Procopius of Caesarea: biography, contribution to science, works. Procopius at the center of political events

Procopius of Caesarea is the largest historian of the early Byzantine period. Relatively little is known about his biography. Procopius was born at the end of the 5th century. in the East, in the Palestinian Caesarea. Having received an excellent education, Procopius moved to Constantinople, where in 527 he became secretary and legal adviser to the famous commander Belisarius. Procopius accompanied Belisarius during the Vandal War of 533–534, the war with the Ostrogoths (from 535) and campaigns against the Persians. Procopius died most likely in the 560s, although the exact time of his death is not known.

Major works of Procopius

The value of the historical works of Procopius of Caesarea is created primarily by the fact that he was always in the thick of political events, was familiar with many prominent sovereigns and commanders of his time. One of the most important works of Procopius is "History" in 8 books (another name is "History of Justinian's Wars with Persians, Vandals and Goths"). It recounts the events of the wars of the era of Justinian I. Separate parts of this work are sometimes published under the titles “War with the Vandals” and “War with the Ostrogoths”, etc. “History” of Procopius is not built in chronological order, but by country, by military theater. Her first two books tell about the wars with the Persians, in 3 and 4 - about the wars with the Vandals, in 5, 6 and 7 - with the Goths. These seven parts were published around 550-551, and after 554 the author also published the 8th book, which is, as it were, an appendix to the first seven, giving a general overview of the events of 554. Procopius goes far beyond military history. He put into this work his broadest life observations. North Africa and Italy, Spain and the Balkans, Iran and even distant countries South-East Asia.

Emperor Justinian with retinue

The fruit of deep reflection, the struggle of political and personal passions was the second most important work of Procopius of Caesarea - “ secret history"- the only work of its kind in all of Byzantine historiography. Written in deep secrecy, it reveals with complete frankness (and, according to many, with exaggeration) the vices of the empire and its rulers, which were passed over in silence in the official works of Procopius, where Justinian I is portrayed as the good genius of the empire and a generous ruler. In The Secret History, Justinian, on the contrary, is portrayed as a villain on the throne, an inexorable tyrant, an evil demon, the destroyer of Byzantium. The caustic satirical "Secret History" appeared after the death of Procopius. Its real name is "Jokes". Procopius here depicts in extremely gloomy colors the despotism of Justinian and the depravity of his wife Theodora. They also fire stinging arrows at Belisarius and his wife Antonina. These vehement attacks are in stark contrast to the reserved tone of the Histories of Wars, which is why there has been a debate in scholarly literature for several centuries about whether Procopius really was the author of the Secret History. In the 16th-18th centuries, this dispute was complicated by the enmity of Catholic and Protestant historiographers. The first of the hostility to the Orthodox East and to Justinian as one of its major statesmen tendentiously defended the authenticity of the "Secret History". The Protestants rejected it only because of their religious rivalry with the Catholics. The famous Montesquieu and Gibbon stood for the authenticity of the Anecdotes and the reliability of the information contained in them. The same point of view was taken by the best researcher of Procopius of Caesarea, Dan. In an extensive monograph on Procopius, based on a comparative criticism of all his writings, Dan showed that neither the main facts nor the language in the Secret History and the History of Wars differ. Dan, however, admitted that The Secret History may contain some exaggerations, explained by the passionate nature of the historian. It is possible that The Secret History is a personal memoir of Procopius, unpublished during his lifetime, in which he gave vent to indignation that had long been hidden from the court under the guise of flattery. Another famous historian, Leopold Ranke, considered The Secret History to be a compilation, where some parts belonged to Procopius himself, while others were borrowed from a pamphlet written after the death of Justinian I in the spirit of opposition to the ended reign. A prominent English historian, Bury, joined Ranke, but their interpretation was criticized by many other scholars.

The third work of Procopius of Caesarea - "On buildings of Justinian” - written in a completely different tone than The Secret History. It is distinguished by a flattering tone and exaggerated praise of the emperor. It is believed that Procopius wanted to mitigate with this book the displeasure of the court at his History of Wars, where restrained phrases often barely mask subtle irony. For all its strained doxology, the treatise “On Buildings” is a very important opus due to the abundance of material on geography, ethnography and the state economy of Byzantium in the 6th century.

Worldview of Procopius

Despite everything, the enormous literary talent, extensive erudition, familiarity with military life, geography and ethnography, proximity to the court and to the theater of the events depicted put Procopius of Caesarea in one of the highest places in medieval historiography. The high-ranking courtier Procopius saw the world through the prism of acute conflicts between states and peoples, the rulers of Byzantium and barbarian kings. On him, as a writer, lies the seal of the transition from pagan antiquity to the Christian Middle Ages. By language historical technology, critical methods, literary tastes and worldview Procopius, like most of his contemporary Byzantine writers, still stands on the basis of ancient classics. He imitates Herodotus and especially Thucydides, even copying from last word and phrases. Procopius also borrows ideas from his ancient predecessors - for example, the idea of ​​fate (tyuche). It does not quite coincide with Christian teleology, but this spiritual conflict does not cause any particular conflicts in Procopius. In his face, the old antique Hellenic, as it were, is combined with a Christian of the Middle Ages.

A sharply critical attitude towards modernity and a somewhat rational praising of the ancient, extinct grandeur of Rome makes Procopius related to his famous older contemporary, Ammianus Marcellinus. Both Ammianus and Procopius expressed the views of the noble senatorial aristocracy: the first - the old Rome, the second - the new Rome, on the Bosphorus. Procopius - a high-ranking ambitious man - despises the people and extols the aristocracy. The stamp of being chosen for him is always associated with the nobility of origin, the antiquity of the family. He dreams of power and wealth. Procopius is more of a politician than a writer. In his writings, the politician is always in the first place, and the moralist is only in the second place.

Empress Theodora, heroine of The Secret History

The state ideal of Procopius of Caesarea is a monarchy limited by the will of the Senate, composed of the highest aristocracy. The powerful but skeptical mind of Procopius castigates the innate defects of man. He descends with pleasure into the very abyss of the human soul, shows base passions, depravity, adultery, jealousy, self-interest, envy, moral corruption of his heroes.

Features of the literary style

The story of Procopius is dynamic, colorful. The narrative flows freely and uninhibited. Procopius freely changes the time and place of the action, introduces inserted novels, digressions, tragic scenes, heroism, hyperbolization, poisonous mockery and the grotesque. He is looking in history not for its ashes, but for fire. Moralizing is alien to his skeptical mind and bilious temperament. His philosophy is imbued with deep pessimism, and his outlook is gloomy and skeptical. The fatalist Procopius believes in the unconditional and formidable power of blind fate, which acts according to a whim and arbitrariness that is unpredictable for people. The poisonous, insightful, sophisticated mind of Procopius of Caesarea subtly notices not the good qualities, but the vices of people. Procopius is a strong personality, but torn apart by powerful passions. Under the guise of a cold courtier, he lived in an extreme ambitious man, overwhelmed by a thirst for power. Procopius is not inclined to reflection and inactivity. It is always a matter, an impulse, a struggle. Procopius does not forgive insults and is merciless to enemies. But, denouncing hypocrisy, he himself is a hypocrite.

Literature about Procopius of Caesarea

V. S. Teiffel "Research and Characteristics" (Leipzig, 1871)

F. Dan "Procopius of Caesarea"

L. von Ranke "World History" (Volume 4)

Debidur "Empress Theodora", 1885

Bury, A History of the Late Roman Empire (London, 1889)

On the "Secret History" see also the articles by A. Dimitriu (in the Chronicle of the Historical and Philological Society at the Imperial Novorossiysk University for 1892) and B. Panchenko ("Byzantine Vremennik", 2, 1895).

Russian translations of Procopius

Procopius of Caesarea. "A History of the Wars of the Romans with the Persians, Vandals and Goths". Translated by S. Destunis. Book. 1, 2. St. Petersburg, 1876-80.

