we are equipped as readers of the Wars to seehow Procopius has super- imposed upon his Herodotean templateanallusion to Thucydidesthat has been underappreciated by scholars and yetunmistakablysubverts John’sself-presen- tation as an Artabanus-like wise advisor advocating apolicy of conflict aversion. Procopius figures himself in the Wars as not onlyanauthor/narrator but also an investigator-participant – thatis, as an embeddedcharacter who experienced the African expedition at the side of Belisarius.¹⁹ Closelyinterrelated to ques- tions thatscholars have posed about the authorial judgment expressedtoward John’sopposition to the expedition is the narrator’saccount of adream experi- enced by the character that relieved his anxieties about the venture. Placing the imagery of the dream into context [Section V] exposesathematicthrough-line that links togetherJohn’sconcerns about provisioningthe expedition; the subse- quent exposure of his misconduct; and Belisarius’ successes in overcoming ob- stacles up to, and culminating in, his uneventful occupation of Carthage, where soldiers and civilians alike observecivil order and preservethe rhythms of daily life [D2]. Preservation of the geopolitical status quo had been the principal concern put forward by John as the ostensible basis of his opposition to the expedition [D1;Section VI]. Hereagain, Procopius’ Thucydidean intertext underscores the extent to which John’smessagemust be distinguished from its messenger.Pro- copius’ evaluation of Belisarius’ achievement in peacefullyoccupyingCarthage pointedlycontrasts Belisarius’ actions with John’swords, to the detriment of the latter [Section VII]: to this extent,John is discredited and the optimistic reading of Procopius’ dream validated. When Procopius turns, however,inbook four of the Wars,tochroniclingmaladministration and misrule in Africa once Belisar- ius’ energies are directed against the Ostrogoths, the bleak note on which the

 See now A.J. Ross,Narrator and participant in Procopius’ Wars,inLillington-Martin/Tur- quois (eds.), Procopius (as footnote  above), –,with salutary remarks about the pitfalls of takingabiographical approach to the studyofProcopius’ works. C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 989 narrativeofthe Vandal Warconcludes [D3]would seem to offer aretrospective endorsement of the worldview articulated by John. Returning now to the comparison with which we began [Section VIII], we see how the difference and the distance that the Secret History and the Wars con- struct between the quaestor Proclus and John the Cappadocian, respectively,mir- rors the relationship the two works construct between themselves.²⁰ John dares not disclose the actual motivesthat determine his opposition to the Vandal ex- pedition, and so his claim to be breakingsilence in the service of truth ringshol- low,whereas Proclus’ motivesand his candorare unimpeachable. In much the same way, the narrator of the Wars maybecounter-posed with the narrator of the Secret History. Our investigation of the narratorial personae constructed by two literary texts,the Wars and the Secret History,respectively,ispremised on the longstand- ing scholarlyconsensus attributing the authorship of the two works to the histor- ical Procopius of Caesarea and the near-consensus positing thatthe first edition of the former (Wars books one through seven) and the latter werecomposed to- gether and completed at the turnofthe 550s.²¹ The prefaceofthe Wars antici- pates that its readers will be actively engagedinforming judgmentsabout the relationship between the present and the past,²² while the opening of book

 In asomewhat similar vein, J. Grethlein,How not to do history:Xerxes in Herodotus’ His- tories. American Journal of Philology  (), –:  offers a “metahistorical” read- ing of the Persian council scene in Herodotus “as an implicit commentary on the usefulness of the Histories.”  A. Kaldellis,The dateand structureofProkopios’ Secret History and his projected work on Church history. GRBS  (), –,rebuts efforts by B. Croke,Procopius’ Secret His- tory:rethinkingthe date.” GRBS  (), –,torevivearguments in favorofalater date(/)for the SecretHistory;see also Greatrex,Perceptions (as footnote  above), –.L.Van Hoof /P.Van Nuffelen,The historiographyofcrisis:Jordanes, Cassiodorus, and Justinian in mid-sixth-century Constantinople. JRS  (), –,esp. –, sketch how military and ecclesiastical crises in these years (–)stimulated historiograph- ical production within elite circles in Constantinople.  “Nothinggreater or mightier than those deeds that occurred in these wars will be apparent to anyone, at anyrate, whowishes to base his judgment on the truth (τῷ γε ὡς ἀληθῶςτεκμηριοῦ- σθαι βουλομένῳ). Forinthem have been performed moreremarkable feats than anyofthose we know by report (ὧν ἀκοῇἴσμεν,cf. Thuc. .), unless areaderofthis narrative (τις τῶντάδε ἀναλεγομένων)gives the placeofhonor to antiquity and considers contemporary achievements unworthytobedeemed remarkable” (Wars ..–). On the literary self-consciousness appa- rentinthe preface of the Wars,see now M. Kruse,Archery in the preface to Procopius’ Wars:afigured imageofagonistic authorship. Studies in Late Antiquity  (), –; F. Basso /G.Greatrex,How to interpret Procopius’ preface to the Wars,inLillington-Mar- 990 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung eight (whichappeared in 552 or 553) celebratesthe wide readership the first ed- ition had attained.²³ Procopius’ works are replete with cross-references that dem- onstrate their interrelations and their interdependence upon one another.²⁴ Lit- erary-theoretical approaches – notably, narratology,reader-response theory, and the studyofintertextuality – provide critical lenses that equip us to identify and appreciate the very qualities that Procopius’ works predicate of themselves.²⁵ In particular, these approachesassign agency to implied²⁶ or inscribed²⁷ readers in finding meaning by recognizing and responding to the in- determinacy,reflexivity,and interpretability of texts. Book threeofthe Wars,Pro- copius’ narrative of the ascendant phase of Justinian’sVandal War, displays tech- niques and effects that have been recognizedinother monuments of classical and classicizing historiography.²⁸ Itsrelationship with its audience is remarkably nuanced. Figuring its readersasspectators who are uninvolved in and insulated from the risks and consequences of conflict,italigns itself with participants in conflict,both combatants and civilians,²⁹ selectively disclosing and withholding

tin/Turquois (eds.), Procopius (as in footnote  above), –;P.Rance,New viewpoints on Procopius. Histos  (), xciii–cvi: xciv – xcv.  “The narrative that has been written (δεδιήγηται)bymeuptothis point has been composed (ξυγγέγραπται), as far as possible, by separating the material into books that focus on the differ- ent theaters of war,and these books have alreadybeen published and have appeared in every corner of the Roman empire” (τοὺςλόγους, οἵπερ ἤδη ἐξενεχθέντες πανταχόθι δεδήλωνται τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆς, Wars ..;reiteratedat..:γράμμασι γὰρτοῖςἐςτὸπᾶνδεδηλωμένοις).  CompareAv. Cameron,Procopius and the sixth century.London , –.  Recent guides aimed at classicists include T. Schmitz,Modern literary theory and ancient texts: an introduction. Malden, MA ,and I.J. F. de Jong,Narratology and classics.Aprac- tical guide. Oxford .  An “implied” reader is one who, in the definiton of W. Iser,The act of reading:atheory of aesthetic response. Baltimore , , “embodies all those predispositions necessary for alit- erary work to exercise its effect.”  “The kind of reader that the text posits”:D.Feeney,Becominganauthority:Horaceonhis own reception, in L.B.T. Houghton /M.Wyke(eds.), Perceptions of Horace:aRoman poet and his readers.Cambridge /New York , –: – and note ,citingS.R.Suleiman.  Seminal reader-centered approaches include, for Thucydides,W.R.Connor,Thucydides. Princeton ,and T. Rood,Thucydides:narrative and explanation. Oxford ;for Tacitus, E. O’Gorman,Ironyand misreadinginthe Annals of Tacitus.Cambridge ;for Herodotus,E. Baragwanath,Motivation and narrative in Herodotus. Oxford ;for Ammianus, G. Kelly, AmmianusMarcellinus:the allusive historian. Cambridge .Contrast the Straussian ap- proach to Procopius in Kaldellis,Procopius(as footnote  above).  CompareA.Golz,Anspruch und Wirklichkeit – Überlegungen zu Prokops Darstellungost- gotischer Herrscher und Herrscherinnen, in G. Greatrex /S.Janniard(eds.), Le monde de Pro- cope/The world of Procopius.Paris , –: –,onProcopius as an author “embedded” in combat not unlikeacontemporary war correspondent. C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 991 access to their thoughts and experiences, demonstrating the limits of narratabil- ity and dissimulating its representation of historical reality within asilence that stands in marked contrast to the truth-making claims of the Secret History.

Table1:arrangementofkey passages

Wars .. B θεαταὶ γενέσθαι .. A σιωπῇ … ὀδυρομένων .. D τὸ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἀγαπᾶν

.. C ὡςοὐκἄνποτε ἔγωγε φράσαι ἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι

.. D ἡσύχαζον

.. A σιωπῇ … ὠδύροντο .. C ἅπερ ἔγωγε οὐκ ἂν ἔτι φράσαι ἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι .. B θεατῇ γενέσθαι

.. D ἡσυχίαν τινὰ … γενέσθαι

***

HA . A σιωπῇ … ὀδυρομένων

II

Ταῦτα ἐπεὶ Τζάζων εἶδέ τε ἀπενεχθέντα καὶἐςτοὺςΒανδίλους ἐξήνεγκεν,³⁰ ἔςτεοἰμωγὰς καὶὀλοφύρσεις ἐτράποντο, οὐ μέντοι ἐκτοῦἐμφανοῦς, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἐγκρυ- φιάζοντέςτεκαὶτοὺςνησιώτας λανθάνοντες³¹ σιωπῇ ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶντὰπαρόντα σφίσιν ὠδύροντο. (Wars 3.25.19 [A2])

 The contents of the letter: Wars ..–.Gelimer had dispatched Tzazo with , troops to suppress an uprisingonSardinia (..).  Cf. Aristophanes, Equites  (Demos to the Paphlagonian): πολλοῦ δὲ πολύνμεχρόνον καὶ νῦν ἐλελήθεις ἐγκρυφιάζων (“Formuch too long atime and even now have youbeen acting underhand without my knowingit,” trans.Hickie ). See also Proc., HA .,onAntonina’s affair with Theodosius: λήσειν γὰρ ἐςτὸπαντελὲςοὐδαμῆᾤετο, ἐπεὶ τὴνγυναῖκα ἑώρα οὐκέτι τὸ πάθος ἐγκρυφιάζειν οἵαν τε οὖσαν, οὐδὲ κεκρυμμένως ἐξερρωγέναι (“[Theodosius] reasoned that the affair couldn’tstaysecret forever,and he sawthat the woman was no longer able to dissimulateher infatuation or indulgeinitsecretly,” trans.Kaldellis). 992 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

When this letter had been brought to Tzazo, and he had disclosedits contents to the Vandals,they turned to wailingand lamentation – not openly, however,but concealing their feelings as much as possible and avoidingthe noticeofthe islanders, silently among themselves they bewailed their present state.

Tzazo’sreception of Gelimer’sletter and the disclosure of its contents to the Van- dals in Sardinia set the scene for the culminating and concluding moment in book three of the Wars. As such, the episode serves as the fulcrum around which the overarchingtwo-book structure of Procopius’ narrative of Justinian’s Vandal War(i.e., books threeand four of the Wars)turns. Procopius’ declaration that Tzazo’sVandals, having been apprised of Gelimer’sdefeat at Ad Decimum, “were grieving in silence” (σιωπῇ … ὠδύροντο)unmistakablyechoes the histor- ian’simageofJustinian’sgenerals and senior ministers “grieving in silence” (σιωπῇ … ὀδυρομένων,3.10.8 [A1])³² over the emperor’soriginal decision to launch the expedition. The juxtaposition of these two moments effectively book- ends the opening act of the Vandal Warand makesthe plight of Justinian’soffi- cials at the outset of the conflict,onone hand,and that of Tzazo’sVandals on Sardinia at its cliffhangingclimax, on the other,into an unexpectedly ironic dou- blet. The reduction of these two groups to grieving in silence does neither of them credit.Justinian’sofficials are cowed and submissive,and theydissimulate their concerns until John the Cappadocian steps forward. By the same token, the Van- dals on Sardinia are stunned and bewildered by the news reachingthem from the mainland, but their need to keep face and to avoid betraying their discomfi- ture to their subjects on the island obliges them to stifle their emotions and mask their reactions. Procopius constructs the subjectivity of the Vandals in remark- able detail, describinghow they abandon themselvestothe performance of grieving and yethow at the same time they dissimulate and obfuscate those im- pulsesfrom outsiders, caught in the dilemma of deploring theirsituation without being able to sayortodoanything about it. On the face of it,these two moments validatenot onlyJustinian’simpetuous- ness in presumingtoattack the Vandals in the first place but also the various interests thateventuallyprevailed upon the emperor to go through with the expedition.³³ With the benefit of hindsight,the cautiousness and aversion to

