Editing Procopius (section)

== Interpretations of Procopius' works ==
Procopius is generally believed to be aligned with the senatorial ranks that disagreed with Justinian's tax policy (''Secret History'' 12.12-14).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Grau |first1=Sergi |last2=Febrer |first2=Oriol |date=2020-08-01 |title=Procopius on Theodora: ancient and new biographical patterns |journal=Byzantinische Zeitschrift |language=en |volume=113 |issue=3 |pages=779–780 |doi=10.1515/bz-2020-0034 |s2cid=222004516 |issn=1868-9027|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Evans |first=James Allan |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.7560/721050 |title=The Empress Theodora |date=2002 |publisher=University of Texas Press |isbn=978-0-292-79895-3 |pages=x|doi=10.7560/721050 }}</ref> Overtime, Procopius' initial optimism may have been replaced by his disillusionment with Belisarius and increasing dislike of Justinian.{{sfn|Tougher|1996|p=206}}

It has also been argued that Procopius prepared the ''Secret History'' as an exaggerated document out of fear that a conspiracy might overthrow Justinian's regime, which{{mdash}}as a kind of court historian{{mdash}}might be reckoned to include him. The unpublished manuscript would then have been an insurance that could be offered to the new ruler as a way to avoid punishment. If this hypothesis is correct, the ''Secret History'' would not be proof that Procopius hated Justinian or Theodora.<ref>Cf. Börm (2015).</ref>

[[Anthony Kaldellis]] suggests that the ''Secret History'' tells the dangers of "the rule of women". For Procopius, it was not that women could not lead an empire, but only women demonstrating masculine virtues could.{{sfn|Kaldellis|2004|pp=144-147}} According to Averil Cameron, the definition of "feminine" behavior in the sixth century would be described as "intriguing" and "interfering".{{sfn|Cameron|1985|pp=68–69}} At his core, Procopius wanted to preserve the social order.{{efn|Henning Börm described this social order as a "social hierarchy: people stood over animals, freemen stood over slaves, men stood over eunuchs, and men stood over women. Whenever Procopius denounces the alleged breach of these rules, he is following the rules of historiography."{{sfn|Stewart|2020|p=173}}}}

Cameron makes a case that all of his works form a continuous, unified discourse, rather than being contradictory to one another.{{sfn|Tougher|1996|p=205}} In her view, Procopius was a better reporter than a historian, whose strength lay in descriptions rather than analyses.{{sfn|Cameron|1985|pp=241}} She argues that his vision is too black-and-white and remains almost silent on theological and ecclesiastical debates.{{sfn|Cameron|1985|pp=227–229}} However, Shaun Tougher notes Procopius' intention to write an ecclesiastical history, which may have provided a more holistic picture of his time, and argues that Procopius should not be assessed as negatively.{{sfn|Tougher|1996|pp=206, 209}}