Procopius. "Secret History". Translation by S. P. Kondratiev. Bulletin of ancient history, 1938. No. 4.

Procopius. "About Buildings". Translation by S. P. Kondratiev. Bulletin of ancient history, 1939. No. 4.

Procopius. "War with the Goths". Per. S. P. Kondratiev. M., 1950.

Procopius of Caesarea. "War with the Persians. War with vandals. Secret History. Translation and comments by A. A. Chekalova. Series "Monuments historical thought". M., 1993.

Procopius, historian

(Προκόπιος) - the most important historian of the early Byzantine era; was born at the end of the 5th century. in Palestinian Caesarea. Having received an excellent rhetorical and legal education, he moved to the capital and took (527) the place of secretary and legal adviser to Belisarius, whom he accompanied in 533 on a campaign against the Vandals. In 536, P. accompanied Belisarius on a campaign in Italy against the Goths, and then to the East, against the Persians. The year of P.'s death is unknown; he probably died in the sixties of the sixth century. This almost exhausts the meager biographical information about P. Of his writings, the most important of all is the "History" (Ίστορικόν) consisting of 2 unequal parts in 8 books, better known as the "History of Wars". The events are presented here not in chronological order, but by country, as in Appian: the first 2 books tell about the wars with the Persians, in 3 and 4 - about the wars with the Vandals, in 5, 6 and 7 - with the Goths. This part of the Histories appeared around 550-551. The 8th book, published by the author after 554, is, as it were, an appendix to the first 7 books and is devoted to a general review of events up to this year. P. goes far beyond the scope of military history; his work is the most precious monument of the era of Justinian the Great. Previously, the Historicon was mistakenly considered an extensive biography of Belisarius; if the figure of the commander and occupies central position in the story, this is due to his outstanding merits and enormous popularity. Very interesting, although not always free from exaggeration, are the exposures of various aspects of court life and politics of that time, given in the caustic satirical "Secret History" (Historia arcana) compiled around 550, but published after the death of P. (Historia arcana; this name is rooted in recent times; in the Svyda dictionary it is called Άνέκδοτα). In this work, P. draws in extremely dark colors the despotism of Justinian and the depravity of Theodora; also goes to Belisarius and his wife. These vehement attacks are strange when compared with the restrained tone of the Histories. Perhaps these are secret memoirs of P., in which he gave vent to a feeling of indignation, which for a long time, for obvious reasons, was hidden under the guise of flattery and praise. From the time of the first edition of "Anecdota" (Alemannus, 1623) until recently, the scientific literature did not stop arguing about the authenticity of the content of this treatise and about P.'s copyright. Since Catholic priests and their opponents Protestants took part in this dispute, and then lawyers joined him, the dispute took on a tendentious character. The papists defended the authenticity of the "Anecdota" out of dislike for one of the greatest figures of the Orthodox East; the Protestants opposed them under the pressure of the Reformation struggle; lawyers, out of admiration for the legislative and political genius of Justinian, indignantly rejected the harsh and often dirty revelations. Alemannus, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Teuffel stood for the authenticity of the "Anecdota" and the authenticity of the facts given there. The best researcher P., Dan, joined this direction. In his extensive monograph on P., based on a detailed study of the facts and comparative criticism of all the writings attributed to P., as well as Thucydides, who served him as a model, Dan comes to the conclusion that neither the facts, despite the apparent contrast, nor the language in the Anecdotes and "Historicone" do not diverge. The exaggerations of the Anecdotes are explained, in his opinion, by the passionate character of the historian (Gibbon also thought so). Less successful is L. Ranke's attempt to consider "Anecdota" as a compilation, in which some parts belonged to P. himself, while others were borrowed from the Great Pamphlet that appeared after the death of Justinian, expressing the views of the awakened reaction against the ended reign, and the compiler deliberately covered himself big name historian. The English historian Bury joined Ranke; this hypothesis was refuted by Haury. Ranke went even further than A. Dimitriou, completely denying the copyright of P. The pamphlet, in his opinion, is composed of 2 independent parts; the first part, directed against Belisarius, arose in 548 under the influence of Narses; the second, directed against Justinian and his wife Theodora, was written in 559 and is only externally connected with the first. Most recently, B. Panchenko again revised the history of the issue and came to conclusions confirming Dan's subtle analysis. P.'s third work, "On the Buildings of Justinian" (Περί κτισμάτων), is notable for its flattering tone and exaggerated praise of the emperor. This is the prototype of the Byzantine panegyric, which blossomed so magnificently at the court of the Komnenos and Palaiologoi. It can be assumed that the historian wanted to mitigate with this essay the court's displeasure at his "History of Wars", where caustic irony is often poorly hidden under a restrained phrase. For all its rhetoric, the treatise on buildings is, however, an important monument due to the abundance of material contained in it on geography, ethnography and the state economy of Byzantium in the 6th century. Enormous literary talent, extensive erudition, familiarity with military life, geography and ethnography, proximity to the court and the theater of the events depicted, objectivity of presentation - all this puts P. on highest place in medieval historiography. On it lies the seal of the transition from pagan antiquity to the Christian Middle Ages. In terms of language, historical technique, critical techniques, literary tastes, and worldview, P., like most of his contemporary Byzantine writers, still stands on the basis of the classical tradition. Lovingly imitating Herodotus, and especially Thucydides, he borrows expressions from the last word; the pursuit of a brilliant phrase often damages the essence of the story. In the VI century. ancient Greek was not yet dead; this significantly influenced the clarity and beauty of the P style. Only confusion in the use of conjunctions and moods indicates the onset of a new period in the language. Along with words and expressions, P. also borrows ideas from his antique samples, for example, the idea of ​​fate (τίχη), which, when faced with Christian theism, does not cause any spiritual collisions in the author. In the person of P., the ancient Greeks united with the medieval believing Christian.

Editions."Secret ist." published by N. Alemannus (1623), I. Eichelius (1654), Orelli (1827), Isambert (1856; uncritical). complete collection writings P. in the Paris collection of Byzantine authors made the Jesuit Maltretus (1662-63; unsatisfactory.). This edition was repeated in Venice (1729). The Bonn collection (Corpus) of Byzantine writers included the edition of G. Dindorf "a (1833-38). A critical edition of the Gothic War with an Italian translation is published in Rome by D. Camparetti (Volume I was published in 1895). A complete critical edition not yet, but is being prepared by I. Haury for the Teibner publishing house in Leipzig From a mass of Latin, Italian, German, French and English transfers issued, except for the said Camparetti translation, an earlier Italian translation Rossi and Compagnoni (in "Collana degli autichi scrittori greci volgarizzati", Milan, 1828-30), french translation"Gothic War" G. Paradin (1578), "Vandal and Gothic Wars" - Sieur de Genillè (1587), "Persian and Vandal Wars" - L. de Mauger (1669-70), "Άνέκδοτα" in ed. Isambert, German translation of "The Wars" Fr. Kannengiesser "a (1827-31) and "Jokes" - I. R. Reinhard "a (1753), beautiful Russian translation"History of wars with the Persians" Speer. Destunis, published in 1862 by G. Destunis and published in the second edition, with an excellent commentary by G. Destunis, in 1862 and 1880. The Russian translation of the "Vandal War" was limited to only the first book (St. Petersburg, 1891).

Literature about P. carefully collected from K. Krumbacher "a ("Geschichte der byzant. Litteratur", 2nd ed., Munich, 1897). Particularly important: W. S. Teuffel, "Studien und Charakteristiken" (Leipzig, 1871, 2nd ed., 1889); F Dahn, "Procopius von Caesarea" (B., 1865, the most important manual), L. v. Ranke, "Weltgeschichte" (IV, 2, "Analecta"); Debidour, "L" empératrice Theodora "(1885); Mallet, "The empress Theodora" ("The english hist. review", 2, 1887); Bury, "A history of the later Roman empire" (I, 1889); I. Haury, "Procopiana" (Augsburg, 1891); H. Braun, "Procopius Caes. quatenus imitatus sit Thucididem" (Erlangen, 1885); V. G. Vasilevsky, "Review of Works on Byzantine History" ("J. M. H. Pr.", 1887). On the "Secret History", see also the articles by A. Dimitriou (in the Chronicle of the Historical and Phil. General at the Imperial Novoross. Univ. for 189?, byzant. department) and B. Panchenko ("Byzant. Vremennik" , 2, 1895).