 The parallel is heightened by the similarity of the twophrases takenasawhole, which lay stress upon an immediatelypressing dilemma: τῶν ἄλλων σιωπῇ τὰςπαρούσας ὀδυρομένων τύχας, ..;cf. σιωπῇἐφ’ἑαυτῶν τὰ παρόντα σφίσιν ὠδύροντο, ...  Cf. Brodka,Prokopios (as footnote  above), –.Procopius extends the parallel with Herodotus (footnote  supra; cf. Hdt. .–), when he reports that Justinian’senthusi- C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 993 risk that Procopius imputes to the Romanofficials as agroup, and that John the Cappadocian articulates (and, at first,successfullypresses in his speech in op- position to Justinian), seems in this moment to have been discredited by the course of events. So toothe brutal reversaloffortune experienced by the Vandals in Sardinia, upon theirreceipt of Gelimer’sletter,and their consequent struggles to masktheir emotions and to avoid making aspectacle of themselvesbefore the island’sinhabitants would seem to elevateand to celebrate Justinian’scause at their expense. Procopius situates himself – or,rather,situates the voice of the Procopian narrator,the narratorial persona thatthe text constructs for itself – in close prox- imity to these events. Not onlydoProcopius’ readers experience John the Cappa- docian’sintervention with Justinian and the discomfitureofthe Vandals on Sar- dinia with fly-on-the-wall immediacy, but they alsoaccess the innermost, undisclosed, and deliberatelymasked thoughts and emotions of the participants themselves. In the former case, the narrator makes apanoramic survey.When Justinian announced his planstohis officials (ἐςτὰςἀρχάς, Wars 3.10.2), most (οἱ πλεῖ- στοι)reacted unfavorably, mindful of the debacles sustainedagainst the Vandals in the previous century;especiallydistressed werethe praetorian prefect and the officers of the fisc, who would be expected to finance the expedition (3);³⁴ the generals shrank from the magnitude of the undertaking (4); the soldiers, recently recalled from the East,werenonplussed at the prospect of marinewarfare and unfamiliar opponents (5); “but all the rest,asusually happens in large crowds,³⁵ wished to be spectators of new adventures (νεωτέρων πραγμάτων … θεαταὶ γεν- έσθαι [B1]),³⁶ while others faced the dangers” (6). Such sweeping declarations, informed by narratorial omniscience, are au- thorized by the conventions of classicizing historiography; they advancethe

asm for the war was rekindled by an Eastern bishop whohad experienced an epiphanyina dream and expressed divine endorsementfor the idea (Wars ..–). Other sourcesattrib- utingarangeofmotivesfor the expedition areconvenientlysurveyed by Kaldellis,inH.B.Dew- ing (trans.), Prokopios. The wars of Justinian, revised by A. Kaldellis.Indianapolis ,  note .  See further footnote  infra.  “As usuallyhappens in large crowds” (ἅπερ ἐν ὁμίλῳ φιλεῖ γίγνεσθαι): cf. Thuc. .. (ὅπερ φιλεῖὅμιλος ποιεῖν), .., .., ..;onthese expressions,see V. Hunter,Thucydides and the sociology of the crowd. Classical Philology  (), –.  The Persian kingChosroes is “of unstable mind and irrationallyfond of innovations” (ἄτα- κτόςτεἦντὴνδιάνοιαν καὶ νεωτέρων πραγμάτων ἐραστὴς ἄτοπος, Wars ..), qualities that alignwith Procopius’ presentation of him as aspectator (θεατής)elsewhereinthe work: see footnote  infra. On Justinian as an innovator(νεωτεροποιός), see footnotes – infra. 994 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung analysis of the situation at hand and do not sustain close scrutinyinto the his- torian’ssources and methods.³⁷ Procopius seems to be indicating,all the same, that speculation about an imperial expedition against the Vandals extended well beyond elite policy-making circles, and the distinction he drawsbetween conflict aversion on the part of those who would be responsible for carryingout the mis- sion, on one hand, and the enthusiasm of those in the masses who would expe- rience conflict onlyasspectators (θεαταί), on the other,³⁸ is significant not only in the context of the sequel involving Tzazo’sVandals, as will be discussed pres- ently, but also with reference to the relationship that Procopius’ text constructs with its readers,who are also in the position of spectators vicariouslyexperienc- ing the struggles of its characters.³⁹

 Comparable is Thucydides’ analysis of the balanceofopinion in Greece at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War(.).  Agathias could be describing the ironic inversion of this scenario duringthe Kotrigur attack on Constantinople in ,whenhewrites of the ragtag civilian defenders hastilyassembled under Belisarius, “the whole crowd clearlyhad no weapons and was inexperienced in war, and onlybecause of their inexperiencethey thoughtthat dangers produced the greatestpleasure and they had come morefor aspectacle than to be drawn up for battle” (τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἅπαν πλῆ- θος ἄνοπλόντεἦνπεριφανῶςκαὶἀπόλεμον καὶ μόνῳ τῷἀπείρως ἔχειν ἡδίστους ἡγούμενοι τοὺςκινδύνους θέας τε ἕνεκα μᾶλλον ἢ παρατάξεως ἀφιγμένοι, ..,trans.S.D.Smith).  Plutarch figuresreaders as spectators in praising the vividness (ἐνάργεια)ofThucydides’ writing: “AssuredlyThucydides is always strivingfor this vividness in his writing, sinceitis his desiretomake the readeraspectator (θεατὴνποιῆσαι τὸν ἀκροατήν), as it were, and to pro- duce vividlyinthe minds of those who peruse his narrative the emotions of amazement and con- sternation which wereexperienced by those whobeheld them” (de glor.Ath. a, trans.Bab- bitt). As J. Grethlein,Social minds and narrative time: collective experience in Thucydides and Heliodorus. Narrative  (), –: –,points out,with reference to this pas- sage: “The internal spectators arecrucial to ‘makingthe reader aspectator.’ Prefiguringthe re- ception of the reader,the embedded audiencelets the readersee the action through the lens of an eyewitness.” Procopius’ formulation stresses the differenceand the distancebetween recep- tion and experience: “As absorbed as we can getbynarratives, the experiences in our reception always remain within the frame of ‘as-if’”:J.Grethlein,Philosophical and structuralist narra- tologies – worlds apart?, in J. Grethlein /A.Rengakos (eds.), Narratology and interpretation: the content of narrative form in ancient literature. Berlin/New York , –: .Thucy- dides offers his readers atext that equips them “to look clearly” at the past (τὸ σαφὲςσκοπεῖν, Thuc. ..,with E. Greenwood,Thucydides and the shaping of history.London , – ), and yetimplicates them in emotionally‐ and rhetorically-chargedspectacles that complicate critical analysis;see R. Harman,Metahistory and the visual in Herodotus and Thucydides,inA. Kampakoglou/A.Novokhatko(eds.), Gaze, vision,and visuality in ancient Greek literature. Ber- lin , –: –.LikeThucydides,Procopius reliesoninternal focalization that enables his readers to experiencehistorical uncertainty and contingencythroughthe percep- tions of his characters; see F. K. Maier,Dealingwith the invisible – war in Procopius,ibid. –.Onthe representation of spectators in Greek historiographymoregenerally, see C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 995

If this opening episodeisone bookend of the first act of Justinian’sVandal War, as has been suggested, which constructs aProcopiannarrator capable of exposing and exploring silences that dissimulate concerns and emotions that his characters darenot disclose, the corresponding bookend, which reaches its crescendo once Tzazo and his forces reunite with Gelimer and the rest of the Vandals on the mainlandatBulla Regia, explodes thoseconventions.⁴⁰ It is marked by astriking aside in the first-person voice of the narrator,who confesses alimit to his powers of historiographical representation and destabilizes the re- lationship between his narrative and its implied audience of reader-spectators (Wars 3.25.22–23 [B2, C2]):

καὶ πεζῇ βαδίζοντες ἀφικνοῦνται ἐςτὸΒούλλης πεδίον, οὗ δὴἀνεμίγνυντο τῷἄλλῳ στρατῷ. ἐνταῦθα συχνὰἐλέου πολλοῦἄξια Βανδίλοις ξυνέβη, ἅπερ ἔγωγε οὐκ ἂν ἔτι φράσαι ἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι. οἶμαι γὰρεἰκαὶ αὐτῶνπολεμίων ἀνδρὶ θεατῇ γενέσθαι τετύχηκε, τάχα ἂνκαὶαὐτὸςΒανδίλους τε τότε καὶ τύχην τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν ᾠκτίσατο. They reached the plain of Bulla travelingonfoot,where they joined the rest of the army. And in that placethereweremanymost pitiable scenes amongthe Vandals, which I, at least, could never relate as they deserve. ForIthink that even if one of the enemythemselves had happened to be aspectator at that time, he would probablyhavefelt pity for the Vandals and human fortune generally.

On Sardinia, Tzazo and his Vandals had suppressed their emotions and concerns preciselytoavoid making spectacles of themselvesbefore the islanders; once re- united with their fellows and their families, they are no longer underthe same constraint.The narrator confesses his inability to represent the intensity of these moments in his prose: they exceed his powers of expression, but he does not condemn them as excessive;indeed, he claims, even ahostile spectator (θεατής)hardlycould have refrained from pitying the Vandals and acknowledg- ing in them acommon humanity and shared vulnerability. The passageisrecognizable genericallyasa“pathos statement” familiar from Thucydides,⁴¹ but Procopius’ contrafactual scenario introducesaparadox: even ahostile spectatorlikelywould have pitied the Vandals, had he observed

A.D. Walker,Enargeia and the spectator in Greek historiography. Transactions of the American Philological Association  (), –.  This is to saythat Procopius, in the first “bookend,” invokesexpectations about the relation- ship between readers and spectators(as articulated in the preceding note), onlytosubvert those very expectations, in the second.  E.g. Thuc. ..;see H.R. Immerwahr/W.R.Connor,Historiography,inP.E.Easterling/ B.M.W. Knox(eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Cambridge , –: : “it expresses ageneral tragic feelingfor the human situation of man in an uncontrollable environment.” 996 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung the spectacle at Bulla Regia. Had ahostile spectator been present (as on Sardi- nia), however,the Vandals likelywould not have made aspectacle of them- selves. The absenceofspectators is the condition that allows the Vandals to break silence and to grieveopenly – making,asitwere, an anti-spectacle of themselves. The contrast between the Vandals’ comportment on Sardinia and at BullaRegia, respectively,exposesthe limits of the Procopian narrator of the Wars,who can penetrate others’ self-imposed silencesbut whose inability to rep- resent an absence – in this instance, the anti-spectacle at BullaRegia – dissim- ulates those moments within asilence of their own, which is marked in Proco- pius’ text as the trace of an undisclosed reality or,one might say, of a varnished truth. The implicit identificationofProcopius’ contrafactual spectator (θεατής, Wars 3.25.23 [B2])atBulla Regiawith the crowd of spectators (θεαταί,3.10.6 [B1]), whose enthusiasm for aprospective Vandal Warwas conditioned by their uninvolvement in its dangers, secures the relationship between the two “bookends” of the “first act” of Justinian’sVandal Warasitisrepresented in book three of the Wars.⁴² To the extent that Procopius’ text also figures its im- plied audience of readers as spectators who experience the strugglesofits char- acters vicariously, as has been suggested abovewith reference to Procopius’ pan- oramic survey of reactions to the prospect of attacking the Vandals, the reunion of the Vandals at BullaRegia effaces the relationship of narrative to narratee, of text to reader,ofspectacle to spectator:asProcopius goes on to relate, the situa- tion is one that defies description or explanation. The Vandals themselves, engrossed in their plight,havenowords nor,in- deed, anyneed for words in order to understand one another.Procopius stresses the ineffability and the impenetrable interiority of their interactions (Wars 3.25.24–26):

ForGelimer and Tzazo threwtheir arms about each other’snecks and could not let go, yet they spoke not awordtoeach other (οὐδὲνμέντοι ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐφθέγγοντο), but kept graspingtheir hands and weeping,and each of the Vandals with Gelimer embraced one of those whohad come from Sardinia in the same way. And they stoodfor along time as if grown together (ὥσπερ ἀλλήλοις ἐμπεφυκότες)and found such comfortasthey could in this, and neither did the men of Gelimer ask about [the rebel on Sardinia] Goda (for their present fortune had so stunned them that they wereinclined to disregard matters that had previouslyseemed to them most important), nor could those whocame from Sardinia bring

 The word θεατής appears onlyfour times in the Wars. It is used elsewhereinaconcrete sense when Chosroes appears as aspectator in the hippodrome at Apameia (..)and againwhen he is seated (like Xerxes at Salamis)asanobserver of the siegeofPetra in Colchis (..); cf. HA ., ..See also footnote  supra. C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 997

themselves to ask (ἐρωτᾶντιἠξίουν)about what had happened in Libya. Forthe place was sufficient for them to infer what had come to pass (ἱκανὸςγὰραὐτοῖς ὁ χῶρος τεκμηριῶσαι τὰ ξυμπεσόντα ἐγίνετο). Indeed, they made no mention (λόγον ἐποιοῦντό τινα)evenoftheir own wivesand children, knowing well (ἐξεπιστάμενοι)that whoever was not therewith them had either died or fallen into the hands of the enemy. Thus,then, did these things happen.