A. Gottlieb.

Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

Procopius of Caesarea, Prokopios, from Caesarea Palestine, c. 490 560 n. e., Greek historian and rhetorician. A jurist, from 527 he was secretary and adviser to Belisarius, whom he accompanied on all campaigns. With Belisarius, he went to conquer ... ... Ancient writers

Caesarea (about 500 after 565), Byzantine historian writer. Advisor to Belisarius, who accompanied him on campaigns. He wrote the History of the Wars of Justinian, a flattering treatise On the buildings of Justinian, a Secret History full of sharp attacks on the imperial ... Modern Encyclopedia

- (c. 500 after 565) Byzantine historian writer. Advisor to Belisarius, who accompanied him on campaigns. He wrote the History of the Wars of Justinian, a flattering treatise On the buildings of Justinian and full of sharp attacks on the imperial couple, the Secret History ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (Procopius, Προχοπιος). A historian who lived in Constantinople in the VI century AD and left several historical writings about the reign of Justinian V. (

The writer Procopius of Caesarea is a man thanks to whom the modern reader can learn in detail about the VI century. Until now, no one has succeeded better than him in describing and assessing that era.

Origin

The Syrian Procopius of Caesarea was born at the end of the 5th century. Exact date his birth is unknown due to insufficient sources. However, he is known hometown- This is Caesarea, located in Palestine. Among other things, it was also science Center with many schools. Therefore, Procopius of Caesarea received an excellent classical education, which allowed him to advance in his service. Not the last role was played by personal qualities this person. He was distinguished by his quickness of mind and ingenuity.

Most likely, Procopius of Caesarea was from an aristocratic family of senators. Firstly, it also allowed him to easily enter the state administrative system of Byzantium. Secondly, in his writings he spoke in detail about the bureaucracy of the Empire and compared it with the Roman system. These parallels are not accidental. In 376, the united Roman Empire split into two parts. The eastern half became Byzantium. The western one soon perished under the onslaught of the barbarians. Soon Greek culture and language triumphed in the east. It also changed the state system. Roman laws and models were reformatted to fit the new realities. Procopius, on the other hand, was a supporter of the old models that appeared in the Eternal City.

public service

One way or another, but he managed to quickly advance in the service. In 527, Emperor Justinian (one of the most successful and famous rulers of Constantinople) appointed him advisor and secretary to Flavius ​​Belisarius. It was the main commander of the state and the right hand of the ruler. Of course, no one could be appointed to such a position. The historian Procopius of Caesarea already enjoyed an unquestioned reputation in his midst.

Participation in important events of the era

Thanks to his position, the secretary of Belisarius was able to witness the most significant and major events of that era. At the end of the 20s of the VI century, he visited Persia, with which Byzantium had a war. A few years later, in the capital of the empire, Constantinople, an unprecedented uprising of Nika broke out. Procopius of Caesarea saw him with his own eyes. The works of the historian were devoted to the events that he encountered on his life path.

Such, for example, was the Byzantine campaign against the Vandal kingdom in North Africa. While Belisarius led the armies to storm the cities of the enemy, his secretary carefully recorded everything that happened, so that later he could use this material in his deep and interesting books.

The Vandals were barbarians who destroyed the Western Roman Empire. In addition to them, other peoples settled on its ruins. Such were the Goths who settled in Italy. With them, Belisarius fought two wars, in which Procopius of Caesarea was also. The biography of the historian was full of amazing events, fraught with dangers. In 540, he again found himself at war with the Persians, who invaded Syria. And after this campaign, a deadly plague epidemic broke out in Constantinople.

The key advantage of Procopius over other researchers of that era was his high-ranking status. He had access to secret documents and correspondence between Belisarius and Justinian. The historian also established himself as a diplomat, as he was present at every meeting with foreign rulers with whom wars were fought and truces were concluded.

The writer's broad horizons

Procopius of Caesarea died in Constantinople in 565. He spent his last years processing the vast amount of material he had accumulated during his service. Thanks to his education, he possessed all the skills of an excellent writer. This helped him write many books, most of which have been translated into Russian.

In the work of Procopius, references to ancient authors constantly slip through. There is no doubt that he was a well-read man and knew Thucydides, Homer, Xenophon and Herodotus. Also, the writer was well versed in Greek history which helped him in describing the provinces. He was strong in ancient mythology, which by that time had already become a vestige of the past (in the state official religion was Christianity. This was a great success, since in most of the empire the study of paganism was already, if not punished, then not encouraged. At home, they continued to explore the legacy of the past, which Procopius of Caesarea also did. A photo of the ruins of his city suggests that it was a flourishing place, where there were all conditions for obtaining versatile knowledge - from philosophy to history.

"History of Wars"

Most of all, Procopius is known for his eight-volume work under the general title "History of Wars". Each part describes a specific conflict in the Byzantine era of Justinian. This living chronicle, which the writer kept, ends with the events of 552.

Altogether, eight volumes can be divided into a trilogy that describes the war against the Persians, Vandals and Goths. At the same time, in the world publishing practice, a tradition has developed to print each section separately. This in no way violates the logical order of the narrative, since in general these works were written separately, although they described one era.

The signature style of the writer was scale. He talked about every war with detailed descriptions the region where it took place. In addition to geographical features, Procopius explored the history and ethnic composition each edge. During his lifetime, the "History of Wars" and "On Buildings" were published. Thanks to these books, the author became the patriarch of Byzantine history. Contemporaries deservedly compared him with Herodotus.

"Secret History"

There are two more famous works Procopius: "On Buildings" and "The Secret History". After its publication, it caused a lot of scandals.

What did Procopius of Caesarea want to say in his Secret History? In it, he described all the same events of his era, but this time he viewed them from a completely different angle. If the reader studies the History of Wars and The Secret History, he may get the feeling that the author writes in the first book according to the official point of view on events. But in The Secret History, he did not shy away from criticizing the first persons of the empire.

The duality of Procopius

Due to the lack of known biography facts, Procopius may seem inconsistent, as if he does not have his own position. Nevertheless, most of the researchers of his works agree that the writer did not like Justinian's regime, and wrote his "official" books in order not to conflict with the authorities. But even this does not negate the fact that this is literature of the highest quality with detailed descriptions that are no longer in any source of this time.

Political engagement did not in any way damage the quality of the material, the author of which was Procopius of Caesarea. A brief biography of the author can make it clear that he was well versed in what he wrote about. Especially vividly and interestingly, he described the life and life of the barbarian tribes - Germans and Slavs, who were in contact with Byzantium. This material is especially valuable, since nothing remains of those customs and norms, and they can only be restored from similar sources.

Description of the life of the barbarians

What prompted Procopius of Caesarea to tackle this issue in such detail? First, it's about its origin. He was a Syrian and Hellenized only with time, accepting Greek norms and language as a loyal subject of the empire. That is, from early childhood, he grew up in an environment of different cultures, adjacent to each other.

Secondly, Procopius studied the languages ​​and customs of foreign peoples for practical purposes. Since he worked at the headquarters of the army in the field, he needed to know as much as possible about the enemy. This may explain the fact that he describes the history of the barbarians or Persians in such detail. Thanks to excursions into the past, the author showed the reader how an incomprehensible and alien society lives and interacts, where completely non-Byzantine orders reign. For example, this is very well seen in the example of the Gothic nobility, which Procopius described in detail.

He himself became a witness of their relationship and visited the settlements of the Slavs and Germans. In this he compares favorably with, for example, Tacitus, who wrote his historical works without leaving his office (although they high quality also hard to argue). And yet, only the Byzantine secretary can find his corporate style, which enlivened the pictures of the life and life of distant peoples, which was not the case with other authors.

"About Buildings"

This book is a unique piece. Despite the specificity and dryness of the language, the work remains a unique source for historians, archaeologists and people who are simply interested in the past. In the book, Procopius describes all the building activities of the Justinian era.
At the same time, it experienced its brightest flowering. The wealth and security of the treasury allowed the ruler to invest in the most ambitious projects of his time.

This is what Procopius describes. Most of his attention is paid, of course, to the capital of the empire - Constantinople, where the "construction of the century" unfolded. The author also managed, against the background of his textural material, to speculate about the internal and foreign policy states.

Procopius of Caesarea (c. 500-560s) should be considered the central figure of early Byzantine historiography. He was the author of numerous voluminous works in the genre of historical prose: his "Histories", or "Wars", include two volumes of descriptions of the wars with Sasanian Iran (530-532, 540-549), two volumes of wars with the Vandals (533-534 ), three - with the Goths (535-550) and are completed with one more book. The construction activity of Justinian is devoted to the essay “On Buildings”. Procopius is referred to, his texts are used, compiled, quoted by all subsequent generations of Byzantine historians up to the XIV-XV centuries. But the point is not only in the volume of what Procopius wrote and not only in the uniqueness of his historical evidence, which is of exceptional importance for the historian. The ambiguity of his personality as an author is interesting: sustained in the spirit of political orthodoxy, his main historical works contrast sharply with another very important book of his. This is the so-called "Secret History", in which the disclosure of the true essence of the events described, praised in official historiography, comes to the brink of a political pamphlet.
Like many early Byzantine writers, Procopius came from the east - he was born in Palestine, in Caesarea Stratonova, in a noble, apparently, family, and his education - rhetorical and, possibly, legal - was also received in one of the main centers of culture of the Byzantine East - in Beirut. His later life - secretary, adviser, envoy - is closely connected with the fate of the powerful commander Belisarius, with whom Procopius happened to go around many lands - Sicily, Carthage in Africa, Italy, participate in numerous wars and diplomatic negotiations - with vandals, Goths, Persians. Naturally, Belisarius becomes the protagonist of Procopius' Wars; his victories are presented as decisive for the fate of the state, and his failures are excusable.
On the contrary, the Emperor Justinian, perceived by the writer who was part of the circle of the highest senatorial aristocracy, most likely as a parvenu, is evaluated in much more restrained tones, and in The Secret History he is sharply criticized. Moreover, Justinian here appears not only to be the culprit of the misfortunes of the barbarian invasions, but also almost the cause of natural disasters.
However, for all the sharpness of his assessments, Procopius is fully committed to the idea of ​​the exclusivity of imperial power in Byzantium. Indeed, the Byzantine conquests under Justinian again pushed the limits of ro-

Emperor Justinian I with retinue.
Mosaic of the Temple of San Vitale. Mid 6th century Ravenna

its borders almost to the size of the Roman Empire of Augustus: Italy, North Africa, and Asia Minor, and Armenia.
Essential for assessing the worldview of the historian is that he saw the lands and events he wrote himself: the principle of autopsy was the basis of “truth” for him - main goal historical knowledge, "but to the author's statement (1.1,3), who contrasted "myth" and "history" in the spirit of ancient -rddipy (VIII. 1.13). odes, their customs, distant lands; Procopius brought to us unique information about the ancient Slavs - Slavs and Ants.
The ancient topic of archaized ethnonymy and figurative stereotypy of Procopius - a tribute to the literary norms of historical writing - does not contradict the reality of eyewitness accounts: the etiquette of the use of words in the description of the "ethnic portrait" of a barbarian is only set off by "external individual details noticed by the historian in the phenomenon being mentioned. This is a visible contradiction is removed if we take into account the principle of mimesis (imitation) of ancient prose samples cultivated by Procopius as a learned writer. Numerous parallels or hidden quotations from Herodotus and Thucydides, his stylistic asceticism do not turn the description of the plague into a fictional fiction (cf. Thucydides' analogue) or idealization of the barbarian world (cf. the Scythian digression of Herodotus).
But Procopius, a contemporary and participant in the restoration of imperial borders, the strengthening of state power, the formation of the ideology of the supreme power of the Byzantine emperor, in a word, a witness to the growth of the power of the strong monarch Justinian, on the contrary, is imbued with skepticism, criticism, and is not inclined to unambiguously praise power and weapons. Procopius was one of the first historians to write special forms criticism of emperors in the conditions of Byzantine political uniformitarianism. Most likely, this also met the requirements for revealing the "truth" of the historical process, declared by the author of "Wars". For all the traditionalism of the idea of ​​Roman statehood in Procopius, he actually condemns the Justinian policy of reconquista. This also explains his conciliatory mood towards the world of "barbarians".
As an eyewitness and contemporary of the events described, Procopius reports on the course of the so-called Gothic War of Justinian I, on the strengthening of the Danube limes of Byzantium, on its destruction by the leader of the "Scythians and Massagets" Attila. Largest number evidence concerns the Huns, the so-called "White Huns", or Ephthalites, describes campaigns in the North Caucasus, in the region of Meotida (Sea of ​​Azov). The Caucasian Huns, called "Massagets", are often identified with the Sabirs. The Hunnic conquests, according to Procopius, capture the Crimea as well. The conclusion of a peace treaty with the Huns in the city of Bosporus (modern Kerch) by Emperor Justin I in 523 is also described. The events of the history of the peoples who inhabited the northern coast of the Black Sea are described in detail. The North Pontic and Azov peoples, whom Procopius knows from the stories of the participants in the Gothic embassy of 547/48 to Emperor Justinian, are called "Cimmerians" and are identified with the Utigurs and Kutigurs. The Utigurs are localized to the east of the Don and near the Sea of ​​Azov, the Kutigurs - to the west. One of the Hunnic tribes is called "Massagets". Procopius gives everyday sketches of the character, customs, attire and fashion of the Huns, military tactics Sabirs, customs of other peoples of Eastern Europe. Information about the "barbarians", to whom the writer treats with apprehension, but without hostility, should be considered generally quite reliable. In addition to personal observations, oral stories of ambassadors, merchants, mercenaries, Procopius also uses historical works - Priscus of Panius, Eustathius of Epiphany, maps, reports, letters, and other materials from ancient archives. The most important are the detailed
information about the Ants and Slavs. Much is also said about the North Caucasian clans - about the Alans, Avasg, Laz, Apsilia, etc.
Edition: Procopii Caesariensis Opera omnia / Ed. J. Haury. Lipsiae, 962-1964. Vol. 1-4.
Translations: Procopius of Caesarea. History of wars; Secret history; About buildings / Per. and comm. J.I. A. Gindina, V. JI. Tsymbursky, A. Ivanov // Code of ancient written testimonies about the Slavs. V. 1991. Vol. 1 (2nd ed. 1995); Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Goths / :er. S. P. Kondratiev. M., 1996. T. 1; T. 2 (On buildings); Procopius "Sesarius. War with the Persians. War with vandals. Secret History / ~er. A. A. Chekalova. M. 1993 (2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 2001).
Literature: Veh 1951-1952. bd. 1-2; Rubin 1954; Moravcsik VT I. --?>-500; Hunger 1978. I. 300; Ivanov 1983; Ivanov 1984; Cameron 1985; Ivanov 1986; Ivanov 1987; Kurbatov 1991. S. 184-220; Chekalova 1997; Bibikov 1998. S. 57-62; Budanova 2000.
WARS War with the Goths
Book 3
(The end of 545 Justinian is preparing for a new campaign in Italy.) more go on a trip to Italy. Many of the Heruli expressed their desire to follow him, in those others and those commanded by Philemut, and together with him they went to Thrace. After wintering there, with the onset of spring, they decided to go to Belisarius. With them was John, who was nicknamed Faga (Glutton). On this path, they were destined to completely unexpectedly provide the Romans (i.e., the Romans-Byzantines. - K 5) a great boon. a large number of Romans. The Heruli attacked them unexpectedly and, beyond expectation, defeated them, although the Sclaveni far outnumbered them. They killed them, and released all the prisoners, giving them the opportunity to return home. Capturing here a certain person who appropriated the name Khilbudius, a noble man who had once been a praetor among the Romans, Narses easily caught him in imposture. How it all happened, I'll tell you now.
There was a certain Khilbudiy, close to the imperial house, an exceptionally energetic man in military affairs and so alien to the thirst for money-grubbing that, instead of the greatest wealth, he did not acquire any fortune. In the fourth year of his sovereignty, the emperor, having appointed this Khilbudius the head of Thrace, appointed him to guard the Istra River, ordering him to ensure that the barbarians who lived there did not cross the river. The fact is that the Huns who lived along the Istra. Antes and Slavs, often making such transitions, caused irreparable harm to the Romans. Khilbudius was so terrible to the barbarians that for three years, while he was invested with the rank of military leader, not only none of the barbarians dared to cross Istres for the war with the Romans, but the Romans themselves, repeatedly crossing under the command of Khilbudius to the lands on the other side of the river, beat and took into slavery the barbarians who lived there. Three years after his arrival, Khilbudiy, as usual, crossed the river with a small detachment, while the Slavs opposed him all without exception. The battle was fierce; many Romans fell, including their chief Khilbudius. After this, the river became permanently accessible to the barbarians at will, and the Roman region was completely open to their invasion. Thus, it turned out that the entire Roman power in this matter could not at all be equal to the prowess of one person.
After some time, the Antes and Slavs quarreled among themselves and entered the war. It so happened that in this war the Antes were defeated by enemies. In this clash, one slavin was captured