Relying upon intuition and nonverbal cues, consumed by grief and the enormity of loss, and reelingfrom the frustration of theirhopesand expectations, the Van- dals huddle together and form aclosed circle, practicallymeltinginto one another.⁴³ Procopius’ confession of his own inadequacy as ahistoriographer at this moment results not from an information deficit or afailureofimagination, but rather from his professed inability to conveythe inarticulate and unarticu- lated grief of his subjects.Asanarrator,heconspicuouslyfailstofind words ca- pable of conveying the Vandals’ loss for words, makingaspectacle of himself by inscribing within his text anarrative vacuum, an absence – asilence – thatau- thorizes his reader-spectators to reflect more widelyupon circumspect,recalci- trant,orunforthcoming qualities of the work in front of them.

III

The formula with which Procopius confesses his deficiencies as the narrator of the Wars –“I, at least,could never describe [the subject] as it deserves” (ἔγωγε οὐκ ἂν ἔτι φράσαι ἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι, Wars 3.25.22 [C2]) – appears in only one other place in the work(3.13.12 [C1]):⁴⁴

 B. Rubin,Prokopios vonKaisareia. Stuttgart , – ad loc. = RE . (), – : –,admires Procopius’ depictionofthe scene.  Compare Aed. .. (on the Church of St.Irene at Pera: ὃςδὴοὕτω μεγαλοπρεπῶςτῷβασι- λεῖὅλος ἐξείργασται ὡςοὐκἂνἔγωγε φράσαι ἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι, “This entirechurch was constructed by the emperor on such amagnificent scale that I, at least,could not possiblydoitjustice”), .. (on the Hieron and Jucundianae palaces on the Bosporus: ὧνδὴοὔτε τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς σὺντῷἐςτέχνην ἠκριβωμένῳ, οὔτε τὸν ὄγκον ἂνσὺντῷεὐπρεπεῖ λόγῳ φράσαι ποτὲἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι, “But Icould never adequatelydescribe either their magnificencewith careful investiga- tion of the workmanship or their massiveness in fittingwords”). These areelements of the rep- ertoire of techniques that Procopius employsinthe Buildings in order to conveyhis speechless- ness at the enormity of his task: see E. Turquois,EnvisioningByzantium: materiality and visuality in Procopius of Caesarea. Diss.Oxford ,esp. –. 998 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

Ὁ τῆςαὐλῆςἔπαρχος Ἰωάννης φλαῦρόςτεἦντὸντρόπον καὶ οὕτω δυνατὸς [εἰςτὸπρο- σαγαγεῖν] εἰςτὸδημόσιον ἐπινοῆσαι χρήματα ἐπὶ λύμῃἀνθρώπων, ὡςοὐκἄνποτε ἔγωγε φράσαι ἱκανῶς ἔχοιμι. The praetorian prefect,John, was acrookedcharacter and so skillful at devisingwaysof bringingmoney into the public treasury to the detrimentofmen that I, for my part, would never be able to describe him sufficiently.

Procopius will go on to relatehow John the Cappadocian pursued the false econ- omyofprovisioningthe expedition against the Vandals with under-baked hard- tack biscuit,⁴⁵ which was cheaper to produce and disburse; by the time the fleet put in at Methone in the southwestern Peloponnesus, however,its provisions had disintegratedand spoiled, causing,Procopius claims, the deaths of five hun- dred men. Even after Belisarius had rescuedthe situation by procuringrations locallyand had informed Justinian of John’smalfeasance,the emperorfailed to hold him to account (3.13.15–20).⁴⁶ Procopius himself accompanied the expedition as Belisarius’ assessor and aide-de-camp and witnessed these events at first hand.⁴⁷ He shows his reader how the episode fits into the largerportrait of John’svillainy, culminatingin his fall from Justinian’sfavor and forced ordination, thatProcopius has already recounted in book one of the Wars (3.13.13):

ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲνκαὶ<ἐν>τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν λόγοις ἐρρήθη, ἡνίκα πρὸςτῆςἱστορίας ἐςτόδε ἠγόμην τοῦ λόγου. But this has been said in the precedingbooks,whenIwas broughttothat point in my narrative by my investigation [of the events in question].⁴⁸

 Alaw of ConstantiusIIand Julian of  CE, reaffirmed as CJ .. (=CTh ..), pro- vided soldiersoncampaign with hardtack biscuit and bread (buccellatum, panis)aswellaswith ordinary and sour wine and with pork and mutton. Arcadius,Honorius,and Theodosius Ide- creed, in  (CJ .. = CTh ..), that not even imperial estates wereexempt from beingrequisitioned for the bakingofbuccellatum. Procopius reports that John the Cappadocian attempted to use the furnaces of the baths of Achilles in Constantinople for the purpose (Wars ..). See, in general, P. Southern /K.R.Dixon,The lateRoman army. London /New York , –.  See further footnote  infra.  On Procopian autopsy,see Ross,Narrator (as footnote  above), –.  See Wars ..–, .–;cf. John Lydus, De Mag. .–.This narratorial analep- sis refers to the Nika rebellion in  CE, when John was dismissedfromthe prefecture. Proco- pius uses comparable languageprolepticallywhenreferringtoBelisarius’ capture of Sicilyin  CE: “The wayinwhich this was done will be told by me in subsequent books,when my narrative leads me into my investigation of events in Italy” (ὅντινα δὲ τρόπον, ἐντοῖςὄπισθέν μοι λόγοις λελέξεται, ὅτε με ὁ λόγος ἐςτῶνἸταλικῶνπραγμάτων τὴν ἱστορίαν ἄγει, ..). C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 999

Now Procopius once again picks up the thread (3.13.14): “Iwill explain here how he destroyed the soldiers” (τὰ δὲ νῦν ὅτῳ ποτὲ τρόπῳ τούτους δὴ τοὺςστρα- τιώτας διεχρήσατο ἐρῶν ἔρχομαι). This scandal over provisioning the Vandal expedition substantiates the cov- ert objection, discussed above, that Procopius had attributed to John the Cappa- docian at the initial prospect of attacking the Vandals – namely, that it would fall to him as praetorian prefect to find the money to outfit the expedition.⁴⁹ On that occasion, John brokethe silence that had gripped the other officials in order to spare himself, aboveall, from having to meet this burden. Itssequel, once the expedition has gone forward in spite of John’sobjections, exposesthe depths of his unscrupulousness and shows thatthe earlier narratorial intervention was subtlyproleptic. In resumingthe story of John’svillainyand slotting it into its place in his firsthand account of the progress of the expedition against the Vandals, Procopius displays surehanded control over his material and a keen sense of the shape that his line of inquiry,his ἱστορία,imposes on the se- lection and arrangement of thatmaterial. The sameemphatic, first-person voice that announcesthe unfathomability of John the Cappadocian’sscheming remindsProcopius’ readers, nevertheless, of the path along which the historian’sinquiry has led, and,with something of aHerodotean flavor,⁵⁰ it brooks no equivocation about the consequences of John’sbehavior.Asisthe case with the Vandals at BullaRegia, and unlike other first-person interventions in the Wars,however,Procopius is figuring him- self not as an investigator-participant whose declaration authenticates some-

In these passages, ἱστορία (“[historical] investigation”)seems to refer to the reconstruction of a past constituted out of τὰ πράγματα (“events”), which, on one hand, is generative of λόγος (“nar- rative”)and, on the other,isorganized and articulated by it.  Wars ..: “But the men who werethe most sorrowful of all and who, by reasonoftheir anxiety,felt the keenest apprehension (μάλιστα δὲἤλγουν τε καὶ περιώδυνοι τῇ μερίμνῃἐγί- νοντο), were the praetorian prefect,whom the Romans call praetor (ὅ τε τῆςαὐλῆςἔπαρχος, ὃνδὴπραίτωρα καλοῦσι Ῥωμαῖοι …), also the administrator of the treasury (… καὶὁτοῦ ταμιείου ἡγούμενος), and all to whomhad been assigned the collection of either public or imperial taxes, for they reasoned that whileitwould be necessary for them to produce countless sums for the needs of the war,they would be granted neither flexibility nor anyextensions.” Aformer prae- torian prefect,Archelaus,accompanied the expedition with responsibility for its provisions (..; PLRE ,s.v.Archelaus ). On fiscal administration in the period, see J. F. Haldon, Economyand administration, in M. Maas (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the AgeofJusti- nian. Cambridge , –.  CompareRoss,Narrator (as footnote  above), –: “if the [Procopian third-person] ‘he’ participant bears some resemblancetoThucydides,then the [first-person] ‘I’ participantisdis- tinctlyHerodotean.” 1000 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung thing he has personally witnessed,⁵¹ but rather as an author/narrator confronted by the limits of narratability,signalingthe impossibility of expressingthe inexpressible.⁵² Prior occasions on which John the Cappadocian is introduced in the Wars lay stress upon his outsized and uncannyqualities. AccordingtoProcopius, John was untouched by liberal studies and classical paideia;his superlative attributes are, to the contrary,innate (Wars 1.24.12–13):

He learned nothingatgrammar school other than the letters themselves, and poorlyatthat. But through the strength of his natural ability (φύσεως … ἰσχύϊ)hebecame the most powerful (δυνατώτατος)man of our times, for he was the most capable (ἱκανώτατος)atknowing what had to be done and at findingsolutions to practical problems.However,healso became the most wicked (πονηρότατος)ofall men and bentall the force of his naturetoit (τῇτῆςφύσεως δυνάμει ἐςτοῦτο ἐχρῆτο).⁵³

So toointhe deliberations about the expedition against the Vandals, John is “a man of the greatest daring and the cleverest of all men of his time” (θρασύτατός τε ὢνκαὶδεινότατος τῶνκατ’ αὐτὸν ἁπάντων,3.10.7).⁵⁴ John’ssilence-breaking intervention in these deliberations is of apiece with the transgressive,larger-than-life persona thatProcopius constructs for him else- whereinthe Wars. The Cappadocian’sfall from grace presented Procopius with an opening to expose his maladministration and to offer the kind of unsparing criticism that wasauthorized by the truth-telling claims of classicizing historiography.⁵⁵ As the Procopiannarrator declaresinthe prefacetothe Wars

 See e.g. Wars ..–,where Procopius describes his visit (θεασάμενος ἐρῶν ἔρχομαι)to the siteofAeneas’ perfectly-preserved ship in Rome, amongother instances collectedbyRoss, ibid. – – whodoes not,however,discuss the twopassages [C,C]under examination here.  Appositeinthis connection is Ross’ observation, ibid. : “The actions of the first-person singular [in Proc.] arealmost exclusively reserved for corroborations and explanations of adyna- ta and mirabilia,rather than for the description of actions or interactions with the main charac- ters …” See also footnote  infra. R. R. Warhol, Neonarrative;or, how to render the unnarrat- able in realist fiction and contemporary film, in J. Phelan /P.J.Rabinowitz (eds.), Acompanion to narrative theory.Malden, MA , –,defines “what can’tbetoldbecause it’s ‘inef- fable’” as the supranarratable,asubcategory of “unnarration” in modern realist fiction.  The portrait maybecompared to Thucydides’ judgment on Themistocles (..;see also Wars ..,ofBelisarius: A. Duwe,Quatenus Procopius Thucydidem imitatus sit. Jahresbericht des Marien-Gymnasiums zu Jever , ), of which it is almost an ironic inversion.  Trans.Dewing;compareDewing/Kaldellis,Wars (as footnote  above): “the most impu- dent and shrewd man of his time.” See also footnote  infra.  G. Greatrex,The composition of Procopius’ Persian Wars and John the Cappadocian. Pru- dentia  (), –; idem,Procopius the Outsider?, in D.C. Smythe (ed.), Strangers to them- C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 1001

(1.1.4), “to rhetoric cleverness is appropriate;topoetry,inventiveness; and to his- tory,truth” (πρέπειν … ῥητορικῇ μὲνδεινότητα, ποιητικῇ δὲ μυθοποιΐαν, ξυγ- γραφῇ δὲἀλήθειαν). He insists that he has composed the work with scrupulous attention to detail, omitting the shortcomingsofnone of the figures inscribed within, includingthose of his close associates.⁵⁶ While the Wars proclaims its fidelity to historical truth, however,the Secret History undermines those claims by presentingitself as an esoteric supplement and corrective.Incontrast to the third-person narratorial voice of the Wars that identifiesitself with Procopius of Caesarea, in the manner of classical historiography,⁵⁷ the first-person voice of the Secret History refrains from identi- fying itself,but it asserts that it will reveal causes(αἰτίαι)that the Wars was ob- ligedtoconceal.⁵⁸ The two works are strikingly concordant in their portrayal of John the Cappadocian; yet, even wherethe disgraced praetorian prefect is con- cerned, the Secret History intimates how much the Wars leavesunsaid.⁵⁹ John’sintervention in the deliberations over the Vandal expedition is framed, as we have seen, by Procopius’ damning portrait of his depravity and

selves: the Byzantine outsider.Burlington, VT , –,argues that the material on John the Cappadocian in book one of the Wars was originallyintended for the SecretHistory.  “Accordingly,hehas not concealed the shameful deeds of even his most intimateacquain- tances but has written down with complete accuracy everythingthat happened to all concerned, whether it was done wellbythem or not” (ταῦτά τοι οὐδέ του τῶνοἱἐςἄγαν ἐπιτηδείων τὰ μοχθηρὰἀπεκρύψατο, ἀλλὰ τὰ πᾶσι ξυνενεχθέντα ἕκαστα ἀκριβολογούμενος ξυνεγράψατο, εἴτε εὖ εἴτε πη ἄλλῃ αὐτοῖςεἰργάσθαι ξυνέβη, Wars ..).  “Procopius of Caesarea has written the history of the wars …” (Προκόπιος Καισαρεὺςτοὺς πολέμους ξυνέγραψεν, Wars ..). See H. Lieberich,Studien zu den Proömien in der griechi- schen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung, II. Teil: Die byzantinischen Geschichtsschreib- er und Chronisten. Programm des Königlichen RealgymnasiumsMünchen /, –.  Compareesp. Wars .. (footnote  supra) with HA .: “Moreover,Iwas forced to con- ceal the causes of manyofthe events that Inarrated in earlier books.Itistherefore incumbent on me here to reveal what had previouslyremained concealed as well as to disclose the causes of those events that Idid report there” (ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλῶντῶνἐντοῖςἔμπροσθεν λόγοις εἰρη- μένων ἀποκρύψασθαι τὰςαἰτίας ἠναγκάσθην. τὰ [τό] τε [δ’] οὖντέως ἄρρητα μείναντα καὶ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν δεδηλωμένων ἐνταῦθά μοι τοῦ λόγου τὰςαἰτίας σημῆναι δεήσει). Greatrex, Composition (as footnote  above),  note ,also compares τὰ μοχθηρὰ in Wars .. with HA .: διά τοι ταῦτα πρῶτα μὲν ὅσα Βελισαρίῳ μοχθηρὰ εἴργασται ἐρῶν ἔρχομαι· ὕστε- ρον δὲ καὶὅσα Ἰουστινιανῷ καὶ Θεοδώρᾳ μοχθηρὰ εἴργασται ἐγὼ δηλώσω (“Iwill, therefore, proceed to relatefirst all the wretched deeds that weredone by Belisarius; then Iwill testify to all the wretched deeds done by Justinian and Theodora”). On the relationship between the two works, see now A. Kaldellis,Procopius’sVandal War: thematic trajectories and hidden transcripts,inS.T.Stevens /J.P.Conant,(eds.), North Africa under Byzantium and early Islam. Washington,DC, –.  See Greatrex,Composition (as footnote  above), esp. –. 1002 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung the circumstances of his downfall, on one side, and by the uncannyinventive- ness and the brazen indifference he displayedtowardthe health and readiness of the imperial forces in the scandal over provisioning the Vandal expedition, on the other.Wehavealsoseen how Procopius supplies the motive for (or the cause of)that scandal – its αἰτία – by revealing whythe praetorian prefect and other treasury officials, in particular,were “grieving in silence” about Justinian’splans for invadingAfrica.⁶⁰ Herethe narrator of the Wars showshimself capable of penetrating the self-imposed silences of others, as is subsequentlythe case with the Vandals on Sardinia. As is the case with the Vandals at Bulla Regia, however,the narrator of the Wars subsequentlyconfesses his inability to fathom the inexplicable qualities and capacities he attributes to John. These overarching and mutually-reinforcingstructures demonstrate the con- trol that the narrator of the Wars exercises over his narrative,evenasthey desta- bilize the relationship between thatnarrative and the historical truth it claims to represent.Insofar as the Secret History otherwise undermines the truth claims of the Wars,but John the Cappadocian’sdownfallauthorizes its narrator to be com- pletelyfrank and forthcomingabout John’sdeficiencies, the reticencethe Wars displays about John is all the more striking;much the samecan be said about its treatment of the defeated Vandals at Bulla Regia, about whom Procopius might have been as curt and dismissive as he pleased. Yetthe Wars uses wholly distinctive language, first,tocharacterize John’sand the Vandals’ respective di- lemmas as “grieving in silence” [A1, A2 (cf. A3,discussed below)] and, second, to confess Procopius’ inability to describe or explain theirinteriorityonce their silence has been broken [C1, C2]. At the liminal moment of the breakingofsi- lence in each of the two situations, moreover,the implied reader of the Wars is figured, first,among athrongofspectators whose eagerness at the prospect of action against the Vandals is inverselycorrelated with their accountability for the consequences and, second, as awould-be voyeur of the anti-spectacle at Bulla Regia [B1, B2].

IV

At the point at which the Vandal expedition is proposed, accordingly, the reader of the Wars is inclined to evaluateJohn’sintervention skepticallyand, once John’sscheming and maladministration in provisioning the expedition is ex- posed, justified in validatingthat stance. As we have seen, John’smotivation

 Wars ..;see footnote  supra. C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 1003 for opposing the expedition is patent: his interest in avoiding responsibility for the demands that would be placed upon the treasury,werethe expedition to go forward, is self-serving, but to the extent that resources were in fact unavailing, his concerns are not without merit. The terms in which Procopius reintroduces John the Cappadocian at this mo- ment,as“aman of the greatest daring (θρασύτατος)and the cleverest (δεινότα- τος)ofall men of his time” (Wars 3.10.7,discussed above), signal that the speech he delivers to Justinian is apiece of sophistry.One is reminded of Procopius’ dec- laration, in the preface of the Wars,that “cleverness (δεινότης)isappropriate to rhetoric,” while history is concerned with truth (1.1.4); the formula “bold and clever at speaking” (θρασὺςκαὶλέγειν δεῖνος), moreover,isfamiliar from the Attic orators.⁶¹ The artificiality of speechesinclassicizinghistoriography is patent:⁶² we should not marvel, therefore, that someone derided elsewhereby Procopius as barelyliterate (1.24.12, discussed above) is here credited with deliv- ering,indirect discourse,anaddress worthyofasophisticated courtier.⁶³ Apair of superimposed and yetstartlingly discordant intertextsheightens the artificialityofthe episode. The first of these, the parallel with Herodotus, has alreadybeen noticed, and analogies drawnbetween the Wars and the His- tories as to the (a) narrator,(b) the speaker,and (c) his addressee can be repre- sented schematically:

 Dem. . (Against Androtion), with apejorative connotation; see J. Ober,Mass and elite in democratic Athens. Princeton , .Esp. appositeisDem. . (trans. Harris): “But [Solon] was awareofthe dangerthat at some time in the futuretheremight be alarge group of men whowere both eloquent and bold but also led livesfull of vice and depravity” (οὔκουν ἐνόμιζεν ἀσφαλές, εἴ ποτε συμβήσεται γενέσθαι συχνοὺς ἀνθρώπους κατὰ τοὺςαὐτοὺςχρόνους εἰπεῖν μὲν δεινοὺςκαὶθρασεῖς, τοιούτων δ’ ὀνειδῶνκαὶκακῶνμεστούς). Ascholiast glosses the phrase: “‘clever,’ i.e., skilled in speaking, and ‘bold’ in character” (‘δεινοὺς’ μὲνδυνατοὺς ἐν τῷ λέγειν, ‘θρασεῖς’ δὲ διὰ τὸντρόπον, Schol. Dem. ad loc).  See A. Tsakmakis,Speeches,inR.K.Balot /S.Forsdyke/E. Foster (eds.), The Oxfordhand- book of Thucydides.Oxford , –,esp. ,onclassical historiography. On postclass- ical works, see A.M. Taragna,Logoi historias. Discorsi elettere nella prima storiografia retorica bizantina. Alessandria , –;J.D.Frendo,Three authors in search of areader: an ap- proach to the analysis of direct discourse in Procopius, Agathias, and TheophylactSimocatta, in C. Sode /S.Taka´cs (eds.), Novum Millenium.Aldershot , –.  See Pazdernik, ‘Howthen is it’ (as footnote  above), esp. : “Procopius is demonstrating in this episode exactlyhow ripe for appropriation – or misappropriation – these courtlymodes of self-representation might be.” Similarly, the Herul federate Pharas claims,asabarbarian, to lack experience as awriter and speaker in the rhetoricallysophisticatedletterheaddresses to the besieged Gelimer on Mt.Papua (Wars ..); see idem,Xenophon’sHellenica in Procopius’ Wars:Pharnabazusand Belisarius. GRBS  (), –. 1004 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

(a) Procopius :Herodotus (b)John the Cappadocian :Artabanus (c)Justinian:Xerxes

The allusionisstraightforward: John the Cappadocian is figured, however im- probably, as aHerodotean “wise advisor,” whose insights into the human condi- tion and the vagaries of fortune recommend apolicy of conflict aversion that mo- mentarilyrestrains the impetuosity of the monarch.⁶⁴ Justinian is figured in the corresponding role with scant elaboration: unlike Xerxes, he does not make a speech setting out his position, nor does he offer aresponse to the objections lodgedagainst him.⁶⁵ Indeed, Procopius is selective and focused in his treatment of the episode as awhole. He seems careful, in particular, to avoid placing Be- lisarius in arole correspondingtothatofMardonius,Xerxes’ ambitious and over- weeninggeneral,⁶⁶ offering the ameliorating explanation that,unbeknownst even to Belisarius, Justinian had recalledhim from the East in order to lead the expedition while the story was bruited about that he had been dismissed from his command.⁶⁷ If the Herodotean “wise advisor” provides the template for the episode at the level of the story,however,Procopius’ text introducesasecond, Thucydidean, in- tertext that,paradoxically, both reinforces and subverts this pattern. When Jus- tinian decides to move against Gelimer,the Procopian narrator describes the em- peror as “quick to devise aplan and tireless in carrying out his decisions” (ἦν γὰρ ἐπινοῆσαί τε ὀξὺςκαὶἄοκνοςτὰβεβουλευμένα ἐπιτελέσαι,3.9.25), unmistak- ablyappropriatinglanguagethat Thucydides’ Corinthians use, in the debate at Sparta in 432BCE that precipitates the Peloponnesian War(Thuc. 1.68–71), to

 Compareinthis respect the efforts of Proclusasquaestor to coolJustin I’senthusiasm for adoptingChosroes (Wars ..–); see Pazdernik,Quaestor (as footnote  above), esp. –.  CompareHdt. ., .See further footnotes ,  supra.  CompareMardonius’ speech (Hdt. .), which earns arebuke from Artabanus (.η).  Incensed at the effrontery of Gelimer,Justinian resolvedtoconclude hostilitieswith Persia and to attack the Vandals, “and Belisarius,the general of the East,was summoned and came to him immediately, not because it had been announced to him or anyone else that he was about to lead an armyagainst Libya, but it was givenout that he had been removedfromthe officeheheld” (καὶ … παρῆνμὲναὐτῷμετάπεμπτος ὁ τῆς ἑῴας στρατηγὸςΒελισάριος, οὐχ ὅτι ἐςΛιβύην στρατηγήσειν μέλλοι προειρημένον αὐτῷἢἄλλῳὁτῳοῦν,ἀλλὰ τῷ λόγῳ παρα- λέλυτο ἧςεἶχεν ἀρχῆς, Wars ..). Belisarius had been discreditedfollowingthe Persian vic- tory at Callinicum:see G. Greatrex /S.N.C.Lieu (eds.), The Roman eastern frontier and the Persian wars. Part II: AD –.Anarrative sourcebook. London /New York , – .Unmentioned hereisBelisarius’ roleinsuppressingthe Nika rebellion (cf. ..–). C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 1005 contrast the intrepid, grasping nationalcharacter of the Athenians with the stol- id, reactionary character of the Spartans: “[The Athenians]are innovators and are quick to devise aplan and then to carry it out in action” (οἱ μένγενεωτερο- ποιοὶ καὶἐπινοῆσαι ὀξεῖςκαὶἐπιτελέσαι ἔργῳἃἂνγνῶσιν,Thuc. 1.70.2,trans. Woodruff, modified).⁶⁸ Unless the Spartans act (the existing truce, the so-called Thirty Years Peace, notwithstanding), the Athenians’ momentum will become ir- resistible – or so the Corinthians insist. Procopius’ allusion to Thucydidesispointed. He repeats the same claim about Justinian in an unmistakablyderogatory sense in two places in the Secret History.⁶⁹ In book twoofthe Wars,moreover,hecauses envoys of Vittigis,the king the Goths, to echo the same Thucydidean intertext in appealing to Chosroes to resume hostilities against Justinian, lest Justinian’svictories in the West upset the balance of power with Persia.⁷⁰ Unless Chosroes acts (the existing truce,the so-called Eternal Peace, notwithstanding), Justinian’smomentumwill become ir- resistible – or so the Gothic envoys insist. Hereagain the analogies are straightforward and quiteapt:

(a) Procopius :Thucydides (b)the Gothic envoys :the Corinthians (c)Chosroes :the Spartans

The dateofthe Gothicembassy,in539 CE, is subsequent chronologicallytothe launching of the Vandal expedition in 532, but in the narrative space-time of the Wars the embassy,placed in book two, precedes Procopius’ account of the Van- dal Warinbooks three and four.Both allusions to the Corinthians’ speech, one placed in the mouths of Justinian’sopponents and another voiced by the Proco- pian narrator,concur in aligning Justinianwith the national characteristics at- tributed to the Athenians by Thucydides’ Corinthians in the debate at Sparta,