Anthropomorphic brooch. Middle Dnieper. 7th century
Moscow. State Historical Museum

a young man who had barely reached maturity, named Khilbudia, and took him to his home. Over time, this Khilbudiy turned out to be very disposed towards his master and very energetic in military affairs. Being repeatedly exposed to dangers because of his master, he performed many glorious deeds and was able to achieve great glory for himself. Around this time, the Antes raided the Thracian region and many of the Romans who were there were robbed and enslaved. Chasing them before them, they returned with them to their homeland. Fate led one of these captives to a philanthropic and gentle master. This prisoner himself was very insidious and capable of deceiving anyone he met. Since he did not find any means of returning to the Roman land with all his desire, he came up with the following. Arriving at the owner, he profusely praised his mercy, arguing that for this he would receive many blessings from God, that he himself would in no case turn out to be ungrateful to his kindest master, and that if the owner wanted to listen to his good advice, he would thought it over very well, he would soon become the owner of a large sum of money. One of the Sklazyan tribes has Khilbudiy in the position of a slave, former military leader Romans, hiding from all the barbarians who he is. If the SML wishes to redeem Khilbudius and deliver him to the land of the Romans, it is quite natural that he will receive great glory and a lot of money from the emperor. With such speeches, the Roman immediately convinced his master and went with him to the Slavs. These peoples had a peace treaty, and they communicated with each other without fear. And so, having offered the owner of Khilbudiya a large sum, they bought this man and quickly returned home with him. When they returned to their place of residence, the buyer began to ask him, is it true that he is Khilbudius, a Roman military leader? He did not refuse to tell everything as it was, and with all frankness he stated in order his whole life, that he himself was an ant, that, fighting together with his relatives against the Slavs, who were then their enemies, he was taken prisoner by one of the enemies but now, having come to his native lands, in the future, according to the law, he will already be free. The one who paid the money for it was dumbfounded, speechless from amazement, and fell into the greatest anger, having lost such a great hope of profit. But the Roman, wanting to console him and hide the truth, so as not to make his return home more difficult, continued to insist that this man was the same Roman Khilbudius, but that he, being among the barbarians, was afraid to reveal everything when he ended up in Roman soil, not only will not hide the truth, but, of course, will be proud of this name. At first, all this was done secretly from the rest of the barbarians.
When this rumor, spreading among the people, became the property of everyone, almost all the Antes gathered on this occasion, considering this a common matter and believing that it would be a great blessing for them all that they were the masters of the Roman commander Khilbudius. These tribes, the Slavs and the Antes, are not ruled by one person, but since ancient times they have lived in democracy, and because of this, profitable and unprofitable business is always carried out together. And also the rest is the same, one might say, everything is with both of them, and it has been established from time immemorial among these barbarians. For they believe that one of the gods - the creator of lightning - it is he who is the only lord of everything, and bulls and all kinds of sacrificial animals are sacrificed to him. They do not know predestination and do not at all recognize that it has any meaning, at least in relation to people, but when death is already at their feet, whether they are seized by illness or go to war, they take a vow if they avoid it. , now commit to god
a sacrifice for your life; and having escaped (death), they sacrifice what they promised, thinking that by this sacrifice they bought their salvation. However, “both rivers, and nymphs,1 and some other deities are revered, and they also make sacrifices to all of them, and with these sacrifices they perform fortune-telling. And they live. -: and in miserable huts, located far from each other and each
shining as often as possible the place of settlement. Entering the battle, the majority goes to the enemy on foot, having small shields and spears in their hands, but they never put on armor; some are not
they wear [on themselves] neither a tunic nor a [rough] cloak, but, having adapted only the tights covering the shameful [parts], they enter into a fight with
tags. Both have a single language, completely barbaric. La and in appearance they do not differ from each other, for all and > G. juices, and are very strong, while the body and hair are not too light and
. redheads, by no means leaning towards blackness, but they are all a little red-
-aatye. The way of life [their] is rough and unpretentious, like that of the Massagetae2, L, like those, they are constantly covered with mud, - however, they are less insidious and insidious, but even in their simplicity they retain the Hun character. Yes, and the old name of the Slavs and Antes was the same. For both Iex and others have long been called "disputes"3, just because, I think, that
inhabit the country, dispersing their dwellings. It is precisely for this reason that they occupy an incredibly vast land: after all, they fly around on most of the other side of the Istra.
having turned, as it was said above, the ants made this man come to rest. how they wanted him to be Khilbudius, a Roman general. They threatened to punish him because he denied it. While L? THIS happened, Emperor Justinian, by sending some limes. alsh to these barbarians, offered them to settle in the ancient city, ¦ meni Turris4, located across the river Istr. This city was built by the emperor Trajan5, but it had long since been abandoned, as it was constantly plundered by the ancient barbarians. Emperor Justinian agreed - - - to give them this city and the region surrounding it, since
nor did she belong to the Romans, promises that she will live with them,
i - gski trying to keep the peace, and will give them a lot of money with that only * - 6 for the future, they swore to be allies with him and would always oppose the Huns when they want to raid the Roman Empire. The barbarians listened to all this, approved and promised to do all this if he restored the head of the Roman leader Khilbudius and let him live with them, claiming, as they had planned, that this man was Khilbudius. With such hopes high position, already this man himself wished to be him and claimed that he was Khilbudius, a Roman military leader. He, sent for this purpose to Byzantium, Narzes captured on his way. Having met with him and found that he was a deceiver (although he spoke Latin, he skillfully pretended, having already learned in advance much of what could be used as Khilbudia’s signs), he imprisoned him and forced him to tell the whole story. After this digression, I return to the continuation of my story.
(spring 548) Around this time, the army of the Slavs, having crossed the river Peter, made a terrifying devastation of all Illyria; right up to Epidamnus, killing and enslaving everyone who came across, not analyzing sex and age, and robbing valuables. Even many fortifications that were here and in the past seemed strong, since no one defended them, the Slavs managed to take; they dispersed to all the surrounding places, freely wreaking havoc. The chiefs of Illyria followed them with fifteen thousand troops, but they did not dare to approach the enemy close anywhere.
38. (549/550) Around the same time, the army of the Slavs, having gathered no more than three thousand people, crossed the Peter River, without meeting opposition from anyone, and then, without much difficulty, having crossed the Gevre River, was divided into two parts. In one part there were one thousand eight hundred people, the second included all the rest. The commanders of the Roman army in Illyria and Thrace entered into open battle with these troops, but although these parts were separated, the Romans were defeated thanks to their surprise attack, some of them were killed, others fled in disorder. After the commanders of the Romans were thus defeated by the two detachments of the Barzars, although the barbarians were much weaker in numbers than the Romans, one of the enemy detachments entered into battle with Asbad. It was a zoin from the bodyguards of the Emperor Justinian, enrolled in the so-called candidates; he commanded a regular cavalry. which has long dwelt in the Thracian fortress of Tzurule1 and was made up of numerous excellent horsemen. And they were put to flight by the slaves without a big ~ root and during this shameful flight ЇЄН many were killed, Asbad was taken prisoner alive, and then killed,> going into a burning fire, having previously cut out belts from the skin on the back of that man. After that, they began to fearlessly plunder these areas both in Thrace and Illyria, and many fortresses, and that other detachment of the Slavs took the siege; before, however, the Slavs never dared to approach the walls or go down to the plain (for an open 5ech). since these barbarians had never before even tried to pass through the land of the Romans. Even across the river Peter, apparently, for all the time they poured only once, as I mentioned above.
These slaves, the victors of Asbad, having devastated the whole country in a row and from the sea, also took by storm the seaside city, called Toper, although there was a military garrison in it. This city was the first on the Thracian coast and was separated from Byzantium for twelve days by a tug. They took it in the following way. Most of the enemies gave up before fortification in difficult places, and a few - * guns, immediately went out against them all. The barbarians began to retreat, at "-gya pretend that, frightened by their attack, they fled; ¦ - *" tyuteny. those who pretended to retreat, turning their lives to the Romans, put them between two fires. Barbarians of all of them
- t survived and then rushed to the walls. The city dwellers, deprived of their warriors, were in complete helplessness, but nevertheless they began to rage. as far as they could this moment, attackers. Passed everything. they poured boiling oil and pitch on the attackers and threw stones at them with all the YGSDOM; and they, however, almost reflected
I tuyu them danger. The barbarians, having fired a cloud of arrows at them, forced
they left the walls and, putting stairs to the fortifications, they took the city by force. They immediately killed up to fifteen thousand men and plundered valuables, while children and women were enslaved. At first, they did not spare either age or sex, both of these detachments from the very moment they broke into the region of the Romans killed everyone, without considering the years, so that the whole land of Illyria and Thrace was covered with unburied bodies. They killed those who came across to them, not with swords and spears, or by any of the usual methods, but, driving stakes firmly into the ground and making them as sharp as possible, they impaled these unfortunate people on them with great force - making it so that the tip of this stake entered between buttocks, and then under the pressure of the body penetrated into the insides of a person. That's how they saw fit to treat them. Sometimes these barbarians, driving four thick stakes deep into the ground, tied the hands and feet of the captives to them, and then continuously beat them on the head with sticks, killing them in this way, like dogs, or like snakes, or any other wild animals. The rest, together with bulls or small cattle, which they could not drive into their father's territory, they locked up in rooms and burned without any regret. So at first the Slavs destroyed all the inhabitants they met. Now they and the barbarians from another detachment, as if drunk on a sea of ​​blood, began to take some of those who came across to them prisoner, and therefore everyone went home, taking with them countless tens of thousands of prisoners.
40. While Germanus was gathering his army in Sardica, the city of Illyria, and putting it in order, preparing intensively everything that was needed for the war, a huge crowd of Slavs, such as had never happened before, appeared on Roman territory. Crossing the river Peter, they approached the city of Nais. When a few of them, separated from the army, began to wander alone through these places, some of the Romans captured them and, having tied them, began to inquire why this army had crossed Peter and what they were going to do. The Sclavinians firmly declared that they had come here to besiege and take Thessalonica and the cities around it. When the emperor heard about this, he became very worried and immediately ordered Germanus to postpone the campaign against Italy and defend Thessalonica and other cities and repel, as far as he could, the invasion of the Slavs. Because of this, Herman was delayed. The Sklavins, having learned for sure from the prisoners that Herman was in Sardica, felt fear. Among these barbarians, Germanus enjoyed great fame for the following reason. When Justin, Herman's uncle, ascended the throne, the Antes,