 Close readingsofthe speech include G. Crane,The fear and pursuit of risk: Corinth on Athens,Sparta and the Peloponnesians (Thucydides .–, –). Transactions of the American Philological Association  (), –;P.Debnar,Speaking the same lan- guage: speech and audienceinThucydides’ Spartan debates. Ann Arbor , –;S.N. Jaffe,Thucydides on the outbreak of war:character and contest. Oxford , –.  The emperor is “quarrelsome and an obsessive innovator … quick to form base plans and to carry them out” (δύσερίςτεκαὶνεωτεροποιὸςμάλιστα … ἐπινοῆσαι μὲντὰφαῦλα καὶἐπιτελέσαι ὀξὺς, HA .); likewise, “exceedinglyquick to devise and swift to carry out unholydeeds” (δια- φερόντως ὀξὺς ἐπινοῆσαί τε καὶ ταχὺς ἀποτελέσαι ἀνόσια ἔργα, .).  “For[Justinian] is by natureaninnovator …” (ὁ μὲνγὰρνεωτεροποιός … ὢνφύσει, Wars ..). Forthe context, see B. Dignas/E.Winter,Rome and Persia in late antiquity:neighbours and rivals. Cambridge , –. 1006 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung in amannerthatiswhollyconsistent with the allusions in the Secret History. Less significant for our present purposes is the fact that threeofthe four allu- sions unambiguouslysignal their hostility to Justinian, than thatthey consis- tentlyfigure Justinianasananalogue of the Athenians. With this pattern in front of us, two places in John the Cappadocian’sspeech opposing the Vandal expedition are especiallyarresting. First of all, John’sspeech opens, quite unexpectedly, by aping the sameThu- cydidean intertext we have been examining,the Corinthians’ speech to the Spar- tans. John credits Justinian’swillingness to entertain constructive criticism (Wars 3.10.8):

Τὸ πιστὸν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, τῆς ἐςτοὺςὑπηκόους τοὺςσοὺςὁμιλίας τὴνπαρρησίαν ἡμῖν ἀνα- πετάννυσιν ὅ τι ἂνμέλλοι τῇ πολιτείᾳ τῇ σῇ ξυνοίσειν, ἢνκαὶμὴπρὸς ἡδονήνσοι τὰ λε- γόμενά τε καὶ πρασσόμενα ᾖ. Your good faith, Oemperor,indealing with your subjects affords us the ability to speak franklyregarding anythingthat will be of advantage to your regime, even though our words and deeds maynot be to your liking.

The opening baldlyborrows its incipit and syntax from the Corinthians (Thuc. 1.68.1):⁷¹

Τὸ πιστὸν ὑμᾶς, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, τῆςκαθ’ ὑμᾶςαὐτοὺςπολιτείας καὶὁμιλίας ἀπιστοτέρους ἐςτοὺςἄλλους ἤντιλέγωμεν καθίστησιν … Your confidence, Lacedaemonians, in your own governmentand society renders youless trustingtoward others if we have somethingtotell you.

The speakers use certain key words in starklydiffering ways.John praises the integrity and honesty (τὸ πιστόν)ofthe relationship (ὁμιλία)ofthe emperor to- ward his subjects for enablingopposing viewpointsthat benefit the state (πολι- τεία). The Corinthians charge thatthe honesty and integrity(τὸπιστόν)ofpolit- ical and social life (πολιτείακαὶὁμιλία)among Spartans makes them resistant to opposing viewpoints.⁷² Thedifferences between the two passages reflect the dif- fering positions of the speakers with respect to theiraddressees. The Corinthians approach the Spartans as exasperated allies,⁷³ while John the Cappadocian presents himself to Justinian as aloyal subordinate.John must insist that his loy-

 See H. Braun,Procopius Caesariensis quatenus imitatus sit Thucydidem. Erlangen , .  Debnar,Speaking (as footnote  above), ,argues that τὸ πιστόν was adistinctlySpartan catchword or slogan echoed herebythe Corinthians;cf. Pericles at Thuc. ...  “In no other debateinthe History are the speakers so critical of their audience”:ibid., . C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 1007 alty authorizes his παρρησία,his ostensiblyunconstrained performancethat risks incurring displeasure,⁷⁴ while the Corinthians take this prerogative for granted and make every effort to provoke and unsettle. As we have seen, John’sassertions are undercut by the narrative:others have been cowed into silence, and John is outrageous and self-serving.Justinian’s court is no more welcoming of παρρησία than John is acting in Justinian’sinter- ests or in those of the commonwealth. John’sbarefaced assertions to the contrary signal his unscrupulousness, while his ability to manipulate Justiniandemon- strates how boldness and cleverness capitalize upon rhetoric’sindifference to truth. John’ssuccess, however fleeting it turns out to be, is symptomatic of larger political and institutional dysfunction and malaise,atoxic environment that made John not onlytolerable but indispensable to Justinian and allowed him to operate for so long with impunity,evenafter the disaster at Methone.⁷⁵ Procopius’ Thucydidean intertext driveshomeJohn the Cappadocian’sun- suitability for the role that the story’sHerodotean template presses him into play- ing.Indeed, John’sopening allusion to the Corinthians’ speech at Sparta is shockingly maladroit: he commences his λόγος ἀποτρεπτικός,aspeech of dis- suasion, by ostentatiouslyciting aclassic λόγος προτρεπτικός,aspeech of en- couragement.⁷⁶ Where Thucydides’ Corinthians call for immediate and resolute action,Procopius’ John, like Herodotus’ Artabanus,counsels moderation and re- straint.Consequently, John’sspeech makes astartling mismatch between the speaker and his addressee:

(a) Procopius :Thucydides (b)John the Cappadocian :the Corinthians (?) (c)Justinian:the Spartans (!)

 The word παρρησία onlyappears in the Wars embedded in direct discourse, where it de- notes, hereinits initial appearance, “outspokenness” within the trope of speakingtruth to power (compareP.Brown,Power and persuasion in late antiquity:towards aChristian empire. Madison , –)but elsewhere “boldness” and “freedom of action,” especiallyinthe stereotyped expression ἀφείλετο … τὴνπαρρησίαν (“[a circumstance] has takenaway[their/ your/our] confidence/freedom of action”): see Wars .., .., ..;also βόσκει (“feeds/nourishes”) … τὴνπαρρησίαν, ..;inother expressions, .., ...  CompareLamma,Giovanni (as footnote  above), –.  Forthe distinction,see Arist., Rh. .. – , .;[Rh.Al.] –, . 1008 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

Quite unlike the analogies that have been examined above, this one fails to cohere.⁷⁷ Justinian, otherwise figured as the Athenians, should not be pressed into the place of the Spartans. The Corinthians, as figured by John, should not be counsellingrestraint.Speaker,speech, and addressee are confusedand out of sync with comparable patterns observable in the workasawhole. If the opening of John’sspeech is guilty of committingwhat we might call an allusive malapropism – the making of an infelicitous allusion to Thucydidesin place of amore appropriate intertext⁷⁸ – then it remains to ask how such a faux pas as this contributes to Procopius’ characterization of John. The implied or inscribed readers of the Wars are those who possess the elite literary educa- tion that the historical John the Cappadocian, Procopius and others insist,most assuredlylacked. Procopius’stext presents such readerswith an embedded allu- sion to the Corinthians’ speech, voiced by the Gothic ambassadorstoChosroes in book two, that is rhetoricallyand contextuallyapt.Itframes the debate over the Vandal expedition – the centerpiece of which is John’sspeech – with anarrato- rial allusion to the Corinthians’ speech that is contextuallyapt (and that narra- torial judgments expressed in the Secret History surreptitiouslyecho). When Procopius’ text,accordingly, presents an unlettered, brazen,and dia- bolicallyresourceful John the Cappadocian donning the guise of the wise advisor and essaying acourtlyspeech in favorofconflict aversion – onlytovoice an al- lusion to the bellicose speech of the Corinthians that goes off the rails with its very first word – readers of the Wars are equipped to see this as caricature and are afforded the pleasure of having their erudition validated at John’sex- pense. One need not posit thatthe embedded speakers themselves, be they John or the Gothic envoys,are “conscious” of alludingtoThucydides – nor,for that mat- ter,that their embeddedaddressees, be they Chosroes or Justinian (whom the Se- cret History dismisses as barbaric in his speech, his dress,and his intellect⁷⁹), are

 C.B.R. Pelling,Intertextuality,plausibility,and interpretation. Histos  (), –: , stresses how the defamiliarization of intertextual templates derivedfromclassic targettexts stimulates interpretation at the point of reception.  Seeminglyobvious candidates arethe speechesofArchidamus at the debateatSparta in  BCE (Thuc. .–)and of Nicias against the Sicilian expedition (.–, –). On paral- lels between Herodotus’ Artabanus and Thucydides’ Archidamus and Nicias, respectively,see C.B.R. Pelling,Thucydides’ Archidamus and Herodotus’ Artabanus, in M. A. Flower/M. Toher (eds.), Georgica: Greek studies in honour of George Cawkwell. London , –: –,and N. Marinatos,Nicias as awise advisor and tragic warner in Thucydides. Philo- logus  (), –.  … ἀλλὰ τήντεγλῶτταν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα καὶ τὴνδιάνοιαν ἐβαρβάριζεν (HA .). C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 1009 capable of recognizingthese allusions.⁸⁰ Quite to the contrary, the inaccessibility of the intertextual dimension to these narratively embeddedcharacters reinfor- ces the artificiality of the episodesinwhich they appear and privileges the posi- tion of Procopius’ readers,whose superiorknowledge and perspective make them conscious of (and complicit in) the strategies that the Wars employs to con- struct the historical truth it claims to represent.Tothe extent that Procopius’ readers are figured as “spectators of new adventures” (Wars 3.10.6 [B1]), how- ever,whose appetitesare whettedbytheir distance from the action, they remain unimplicatedinand insulated from events in which narratively embedded char- acters unavoidablyparticipate.

V

Of course, the Wars represents Procopius, aparticipant himself in Justinian’s wars, as both the narrator and an embedded character.⁸¹ His position with re- spect not onlytohis fellow character-participants but also to his reader-specta- tors is correspondinglydouble-edged. The narratorial third-person voice conveys the character’ssolidarity with the officers and soldiers who faced the dangers of the Vandal expedition while affordingaccess to his subjectivity and reframing his experienceswith allusive inter-and intratexts.The prospect of sailing with the expedition terrified the character,confides the narrator,until he experienced adream-vision that relieved his anxieties.⁸² He dreamt that,while he was present

 The historicity of the letteraddressed by Belisarius to Justinian followinghis occupation and defense of the city of Rome in  (Wars ..–), which is clearlymodelled on the famous letterofNiciasinThucydides (.–)and plausiblywould have been composed by Procopius himself, should not be discounted(K. Adshead,Procopius’ poliorcetica: continuities and dis- continuities,inG.Clarkeetal., Readingthe past in late antiquity.Rushcutters Bay , – : ); in this case, there is every reasontosuppose that the allusion was meant to be no- ticed; see now C. Pazdernik,Nicias’ lettertothe Athenians and their response (Thuc. .– ). ClassicalPhilology  (), –,esp. –.  LikeThucydides (but unlikeHerodotus, “whofinds his placeinhis textonlythrough his ac- tivities as traveler,researcher,and writer,” as an “external narrator”), Procopius is “an internal narrator in as much as he … appears as an agent”;quotations fromT.Rood,Thucydides,inI.J.F. de Jong /R.Nünlist/ A. Bowie (eds.), Narrators,narratees, and narrativesinancient Greek liter- ature.Leiden , –:  (citingThuc. ..).  “With them [i.e., Belisarius and Antonina] was also Procopius, whowrote this history.Pre- viouslyhehad been extremelyterrified at the danger,but later he had seen avision of adream that caused him to take heart and made him eager to go on the expedition” (ξυνῆνδὲαὐτοῖςκαὶ Προκόπιος, ὃςτάδε ξυνέγραψε, πρότερον μὲνκαὶμάλα κατορρωδήσας τὸνκίνδυνον, ὄψιν δὲ 1010 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung in Belisarius’ house, strangers arrivedbearing loads of sod that werestrewn with flowers,and that Belisarius and his spearmen reclined on the sod as if they were dining and ate the flowers,which weresweet to the taste (Wars 3.12.4 – 5). The narrator assures us that the embedded character who experienced the dream was heartened by it,but neither the character nor the narrator offers to interpret the vision or to draw express analogies between the imagery in the dream and the situation in which the character finds himself.⁸³ The character recognizes himself within the dream as abystander who witnesses the action rather than participating in it.Perhaps this position is aprefiguration of the dis- tance inscribed between the narrating voice of the historian and the historical events that are the focus of his line of inquiry.⁸⁴ Thedream itself, represented by the Procopiannarrator as ascene within ascene or mise en abyme,would ac- cordingly stand,onahighlyabstracted plane, as aprefiguration of Procopius’ narrativeofthe Vandal War – or,rather,ofakey point of inflection within it. Indeed, whatever the covert or sublimated significanceofthe imagery in the dream might be, the imageofBelisarius and his officers enjoying theirrepose and feasting on the fruits of another land, delivered to them by strangers,clearly foreshadows the freighted moment,following his initial victory over Gelimer at Ad Decimum and occupation of Carthage, when Belisarius and his retinue dined in Gelimer’spalace on dishes, Procopius tells us, that had been prepared for the Vandal king (Wars 3.21.1– 6):

When the time came, Belisarius commanded that luncheon (ἄριστον)bepreparedfor them in the placewhere Gelimer was accustomed to entertain the leaders of the Vandals.This placethe Romanscall ‘Delphix’ (Δέλφιξ) …⁸⁵ So Belisarius dined in the Delphix and with him all the notables of the army(ἐνΔέλφικι τοίνυν Βελισάριόςτεἤσθιε καὶ εἴ τι ἐντῷ στρατεύματι δόκιμον ἦν). And it happened that the luncheon (τὸἄριστον)made for Gelimer on the preceding daywas in readiness. We feasted on that very food that the servants of Gelimer served, and they poured the wine and waited upon us in every way(καὶ ταῖςτε

ὀνείρου ἰδὼν ὕστερον, ἣ αὐτὸνθαρσῆσαί τε ἐποίησε καὶἐςτὸστρατεύεσθαι ὥρμησεν, Wars ..).  I. Anagnostakis,Prokopios’ dream beforethe campaignagainst Libya: areading of Wars ..–,inC.Angelidi /G.T.Calofonos (eds.), Dreaming in Byzantium and beyond. Farnham , –,argues that the imageofBelisarius and his men tastingsweet flowers alludes to the Odyssey’sland of the LotusEaters (.–), which traditionallyhad been locatedin Libyaand from which no one was abletoreturn.  Comparethe formulation of these ideas in Procopius’ own terms as discussed in footnote  supra.  Adigression follows on the origin of the name and likewise that of ‘palace’ [Παλάτιον], which Procopius develops into abroad sketch of Graeco-Roman cultural continuity and Roman imperial hegemony. C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 1011

βρώσεσιν αὐταῖς εἱστιάθημεν ἥ τε τοῦ Γελίμερος θεραπείαπαρετίθει τε καὶᾠνοχόει καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὑπούργει).

Striking here is the narratorial first-person plural,which collapses the nested representational frames that distinguishedthe narrator from the embeddedchar- acter and the character from the imageofhimself in the dream. Procopius figures himself as aparticipant and an agent,rather than abystander and an observer. He counts himself within aprivileged circle that is demarcated by its proximity to Belisarius, by the ties of reciprocity and patronage that are celebrated and ce- mented through commensality,and by its ambivalent relationship to Justinian.⁸⁶ As would subsequentlytranspire also in the ascendant phase of the Gothic War in Italy, Belisarius’ comportment in Carthage – dining at Gelimer’stable, seating himself on Gelimer’sthrone – would arouse suspicions that he aimed at usurpa- tion rather than the restoration of imperial suzerainty from Constantinople.⁸⁷ Procopius emphasizes the contingency and fortuityofthe occasion.⁸⁸ Beli- sarius achieved aglory never before attained by the men of his time, “nor indeed anymen of ancienttimes,”⁸⁹ not on account of his victory at Ad Decimum, which Procopius allows resulted as much from the Vandals’ ownmistakes as from Be- lisarius’ generalship,⁹⁰ but rather in light of the tranquil entry of his troops into Carthage, who refrainedfrom the customary excesses practiced by victorious soldiers.⁹¹ No insult was offered, no interruption in the flow of dailylife and commerce (Wars 3.21.10 [D2]):

Indeed, nothinghappened to hinder the business of the city.Inacapturedcity,then, that had changedits regime and joined adifferent realm (ἐν ἁλούσῃ πόλει καὶ πολιτείαν

 CompareRoss,Narrator (as footnote  above), –,who does not discussthe present passage but points out that Procopius reserves the first-person plural for his account of the ex- pedition’sprogress towardCarthage,where such usagesgenerally “refertothe anonymous and collective mass of the army” ().  See Wars ..–.Similar allegations resurfaced followingBelisarius’ occupation of Raven- na in  CE: see ..–.  See footnote  infra.  See footnote  infra.  Wars ...  “Forthough Roman soldiers werenot accustomed to enterasubject city without confusion (θορύβου χωρίς), even if they numbered onlyfivehundred, and especiallyifthey made the entry unexpectedly, this general kept all the soldiers under his command in line (κοσμίους)sothat therewas not asingle act of insolencenor threat” (οὐδὲὕβριν τινὰἢἀπειλὴνγενέσθαι, Wars ..–). On this episode, see C. Pazdernik,Procopiusand Thucydides on the labors of war:Belisarius and Brasidas in the field. Transactions of the American PhilologicalAssociation  (), –,esp. –. 1012 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

μεταβαλούσῃ καὶ βασιλείαν ἀλλαξαμένῃ), it came about that no man’shousehold was ex- cluded from the marketplace(ἀπὸτῆςἀγορᾶς). The clerks drew up their lists of the soldiers and conducted them to their lodgings,just as usual, and they obtained their lunch by purchase from the market (ὤνιον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγορᾶςτὸἄριστον λαβόντες),⁹² as each one wanted, and they were quiet (ἡσύχαζον).

By drawing attention to these alimentary concerns, Procopius has constructed a remarkable through-line from the genesis of the Vandal Wartothe occupation of Carthageand what the historian describes as Belisarius’ (almost literally) crown- ing achievement.The progression becomes apparent in hindsight and is more clearlysurveyed workingbackward, hysteron proteron. Images of quartermasters’ clerks dutifullyfilling out their paperwork and billeting soldiers, and likewiseof soldiers acquiring provisions for their mid-daymealatmarket rates out of the commutation of theirrations into cash, might have been lifted out of the dreary regulations in the Codex Iustinianus;⁹³ yetthe perpetuation of abland and bu- reaucratic routine, which Procopius celebrates here unironically, encapsulates avision of civil society thatassesses the consequences of conquest in light of the livedexperiences of persons implicated within it.Under Belisarius’ enlight- ened leadership and strict discipline,not onlydid soldiers refrain from preying upon civilians, whom they wereinstructed to embrace as fellow Romans liber- ated from the Vandals,⁹⁴ but they also enjoyed conditions that enhancedtheir own welfare and redressedthe shortcomingsthat had contributed to theirvictim- ization at an earlier stageofthe expedition. Procopius sums up this moment of balance, accord, and contentment with asimple, pregnant,declaration: “they werequiet” (ἡσύχαζον). We should find clear connections,then, among the humble fare purchased by Belisarius’ soldiers for their lunch (τὸἄριστον)inCarthage; the altogether more regal luncheon (likewise, τὸἄριστον)thatBelisarius and his retinue, in- cludingProcopius himself, found waiting for them in Gelimer’spalace; and the prefiguration of thatluncheon in Procopius’ dream vision prior to the depar- ture of the expedition from Constantinople. Procopius’ solicitude for the billeting and messing of the rank-and-file in Carthage, moreover,isthe counterpart of his

 Afterhis landfall, Belisariushad severely reprimanded soldiers for foraginginthe country- side: Wars ..;compare ...  Compare CJ ., “Distribution of military provisions” (De erogatione militaris annonae).  See esp. Belisarius’ instructions to his troops prior to enteringthe city: Wars ..–; compare ..– and see also ..–.Onthe theme of liberation and imperial restoration in the official rhetoric of the period, see now C. Pazdernik,Libertas and “mixed marriages” in lateantiquity:law,labor,and politics in Justinianic reform legislation, in D. P. Kehoe /T.A.J. McGinn (eds.), Ancient law, ancient society.Ann Arbor,MI, –. C. Pazdernik, Breakingsilence … 1013 outrageoverthe disaster at Methone, when rotting provisions supplied by John the Cappadocian contributed to the deaths of five hundred fighting men. Me- thone, in turn, is the sequeland the consequenceofJohn’sevasion of responsi- bility,aspraetorian prefect,for financingand equipping the expedition, which crystallizes his opposition to the Vandal expedition and findsexpression in his silence-breaking speech to Justinian.

VI

Having circled in this wayback to John the Cappadocian, we are now in aposi- tion to consider the second place in his speech at which an echo of Thucydidesis especiallyarresting. As we have seen,⁹⁵ John’sspeech cuts against the grain of the surroundingnarrative by alludingtothe bellicose speech of the Corinthians at Sparta while cautioning Justinian against the perilsattendant upon attacking the Vandals. Justinian, who is otherwise figured as the analogue of the meddling, relentless Athenians, is here miscast as the counterpart of the stolid, risk-averse Spartans, as the two sides are characterized by the Corinthians. These miscues combine with Procopius’ overarching, unrelentinglyhostile, portrait of John to undermine the Cappadocian’sclaim to be speakingcandidlyand with Justinian’s best interests at heart. The Corinthians’ speech to the Spartans turns upon the opposition they con- struct between the Spartan and Athenian national characters and theircorre- sponding stances with respect to international relations.⁹⁶ Alone of the Greeks, the Corinthians charge,the Spartans remain quiet (ἡσυχάζετε,Thuc. 1.69.4), while allowing their opponents to gather strength; the Athenians,incontrast, “have been born never to allow themselvesnor anyone else to enjoy peace and quiet (πεφυκέναι ἐπὶ τῷ μήτε αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἡσυχίαν μήτε τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ἐᾶν,1.70.9). The Spartans’ stubborn embrace of ἡσυχία,and the Athe- nians’ hostility to it,emergesasthe leitmotif of the speech. Rather than striking back at Athenian provocations, the Spartans remain on the defensive,preferring to expose themselvestothe chances of war (ἐςτύχας … καταστῆναι,1.69.5) against an opponent who is becomingall the more formidable. They have not considered how different the Athenians are from themselves: how revolutionary and daring,how optimistic and impetuous, how undeterredand self-sacrificing.

 See Section IV supra.  Thucydides (., .)makessimilar comparisons in his own voice: see L. Edmunds, Chanceand intelligenceinThucydides.Cambridge,MA, . 1014 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

The Athenians live livesfilled with toil and danger (μετὰ πόνων … καὶ κινδύνων); they are relentless and insatiable; “they do not consider anyday aholidayunless they have done something that needed to be done, and they think that an idle rest (ἡσυχία ἀπράγμων)isasmuch trouble as hard work” (1.70.8). Yetthe Spar- tans temporize and fail to understand that they will perpetuate peace and quiet (ἡσυχία,1.71.1), onlybystandingfirm against wrongdoers. The Corinthians hammer home the incompatibility between Sparta’sold- fashionedhabits (Thuc. 1.71.2–3) and preferencefor an international order char- acterized by non-interference,settled power relationships, and risk-aversion – summed up by their repeatedreferences to ἡσυχία⁹⁷ – and Athens’ appetitefor disruption and transgression. John the Cappadocian’saddress to Justinian, like- wise, turns on his evaluation of the merits of a ἡσυχία-focused international order in relation to the risks and rewards of foreign adventurism.⁹⁸ Of course, John must takethe opposite tack and argue, contra the Corinthians,infavor of the Spartan position, perpetuating the mismatch between his Herodoteantem- plate and his Thucydidean intertext. John’sposition is carefullyhedgedand,once he gets down to specifics, re- markablyclear-headed,leading manytoconclude that here John is serving,how- ever improbably, as aspokesman for Procopius’ ownviews.⁹⁹ This interpretation becomes much more nuanced, however,once it becomes apparent how thor- oughlyJohn’spremises are controverted by Belisarius’ initial successes, as these are borneout in Procopius’ narrative.John himself gestures proleptically when he insists that,evenifherisks antagonizing Justinian in the present mo- ment,hewill make his goodwill apparent in the future:¹⁰⁰ for (γάρ), he says, should Justinianbeunpersuadedand attack the Vandals, “if the struggle is pro- longed for you, it will come about that my advice wins praise.”¹⁰¹

 J. Zumbrunnen,Silenceand democracy: Athenian politics in Thucydides’ History.University Park, PA , –,surveysuses of ἡσυχία and its cognates in Thucydides moregenerally.  Should Justinian attack the Vandals and suffer areverse, warns John (Wars ..), “hav- ing alreadybroken the treaty (αἱ σπονδαί), youwill drawthe dangertoour own land”;likewise (ibid.), “areversal of fortune will harm what is alreadywellestablished” (τὸ τῆςτύχης ἐναντί- ωμα λυμανεῖται τοῖςεὖκαθεστῶσι). ForCesa,Politica (as footnote  above), ,these state- ments crystallize Procopius’ opposition to Justinian’swars in the West; see, contra,Brodka,Pro- kopios (as footnote  above), –.  See footnote  supra.  προσκρούσων μὲντὸπαραυτίκα ἴσως … ἐςδὲτὸμέλλον τὴνεὔνοιαν τὴν ἐμὴνκαταφανῆ δείξων (Wars ..).  μηκυνομένης σοι τῆς ἀγωνίας τὴν ἐμὴνπαραίνεσιν εὐδοκιμῆσαι ξυμβήσεται (Wars ..). C. Pazdernik, Breakingsilence … 1015

The elaboration of this claim is rather complex and maybeset out as follows (Wars 3.10.12 – 13):

Forif, on the one hand (εἰ μὲνγάρ), (i) youhaveconfidencethat youwill prevail over the enemy,

(ii) it is not at all unreasonable for youtosacrificethe livesofmen, expend avastamount of treasure, and undergo the difficulties of the struggle.

For(γάρ)(iii) victory,once it has been accomplished, effaces all of the calamities(τὰπάθη) of war.