Golden Justinian I.
Around 534(?) Constantinople

The closest neighbors of the Slavs, having crossed Istres, invaded the borders of the Romans with a large army. Shortly before that, the emperor appointed Herman as the alnik of the troops of all Thrace. Herman entered into battle with the army for a week and, inflicting a severe defeat on them, killed almost all of them. For * the case, Herman received great fame among everyone, and especially among ¦ x barbarians. Fearing him, as I said, and believing that he was leading a very significant force with him, like the Goths sent by the emperor against Totila, they immediately interrupted their campaign against Thessalonica and did not dare to go down to the plain, but turning back and passing through the mountains they traveled all over Illyria and ended up in Dalmatia. Getting rid of this for-. Herman ordered the entire army to get ready to start a campaign against Italy in two days ... John 2 with the imperial army, having arrived in -to. "any, decided to spend the winter in Salona3, so that with the end of winter4 _¦ go straight to Ravenna. At this time, the Slavs, who before ¦СІ - were angry within the limits of the emperor's possessions, as I just told stories - b-. and others, a little later, those who crossed the Istres and connected the previous ones, got the full opportunity to invade the empire without hindrance. Many suspected that Totila, having bribed these barbarians with large sums of money, sent them to the Romans so that it would be impossible for the emperor to organize a good war against the Goths I cannot say whether these Sclavinians came to do what Totila wanted, or whether they came of their own accord, not summoned by anyone. Divided into three parts, these barbarians caused unheard-of disasters throughout Europe, plundering these areas not just by random raids , but wintering here, as if in own land without fear of the enemy. Later, the emperor sent a select army against them, at the head of which, among other things, were Constantian, Aratius, Nazeres, Justin, another son of Herman, and John, nicknamed "Faga" ("glutton"). He appointed Scholasticus, one of the palace eunuchs, as the chief commander over them. This army captured part of the barbarians near Adrianople, a city that lies in the middle of Thrace, at a distance of five days' journey from Byzantium. The barbarians could not move any further; for they had with them an innumerable booty of men, of all kinds of cattle, and of valuables. Staying there, they decided to engage in open battle with the enemies, but they were going to do it in such a way that they did not even have a presentiment that they wanted it. The Sclaveni camped on the hill that rose up here, the Romans on the plain, a little further away. Since a lot of time had already passed since they sat so opposite each other, the Roman soldiers began to express impatience and allow themselves unacceptable actions, reproaching the leaders that here they, as the commanders of the Roman army, had food in abundance for themselves and did not turn attention to the soldiers, tormented by a lack of basic necessities, and do not want to join the enemy in battle. Under their pressure, the military leaders began the battle. There was a strong battle, and the Romans were utterly defeated. Many fine warriors perished here; the generals, who were in imminent danger of falling into the hands of the enemy with the remnants of the army, with difficulty fled wherever they could. The barbarians captured the banner of Constantian and, ignoring the Roman army, moved on. They got the opportunity to plunder the area, the so-called Astika, which had not been plundered since ancient times, and therefore they managed to get a lot of booty from here. Thus, having devastated a large area, the barbarians approached the "Long Walls", which are a little more than one day's journey from Byzantium. A little later, the Roman army, following these barbarians, captured one part of them and, unexpectedly attacking them, put them to flight. They killed many of the enemies, saved a huge number of Roman captives, and, having found the banner of Constantian among the booty, again returned it to themselves. The rest of the barbarians, with all their other booty, returned home.
Book 4
Above this country (Apsilia. - M.B.) lies the mountain range of the Caucasus1. These Caucasus Mountains rise so high that neither rains nor snowfalls touch their peaks: they are higher than any clouds. Starting from the middle to the very top, they are completely covered with snow; the foothills of them and at the sole are very high, their peaks are not at all lower than those of other mountains. The spurs of the Caucasus Mountains, facing northwest, reach Illyria and Thrace, and those facing southeast reach the very passages through which the Hun tribes living there pass - the land of the Persians and Romans; one of these passages is called Tzur, and the other bears old name Caspian gates. The whole of this country, which stretches from the borders of the Caucasus to the Caspian gates, is occupied by Zhdani2; this is an independent tribe, for the most part it was allied with the Persians and went on a campaign against the Romans and other enemies of the Persians. With this, I consider my story about the Caucasus Range to be over.
Here live the Huns, the so-called Sabirs3, and some other Hun tribes. It is said that the Amazons came out from here and pitched their empire near Themiscur on the Thermodonte River, as I said a little quipe, where the city of Amis is now located. Now, in the vicinity of the "Kazsky ridge, neither the memory nor the name of the Amazons remains anywhere, although Strabo4 and other writers talk a lot about ¦k...
Behind the apsyliums and beyond the second edge of this "half-month" bay live the Abasgians in feoery, whose borders extend to the mountains of the Caucasus Range. From ancient times these Abasgians were subjects of the Lazians6, and from time immemorial they had two of their fellow tribesmen as chiefs: one of them ruled over the western part of their country, the other occupied the eastern. These barbarians, even in my time, revered groves and trees. In their barbaric simplicity, they believed that trees were gods. On the part of their rulers, because of their greed, these tribes experienced unheard of things. The fact is that both of these kings, who they noticed beautiful both in face and figure, took away the boys from their parents without the slightest remorse and, making them eunuchs, sold them to Roman lands to those who wanted to buy them for big money. The parents of these boys were immediately killed so that one of them would not try to take revenge on the king in the future for the injustice towards their children, and so that the king would not have among his subjects people who were suspicious to him. Thus the beauty of their sons condemned them to ruin; these unfortunates perished, having the misfortune to give birth to children who possessed fatal and deadly beauty for them. That is why the majority of eunuchs among the Romans and mainly in royal palace were a kind of Abasgi. Under the current reigning emperor Justinian, all relations among the Abasgians were clothed in more soft shapes. They adopted the Christian faith, and the emperor Justinian, having sent to them one of the imperial eunuchs, by birth abasg, Euphrates by name, resolutely forbade their kings for the future to deprive any of this tribe of signs of a male, violating nature with iron. With pleasure, the Abasgians heard this order of the emperor. Having gained courage by virtue of such an order of the emperor, they already resolutely opposed such actions of their rulers. And until that time, each of them was afraid that he would not become the father of a beautiful son. At the same time, Emperor Justinian erected a temple of the Mother of God near the Abasgians and, having appointed priests to them, ensured that they adopted the entire Christian way of life. Soon the Abasgians, having deposed their kings, decided to live in freedom. That's how things went here.
Outside the Abasgians, up to the Caucasus Range, the Bruhs live, being between the Abasgians and the Alans. Along the coast of Pontus Euxine, the Zikhs established themselves. In ancient times, the Roman emperor appointed a king to these zichi, but now these barbarians no longer obey the Romans in anything. Followed by
«

Miniature of the manuscript of "Christian Topography"
Cosmas of Indikoplova (VI century) depicting the northern lands. Cod. Sinait.gr. 1186, beginning of the 11th century.
Sinai. Monastery of St. Catherine