But if, on the other hand (εἰ δέ),

in the first place(μέν), (iv) these things “lie on the knees of God” (ἐντοῖςτοῦθεοῦ γούνασι κεῖται), and,

in the second place(δέ), (v) it is necessary for us,consideringthe precedents (παραδείγ- ματα)ofwhathas happened before,¹⁰² to fear the outcome of war,

(vi) how is lovingpeaceand quiet not better than the dangers of conflict?(πῶςοὐχὶτῶνἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι κινδύνων τὸ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἀγαπᾶν ἄμεινον; [D1])

On one side of the ledger, John sketches what Thucydides’ Corinthians (and Pro- copius’ readers) could recognize as the “Athenian” position: aresolute attitude (i), heedless of the cost in blood and treasure(ii), plausiblyproduces an end that justifies the means (iii).¹⁰³ John is skeptical of such an outcomeand adamantly opposed to such an undertaking,asProcopius has informed us (Wars 3.10.3). In order to undermine Justinian’sconfidenceand dull his appetitefor military ag- gression, accordingly, John goes on to elaborate, on the other side of the ledger, acorrespondingly “Spartan” position by recommending caution in view of the inscrutability of the future and the admonitory value of the past.¹⁰⁴ Saying thatanundetermined outcome “lies of the kneesofthe gods” (iv) is alreadyawell-established coinage in Homer and maywellhaveNear Eastern roots.¹⁰⁵ In puttingthe expression in John’smouth here, Procopius seems less

 παραδείγμασι δὲ τῶνπρογεγενημένων χρωμένους (Wars ..): compare παραδείγμασι τοῖςπρογιγνομένοις χρώμενοι (Thuc. ..,the speech of the Mytileneans to the Peloponne- sians at Olympia in  BCE); see Duwe,Procopius (as footnote  above), .  The Corinthians develop the theme of Athenian relentlessness and their willingness to ab- sorb losses most fullyatThuc. ..–.  Compareinthis respect the positionofThucydides’ Archidamus (..): “We [Spartans], whowill bear most of the responsibility for the outcome, either way, should reflect calmly(καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν)onthe consequences that mayfollow.”  Hom., Il. ., .; Od. ., , .. “Apicturesque wayofsayingthat the futureofsome issue rests with ahigher power whose will is not yetknown”:R.B.Onians, 1016 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung likelytobeaiming for allusive specificity than signalingthatJohn is thinking aphoristicallyand, possibly, putting on airs. John’spoint is to underscorethe un- certainty and contingency that attends anyhuman undertaking,and the impres- sion of anyspecificallyChristian coloring(apart from John’suse of the monothe- istic singular)isremote.¹⁰⁶ Lacking certainty about the future, human beings must relyupon the exem- plarity of prior experiences, which bode ill in the instant case (v): here John is referringobliquelytothe failurethatattendedpriorefforts to oust the Vandals from North Africa, which Procopius has told us was weighingheavilyonthe minds of most of Justinian’sofficials when he initiallydisclosed his plan (Wars 3.10.2). John artfullyframes his recommendation in favorofpreservingthe status quo and avoiding conflict as arhetorical question (vi) thatcounterpoises “loving peace and quiet” (τὸ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἀγαπᾶν)against “the dangers of conflict” (οἱἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι κινδύνοι). John implies that the advantagesofthe former position are self-evident,inview of the inscrutability of the future and the ominousness of the past.John’spro-ἡσυχία stance in favorofpreservingthe status quo and avoiding disruption places him squarelyatodds with the arguments advanced by Thucydides’ Corinthians and compounds the artificialityand unreality of the episode as Procopius reconstructs it. The ἡσυχία championedbyJohn the Cappadocian is afreighted concept not onlyasfar as Procopius’ Thucydidean intertext is concerned, as we have seen, but alsointhe largercontext of Procopius’ narrative of the Vandal War. At root,the worddenotes astate of stillness and quiet; it signifies,thatis, the si- lence that is aproduct and an expression of contentedness and the absenceof strife. Procopius employs the abstract noun, at the onlypoint in the Wars at which it appears prior to John the Cappadocian’sspeech, to connotethe official solemnities of the imperial court,participants in which were expectedtomain- tain an atmosphere of mystical harmonyand ineffable majesty.Inanarratorial aside, Procopius introduces acertain figure as one “who had always assisted the

On the knees of the gods. ClassicalReview  (), –: .M.L.West,The east face of Hel- icon. West Asiatic elementsinGreek poetry.Oxford , –,finds in Babylonian poetry “plausibly … the mythological concept that underlies the Homeric phrase,” insofar as the gods’ knees areconcerned (a detail that has puzzled ancient and modern commentators).  Pace J. A.S. Evans,Christianityand paganism in Procopius of Caesarea. GRBS  (), –: –,who points out that Artabanus warns Xerxes about the hazards of divine jeal- ousy (Hdt. .ε); Procopius chooses the expression, he suggests,inorder to avoid attributing jealousy to the Christian God, but its Homeric pedigree goes unnoticed. C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 1017 emperor while in the palace in all the business of the court” (βασιλεῖ μὲν ἀεὶἐν παλατίῳ τὰἐςτὴνἡσυχίαν ὑπηρετοῦντα, Wars 2.21.2).¹⁰⁷ This ἡσυχία,then, that characterizes the orderlyfunctioningand stately de- corum of court ceremonial and that affects an awestruck silence worthyofthe theophanic spectacle of the imperial presence, differs categoricallyfrom the utter speechlessness that grips Justinian’sofficials when the emperor declares his intention to attack the Vandals. There is adelicious irony, accordingly, when John the Cappadocian breaks that stricken silence and, parting with courtlyetiquette,ventures to thwart Justinian by selling him on the benefits of ἡσυχία.Inframing John’sdilemma in this way, Procopius is problematizinga policy of conflict aversion that,asvalid as it maybeonits merits, is compro- mised by narrowly self-servingends. The peace and quiet, ἡσυχία,championed by John the Cappadocian is, aboveall, his own – and, ostensibly, Justinian’s. No- tablyabsent from these deliberations, however,are the interests of the partici- pants – both the combatants and the civilian inhabitants in North Africa – who ultimatelyrun the risks and bear the burdens of the ensuing hostilities.

 Dewing/Kaldellis,Wars (as footnote  above) translate: “served … as privy counselor.” The text continues in parenthesis: “this honor is bestowed upon those whom the Romans call silentiarii” (σιλεντιαρίους Ῥωμαῖοι καλοῦσιν οἷς ἡ τιμὴ αὕτη ἐπίκειται). On silentiarii,see now S. Acerbi,Lafiguradel ‘silentiarius’ en la corte bizantina,inS.Montero Herrero/M.C. Cardete del Olmo (eds.), Religión ysilencio. El silencio en las religiones antiguas. ’Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones, .Madrid , –,esp. –;R.Delmaire,Les institutionsdu Bas‐Empireromain de Constantin a` Justinien: les institutionsciviles palatines.Paris , – ;also A. Kazhdan, ODB  s.v. Silentiarios (“acourt attendant whose first duty was to se- cureorder and silenceinthe palace”), Silentium. With Procopius compareJohn Lydus(De men- sibus .,trans. Hooker): “It seemed good to have the council gather no longer in the market- place, but in the palace – and the Romans customarilycalled such acouncil conventus, meaning, a ‘coming-together.’ And for the manypeople takingcounsel, silencewas required; from this enthusiasm for silence, which in their ancestral languagethey call silentium,they de- cided to name them silentiarii” (ἐδόκει μὲνμηκέτι ἐπ’ ἀγορᾶς, ἀλλ’ ἐντῷΠαλατίῳ τὴνβουλὴν συνάγεσθαι, τὴνδὲτοιαύτην σύνοδον κομβέντον ἔθος Ῥωμαίοις καλεῖν, ἀντὶ τοῦ συνέλευσιν. σιγῆςδὲτοῖςπολλοῖςβουλευομένοις δεῖ· ἐκτῆςπερὶ τὴνσιγὴνσπουδῆς – σιλέντιον δ’ αὐτὴν πατρίως καλοῦσιν – σιλεντιαρίους ἔκριναν ὀνομάζειν αὐτούς). Procopius seems be using the ex- pression ἐςτὴνἡσυχίαν hereasthe equivalent of “in the silentium”;cf., in Totila’sharangue to his troops at Busta Gallorum (Wars ..), σκῆψιν ἐςτὴνἡσυχίαν εὐπρόσωπον (“sufficient excuse for inaction”). See now also A. Becker,Verbal and nonverbal diplomaticcommunication at the imperial court of Constantinople (fifth–sixth centuries). DOP  (), –. 1018 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

VII

When Procopius credits Belisarius for the orderlyoccupation of Carthageand for the peace and quiet that is preserved there, as we have seen,¹⁰⁸ he evaluates this achievement in terms that strikingly recapitulateand repudiatethe premises of John the Cappadocian’sspeech. John predicts that, if the struggle against the Vandals is prolonged, “it willcome about that my advice will win renown” (τὴν ἐμὴνπαραίνεσιν εὐδοκιμῆσαι ξυμβήσεται, Wars 3.10.11); Procopius declares, however,that “it came to pass for Belisarius to winrenown” (Βελισαρίῳ δὲ ξυνηνέχθη … εὐδοκιμῆσαι,3.21.8), on the dayhis forces entered Carthage. The juxtaposition is stark, inasmuch as Procopius reserves the expression “to win re- nown” (εὐδοκιμῆσαι)inhis own voice almost exclusively for references to Belisarius,¹⁰⁹ notablywherehecompares Belisarius favorablywith John.¹¹⁰ John also premises his argument in favorofpreservingthe status quo and conserving peace and quiet,aswehaveseen, upon the inscrutability of the fu- ture and the ominousness of the past.Experience, however,confounds these ex- pectations in altogetherunpredictable ways.Belisarius and his retinue dined in Gelimer’spalace on food that had been prepared for the Vandal king.Procopius observes: “And it was possibletosee Chance (ἡ τύχη)inall her glory making a displayofthe fact that all thingsare hers and thatnothing is trulyowned by any man.”¹¹¹ Belisarius won renown for the orderlyentry of his troopsinto Carthage, “as has happened (τετύχηκε)tonone of his contemporaries nor indeed anymen

 See Section Vsupra.  See Wars .. (“The Romans praised Belisarius and he seemed to have achieved greater glory[εὐδοκιμῆσαι]intheir eyes by this feat than when he brought Gelimer or Vittigis captive to Byzantium”), .. (“Meanwhile it happened that Belisarius had distinguished himself [ηὐδοκι- μηκέναι]bythe defeat of Gelimer and the Vandals”); see also the followingfootnote. The sole exception to the pattern is found in Procopius’ famouseulogy of Theodericthe Great, ..; see now C. Pazdernik,ReinventingTheoderic in Procopius’ Gothic War, in Lillington/Turquois, Procopius (as footnote  above), –.Elsewhere the narrator mentions how an unnamed Roman gained renown (ηὐδοκίμησεν, ..;cf. Suda Θ. Adler s.v. θλαδίας)bymakinga quip at the expense of Valentinian III followingthe assassination of Aëtius in  CE. Em- bedded characters use the expression in direct discourse at .. (Tzazo), . (Germanus).  Procopius alleges that John resented Belisarius because “he drew the odium of all people upon himself, whereas Belisarius was esteemed (εὐδοκιμῶν … ἔτυχεν)morethan anyone else” (Wars ..). Followingthe disaster at Methone, Belisarius,reporting the matter to the emper- or, “gained in favor(ηὐδοκίμησεν)himself, but he did not at that time bringany punishment upon John” (..).  παρῆντεἰδεῖν ὡραϊζομένην τὴντύχην καὶ ποιουμένην ἐπίδειξιν, ὡς ἅπαντά τε αὐτῆςεἴη καὶ οὐδὲν ἀνθρώπῳἴδιον γένοιτο (Wars ..). C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 1019 of ancient times.”¹¹² Belisarius’ experiences to thatpoint in North Africa, Proco- pius affirms, were both fortuitous and unprecedented. His achievement neatly subverted the premises upon which John’sopposition to the expedition was founded. His actions, and not John’swords, won renown. He preserved peace and quiet while surmounting “the dangers of conflict” and accomplishingarev- olutionary changeofregimes.Atthe end of book three of the Wars,asthe open- ing act of Procopius’ narrative of the Vandal Wardraws to aclose with Gelimer not yetsubdued, but with the Vandals locked together in indescribable grief at Bulla Regia, the repudiation of John the Cappadocian and of John’spolicy of conflict aversion would appear to be complete. Following Belisarius’ victory over Gelimer at Tricamarum in December of 533 BCE and the consolidation of imperial control over North Africa by Solomon, his successor,prospects in North Africa remained bright: “as aresultofthis,all the Libyans who weresubjects of the Romans … seemed the most fortunate of all men.”¹¹³ YetSolomon’sdeath and the subsequent misrule of others contribute to acrisis that,evenonce the situation has been retrieved, leavesdevastation in its wake. The very last words of Procopius’ narrative of the Vandal Warare un- relentinglygrim (4.28.52 [D3]):¹¹⁴

οὕτω τε Λιβύων τοῖςπεριγενομένοις, ὀλίγοις τε καὶ λίαν πτωχοῖςοὖσιν, ὀψὲ καὶ μόλις ἡσυχίαν τινὰ ξυνηνέχθη γενέσθαι. Thus it came to pass that the Libyans whosurvived, few as they wereinnumber and ex- tremelypoor,atlong last and just barely managed to find some peace and quiet.

If the images and the narratorial interventions with which book three of the Wars closes repudiateJohn the Cappadocian, then it must also be admittedthatthe sardonic note on which the Vandal Warconcludes, at the end of book four,ap- pears to vindicate his prediction thathis advice would be credited if the struggle wereprolongedand to echo ironicallyhis warning: the peace and quiet, ἡσυχία,

 Βελισαρίῳ δὲ ξυνηνέχθη ἐκείνῃ τῇἡμέρᾳεὐδοκιμῆσαι ὡςοὔτε τῶνκατ’ αὐτὸνοὐδενὶ πώ- ποτε οὔτε τῳἄλλῳ τῶν ἐκπαλαιοῦ γεγονότων τετύχηκε (Wars ..); see also ..– (footnote  infra). On the role of chanceindefeatingthe Vandals,see Kaldellis,Procopius (as footnote  above), –.  καὶἀπ’αὐτοῦ Λίβυες ἅπαντες, οἳῬωμαίων κατήκοοι ἦσαν … ἔδοξαν εὐδαιμονέστατοι εἶναι ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων (Wars ..).  On this passage, see Kaldellis,Procopius’ Vandal War(as footnote  above), .Onthe causes of military discontent, see Wars ..–, ...The imageofdevastation in North Africa is reiteratedat...See A.D. Lee,The empireatwar,inMaas,Cambridge Companion (as footnote  above), –,esp. –. 1020 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung that John advises Justinian to conservewas,for the Libyans subsequentlyen- meshed in conflict,all toodearlybought.

VIII

The historical judgments about the Vandal Warthatare detectable in the Wars are complex and correspondingly dissimulatedwithin spaces and silences in- scribed in the text.John the Cappadocian cannot be reduced to aspokesman for the historian’sviews, even wherehehappens to voice something that seems to be approximating them. While Belisarius’ uncannyand unprecedented successes against the Vandals confounded John’spredictions,they also con- foundedthe well-founded fears of the participantsthemselves, not least the fears of the historical Procopius who sailed with the expedition. Belisarius’ achievement,falling well outside the boundsofrationalcalculationand predic- tion, scarcelydiscredited apolicy of conflict aversion, inasmuchasbetting on a miracle is not apolicy.Procopius’ narrator is left to marvel at the Vandals’ rever- sal of fortune.¹¹⁵ The Wars nonetheless equips its readers to understand how,inProcopius’ estimation, that achievement was squandered. SuspicionsoverBelisarius’ impe- rial ambitions, which the historian insists werebaseless, diverted the general from post-conflict reconstruction, disappointing prospects for pacifyingNorth Africa and opening the door for subsequent maladministration and misrule.¹¹⁶ The effect is to magnify (and to exonerate)Belisarius, on one hand,and, on the other,todrive home the point that,absentsuch aremarkable and capable figure exercisingeffectiveleadership on the ground, Justinian’s “liberation” of North Africa amounted to little other than occupation and exploitation by afor- eign power. Insofar as Procopius’ line of historiographical inquiry goes quite some way towardsubstantiatingJohn’sclaim that the merits of his policy prescriptions

 “Forthingsthat seemed to reason (λόγῳ)impossible areactually(ἔργῳ)accomplished, and manytimes thingsthat previouslyappeared impossible (ἀδύνατα), when they become real (ἀπο- βάντα), seem to be worthyofwonder (θαύματος ἄξια). But whether such events as these [i.e., Gelimer’soverthrow] ever took placebefore Iamnot able to say” (εἰ μέντοι τοιαῦτα ἔργα πώποτε γεγενῆσθαι τετύχηκεν οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν, Wars ..–). See also footnote  supra.  The chargesare made explicit in the SecretHistory (.–,esp. ); compareesp. Wars ..–.OnBelisarius,see Ph. Wood,Being Roman in Procopius’ Vandal Wars. Byzantion  (), –,esp. , . C. Pazdernik,Breaking silence … 1021 would become apparent as the struggle draggedon,¹¹⁷ it remains to investigate how such an estimable messagefares in the hands of such adiscreditable mes- senger.Hereitisworthwhile to return to the moment in the Secret History with which this discussion began, an instance of stricken silence in the court of Justin I, whose relationship to the corresponding instance in the Wars is akin to that of an object and its imageinadistortingmirror.Matters of war and peace are not at stake, but the future emperor Justinian is instead pursuing avendetta against a blameless official, Theodotus “the Pumpkin,” and it requires the intervention of afigure of unimpeachable integrity,the quaestor Proclus, to blunt (if not wholly to prevent¹¹⁸)ablatantmiscarriageofjustice. Like the largerwork of which it is apart, the episode displays an unvar- nishedstyle to impart what it claims to be the unvarnished truth.¹¹⁹ Dispensing with the conventions of classicizing historiography,the narrative merelyreports Proclus’ sententia in indirect discourse without rhetoricalelaboration; it affords no access into the embedded character’sinteriority and motivations;itdeclines to find relationships between particular circumstances and universalpatterns and precedents for human behavior.For all of these reasons,the appearance here of the motif of “grieving in silence” (σιωπῇ … ὀδύρεσθαι), which is so idi- osyncratic not onlyinProcopius’ oeuvrebut in all of Greek literature,isall the more striking.¹²⁰ We have seen how the expression signals moments of intense emotional turmoil and internalized conflict that have to be dissimulated because they threaten to upset established relationships of power,beitthe relationship of the emperortohis officials or thatofthe Vandals to their subjects on Sardinia.¹²¹

 Wars .. (footnote  supra).  The “Pumpkin” was stripped of his rank and relegated to Jerusalem on Justin’sorders, where he went into hidinginfear of assassination: HA ..  See A. Kaldellis,Introduction, in idem, Prokopios:the Secret History with related texts. Indianapolis /Cambridge ,vii–lix: xxxv–xl.  Procopius sparinglyapplies ὀδύρεσθαι tout court,but he does so in contexts in which griev- ing is vocalized and performed overtly, by individuals as wellasgroups: Wars .. (of Pom- peius bewailinghis treatment followingthe suppression of the Nikarebellion), .. (of An- tonina feigning complaints about Justinian), .. (of AbgarofEdessa), .. (of the Vandal reaction to the flight of Gelimer), ..,  (of the Gothic besiegers of Rome), .. (of the imperial armylamentingthe death of Chorsamantis); HA . (of Justinian feigning grief over the murder of Callinicus). It will be noticed that the wordisonlyused descriptively in the nar- ratorial voice.  Van Nuffelen,Wor(l)ds (as footnote  above), –,analyzing material other than that examined here, finds that “in the Wars speechlessness is acipher for alack of control of reality. This shows,inturn, that languageisthe medium through which control is exercised.” 1022 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung

The Wars deploys these signals counterintuitively,linking the subjective ex- periences of the officials who bear the unwelcome responsibility for prosecuting the Vandal Warwith those of the Vandals who are swept up in it.The effect is to humanizethe twogroups by demonstrating their mutualvulnerability and falli- bility and, by making such an improbable associationbetween them, to univer- salize their plight.Procopius’ audience of reader-spectators, who are uninvolved in and insulated from the events that are the focus of the historian’sline of in- quiry,are nevertheless implicated in the narrative by their shared humanity, equipping them to appreciatethe consequences and the costs of the ensuing conflict.Atthe same time, the Wars also insists upon the particularity and the contingency of the events it relates by disclosing the limits of narratability and denying to its audience access to the unmediated and inarticulate griefs of the Vandals at Bulla Regia, on one hand, and to the unfathomable pathologies ani- mating John the Cappadocian, on the other. The affected artlessness of the Secret History,whereProclus’ intervention on behalf of Theodatus is concerned, throws into stark relief the artfulaffectations of the Wars,whereJohn the Cappadocian’sintervention in opposition to the Van- dal expedition is concerned. The formerepisode is ademonstration of breaking silence that,tothe extent that it speaks truth to power franklywithout classiciz- ing embellishments, crystallizes the largertruth-telling claims of the Secret His- tory and represents in miniature the work of which it is apart.¹²² The correspond- ing proposition, thatthe debate over the Vandal expedition is arepresentation in miniature of the Wars,bringstothe fore John the Cappadocian’smuch more self- subverting invocation of παρρησία and the distortingeffects of the work’sclas- sicizing structures and allusions.Ifthe quaestor Proclus is at this moment an avatar and an icon of the narrator of the Secret History,might the same be said for John the Cappadocian and the narrator of the Wars? The foregoing discussion has indicted John for committingaso-called “allu- sive malapropism,”¹²³ by echoing infelicitouslythe speech of the Corinthians in the conference at Sparta in book one of Thucydides, the form and content of which are ill-suited for John’sconflicted and self-serving purposes. While char- acters embedded in the narrative are insensible of this mismatch, culturalcapital and critical distance equip impliedorinscribed readersofthe Wars to recognize how the narrative stylizesits representation of the events in question. No less

 The SecretHistory is not without learned allusions,notably to Aristophanes:see Kaldellis, Introduction (as footnote  above), xxxvi–xxxviii.  See Section IV supra. C. Pazdernik, Breaking silence … 1023 culpable for perpetrating an allusive malapropism, however,isthe Procopian narrator of the Wars,who is responsible for pressingJohn into the ill-fitting role of the Herodotean wise advisor,casting the Cappadocian as an Artabanus manqué.¹²⁴ The difficulties and the dissonances that Procopius’ readers experi- ence in attemptingtoreconcile the messenger with the messageare the product of this mismatch, which has to be appreciated as an aspect of the literary design of the Wars that demonstrates the relationship between the work’sclassicizing style and its politically sensitivecontent and context.¹²⁵ Aboveall, it is the Secret History’sexample of playing the “wise advisor” templatestraight that exposes its counterpartinthe Wars as aparodyofthat template, inasmuchassober and straight-talking Proclus is parodied by clever and daring John. The gulf that separates these two figures measures the distance and differencethat the Secret History constructs between itself as asilence- breakingexposé and the necessarilyless candidand forthcoming Wars,and again between the narrator of the Secret History and the narrator of the Wars:

The Secret History :the Wars The narrator of the Secret History :the narrator of the Wars Proclus in the Secret History¹²⁶ :Johninthe Wars

To the extent that the narrator of the Wars is implicated in John’srhetorical subtletyand its problematic relationship to historical truth, he nevertheless re- pudiates John’sruthlessness by confessinghis inability to fathom the depths of John’sdepravity. This suggestion – that, at the moment at which John the Cappadocian inter- cedes in the deliberations over the prospective invasion of Vandal North Africa, he serves as afiguration or arepresentation in miniature of the Procopiannar- rator of the Wars – is ameaningful inversion of the tired and inconclusive debate

 On Artabanus as anarratorial alter egoofHerodotus,see I.J. F. de Jong,Herodotus, in eadem /Nünlist /Bowie, Narrators (as footnote  above), –: –.  CompareKaldellis,Procopius’ Vandal War(as footnote  above), : “One work was a narrative,the other an argument. … Fear restricted the Wars;hostility energized the SecretHis- tory.” Contrast S. Constantinou,Violence in the palace: rituals of imperial punishment in Pro- kopios’ Secret History,inA.Beihammer /eadem /M.Parani (eds.), Court ceremonies and rituals of powerinByzantium and the medieval Mediterranean: comparative perspectives. Leiden , –: ,for whominthe Secret History, “Prokopiosshows himself as awhollyun- reliableand absurd interpreter of his own work,” but whomischaracterizes,inmyview,the Wars as apanegyric of Justinian together with the Buildings.  It must be borne in mind that Proclusisrepresentedasanembedded character in the Wars: see footnote  supra. 1024 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung over whether John serves as aspokesman for the views of the historical Proco- pius, which could not be statedopenlywhile the principals werealive.Whether the Wars figures John as aspokesman for its author,this is to say, is alesspro- ductive question than whether it figures its narrator as an ironic and rueful coun- terpart of John. Those who would positthat the Wars dissimulatesthe settled judgmentsofits author about historical truth within asilence of their own, the trace of which is marked in the text by John’ssilence-breaking speech, must first address the work’sall too plausible depiction of aworldinwhich judg- ments about the present,the past,and the future are situational, provisional, and revisable¹²⁷ – aworld, that is, of varnished truths, in which the narrator of the Wars is ineluctablyenmeshed.¹²⁸

 CompareVan Nuffelen,Wor(l)ds (as footnote  above), ,for whom the Wars is “anar- rative that insists on the gapbetween world and word, and this both on the level of the repre- sentation of events (the Wars themselves) as on the level of man’saction in the world (the events described in the narrative).”  This essayincorporates elements of apaper (“Conflict aversion in Procopius of Caesarea”) that Iwas invited to deliveratthe XXIII Finnish Symposium on LateAntiquity, “Conflictinlate antiquity,” in October ,but which Iwas obliged to withdrawdue to adisablingpersonal injury.Let me acknowledge with heartfeltthanks the support and encouragement Ireceived at the time from the organizers,especiallyVille Vuolanto, and subsequentlyfromBronwen Neil. Ialso acknowledge with gratitude the sound adviceofMichael Maas and the constructive suggestions of the twoanonymous readers for BZ.