w.sh-t satin’; the seaside part of their country was ruled by Rome from ancient times. To intimidate them, they built two seaside fortifications, t-IOGOPOLI and Pitiunt, located at a distance of two k: luhn from each other, and from the very beginning they kept a military garrison here. In the past. as I said (ch. 11, § 16), the legions of the Roman troops occupied ¦ e v, "stacks along the coast from Trebizond to the country of satins: now - only these two fortifications remained, in which garrisons were still in mine. But when the Persian tsar Khosrov2 was taking "the basics to Petra, he really wanted to send the Persian army here r*". so that it would seize these fortifications and occupy them with its own
. or Sagids, - a Black Sea tribe, on whose land the Ashantian fortress cities of Pitiunt (modern Pitsunda) and Sevastopol (modern. Most likely, these were well-known Sanigs in antiquity) were founded.
*" - gyugy shah Khosrov I (531 579), who fought with Byzantium. Petra is identified with yaggiedziri (not indisputably).
garrison. When the Roman soldiers learned about this in advance, then, warning the enemies, they burned the houses and destroyed the walls to the very foundation, and, without the slightest delay, boarding ships and crossing to the opposite mainland, they left for the city of Trebizond. True, they harmed the Roman Empire by destroying these fortresses, but in the same way they brought her great benefit, because the enemies could not take possession of this country; having achieved no result due to the destruction of the fortresses, the enemies returned to Petra. That's what happened here.
Many tribes of the Huns settled behind the Sagans. The country extending from here is called Eulysia; its coastal part, as well as its interior, is occupied by barbarians up to the so-called "Meotian Swamp" and to the river Tanais [Don], which flows into the "Swamp". This “Swamp” itself flows into the Euxine Pontus. The peoples who live here were called Cimmerians in ancient times, but now they are called Utigurs. Further, to the north of them, countless Antes tribes occupy the lands. Near the places where the mouth of the "Bolot" begins, live the so-called Tetraxites Goths; they are few in number, and yet, no worse than many others, they keep the Christian law with reverence. Tanais locals they also call the mouth from which the Tanais begins from the Meotian Swamp and, stretching, as they say, for twenty days of travel, flows into the Pontus Euxinus, and even the wind that blows here they call Tanaita. Whether these Goths ever belonged to the Arian confession, like all other Gothic tribes, or in matters of confession of faith they followed some other teaching, I cannot say this, since they themselves do not know this, and did not even think about it. over this: but until now, with sincere simplicity and great resignation, they honor their faith. Shortly before this, namely, when the twenty-one years of the sovereign reign of Emperor Justinian were completed, they sent four ambassadors to Byzantium, asking them to give them someone to be a bishop, because the one who was their clergyman had died shortly before that: they learned according to them, the emperor also sent a priest to the Abasgams. Emperor Justinian, very willingly fulfilling their request, let them go. These ambassadors, out of fear of the Huns-Utigurs, openly, in the presence of numerous listeners, spoke rather vaguely, which is why they came, and did not announce anything else to the emperor, except for a request for the appointment of a clergyman, but in a completely secret conversation, having met eye to eye , they set out everything how useful it would be for the Roman Empire if the barbarians neighboring them were in eternal strife with each other with tinder. How and having risen from where the tetraxites settled here, and now I will tell you.
In ancient times a great multitude of Huns, who were then called Chtgchmerians, occupied the places I have mentioned recently, and one king stood at the head of them all. Somehow a king ruled over them, who had two sons, one named Utigur, the other was named Kutrigur. When their father finished the days of his life, both of them divided power among themselves, and each named his subjects by his own name. ~ like in my time they were called some utigurs, others іutrigurs. They all lived in the same place, having the same morals.
way of life, having no contact with people who lived along that stolon of the "Marsh" and its mouth [ Kerch Strait], since they had never crossed these waters, and did not even suspect that it was possible to cross through them; they had such a fear of this so easy task that they never even tried to do it, not even trying to make this move at all. On the other side of the Meotian Bolo- ~ 1 and its confluence with the Euxine Pontus, it is on this shore that the so-called Tetraxite Goths, whom I just mentioned, have lived since ancient times: far away from them, the Visigoth Goths settled, Zhshdaly and all the other tribes are ready. In the old days they
- lasted also by the Scythians, since all those tribes that occupied this area were called by the common name of the Scythians; some of them
- were called sauromates, melanchlens (“black capes”) or sons or some other name. According to their stories, if only this tradition is STABLE1, one day several young Cimmerians, indulging in hunting. hunting dogs, they drove the doe: she, running away from them, rushed into
water. The young men, whether out of ambition, or overwhelmed by excitement, or they were promised to do so by some mysterious will of the deity, followed this doe and did not lag behind it until they reached the opposite shore with it. Here the animal pursued by them (who can't say what it was?) immediately disappeared (it seems to me that it appeared only for the purpose of causing misfortune to the barbarians living there); but the youths, having failed in the hunt, found for the web* an unexpected opportunity for new battles and prey. Returning as soon as possible to their father's territory, they immediately informed all the Cherians that these waters were completely passable for them.
And so, immediately taking up arms with all the people, they crossed the “Swamp” without slowing down and ended up on the opposite mainland. At this time, the Vandals had already risen from these places and established themselves in Libya, and the Visigoths settled in Spain. And so the Cimmerians, suddenly attacking the Goths who lived on these plains, killed many of them, while the rest were put to flight. Those who could flee from them, leaving these places with their children and wives, left their father's borders, crossing the Ister River, ended up in the lands of the Romans. At first they caused a lot of harm to the population living here, but then, with the permission of the emperor, they settled in Thrace. On the one hand, they fought together with the Romans, being their allies and receiving from the emperor, like other soldiers, an annual salary and bearing the title of “federates”: that is what the Romans then called them with this Latin word, wanting, I think, to show that the Goths were not defeated by them in the war, but concluded an agreement with them on the basis of certain conditions. Conditions relating to military affairs are called in Latin “federa” (foedera), as I indicated earlier in previous books (III, ch. II, 4). On the other hand, some of these Goths waged wars with the Romans without any reason from the Romans until they left for Italy under the command of Theodoric. This is the course of events in history.
Having killed some, forcing others, as I said above, to move out of the country, the Huns occupied these lands. Of these, the Kutrigurs, having called their wives and children, settled here and lived in these places until my time. And although they annually received great gifts from the emperor, nevertheless, crossing the Istra River, they always raided the lands of the emperor, being either allies or enemies of the Romans. The Utigurs with their leader decided to return home in order to continue to own this country alone. Not far from the Maeotian Swamp, they met the so-called Tetraxite Goths. And at first the Goths, arranging a barrier of their shields against those who attacked them, decided to repel their attack, relying on their strength and the strength of their positions; they were the strongest of all the barbarians there. In addition, the beginning of the mouth of the Maeotian Swamp, where the Tetraxite Goths settled at that time, forms a crescent-shaped bay, surrounding them from almost all sides, and therefore provides one, and at the same time not very wide, path for those advancing against them. But then (since neither the Huns wanted to waste time here on them, nor the Goths could in any way hope to resist such a mass of enemies with sufficient success) they entered into negotiations with each other, so that, joining their forces together, make the transition; they decided that the Goths would settle on the opposite mainland near the shore of the strait, where they live now, and, having become friends and allies of the Utigurs for a later time, they would live there all the time, enjoying equal and equal rights with them. This is how the Goths settled here: since the Kutrigurs, as I have already said, remained in the lands on the other side of the Swamp (to the west), the Utigurs took possession of the country for days without causing any difficulties to the Romans, since at the place of residence they did not come into contact with among them: many tribes lived among them, so that, willy-nilly, they did not have to show any hostile actions against them.
Behind the Meotian Swamp and the Tanais River,1 most of the fields lying here, as I said, were settled by the Kutrigur-Huns. Behind them, the whole country is occupied by Scythians and Taurians, part of which is still called Taurica today; there, they say, there was a temple of Artemis, the chief priestess of the dispute was once Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon. They say, however, that the Armenians in their so-called Kelesen region had such a temple, and at that time all the peoples there were called Scythians; they prove this by what I told about Orestes and the city of Comana in the course of my historical presentation. But let each one have his own opinion concerning this; after all, much that happened elsewhere, and sometimes did not happen anywhere at all, people like to appropriate for themselves, passing off as original native customs, blowing, if not everyone follows their point of view. Behind these tribes
"a seaside city named Bosporus was laid, which not so long ago became a pure Roman. If you go from the city of Bosporus to the city of Kherson,
which lies in the coastal region and has long been subject to
members, then the whole area between them is occupied by barbarians from the tribe of the Unns. Two other small towns near Kherson, called Kepy and Fanaguris, from ancient times were subject to the Romans and still
were in my time. But lately, some of the barbarian tribes * living in the neighboring regions have taken and destroyed them to the ground. From Mr. Kherson to the mouth of the Istra River, which is also called the Danube, jest for ten days; all these places are occupied by barbarians. The river Istres flows from
- the country of the Celts and, bypassing the northern borders of Italy, flows through “from the tista of the Dacians, Illyrians, Thracians and flows into the Euxine Pontus. All places from here, up to Byzantium, are under the rule of the Romans.
emperor. Such is the circumference of Pontus Euxinus from Calchedon _ cedon] to Byzantium. But what is the size of this circle as a whole, I can’t say for sure, since there lives such a number of, as “said, barbarian tribes, with whom the Romans, of course, communicate
there is none, except for the departure of embassies. And even those who had previously tried to carry out such a measurement could not tell us anything exactly. Only one thing is clear, that the right side of Pontus Euxinus, i.e. from Calchedon (Chalcedon) to the river Phasis, has a length of fifty-two days of travel for a light man. Making a quite possible conclusion, one could say that the other, left side of Pontus is a little smaller.
Since in my story I have reached these places, it seemed to me quite appropriate to tell about the borders of Asia and Europe, that is, about what people who deal with this issue argue with each other. Some of them say that the two continents are separated by the river Tanais; at the same time, they insistently assert that it is necessary to adhere to natural physical divisions, relying on the fact that the Mediterranean Sea moves from west to east, and the Tanais River flows from the north and, moving south, flows between the two continents. So, in turn, the Egyptian Nile, flowing from the south, flows north and serves as the border between Asia and Libya. Others, arguing against them, argue that their position is not correct. They say that these continents are separated from the beginning by a strait at Gadeira [Gibraltar], formed by the ocean, and likewise by the sea, which, pouring through it, moves forward, and that the places to the right of the strait and the sea are called Libya and Asia, and to the left the whole space was given the name of Europe, up to the extreme limits of the so-called Pontus Euxine. In such a case the river Tanais originates in Europe and flows into the Maeotian Swamp, and the Swamp pours into the Euxine Pontus; at the same time, of course, this is not the end of Pontus and, of course, not its middle, but the sea moves and spills further. The left side of this sea already belongs to Asia. In addition, the Tanais River flows from the so-called Riphean mountains, which are located on the territory of Europe, as those who even in antiquity dealt with these issues claim. It has been established that the ocean is very far from these Riphean mountains. Therefore, all the areas behind these mountains and the Tanais River must necessarily be ranked as European on both sides. From what place in this case Tanais begins to separate both of these continents, it is not easy to say. If it is necessary to say that some river separates both these continents, then it can only be the Phasis River. It flows just opposite the strait at Gadeira, and separates these two continents, since the strait coming from the ocean forms this sea, and on both sides of it has both continents; rolling down to this sea, Phasis flows into the Euxine Pontus, into the very middle of a semicircular bay, and thus

Hume quite clearly continues the division of the earth produced by the sea. Putting forward such provisions, scientists argue among themselves on both sides. As for me personally, I will prove that not only the proposition I introduced first, but also this last point of view, which I have just quoted, can boast of both the antiquity of its origin and the glory of the very ancient writers who put it forward. Lie about this, I know that for the most part all people, imbued with some kind of teaching dating back to ancient times, stubbornly adhere to it. not wanting to work on further research truths "to grieve in this matter, and take into account new points of view: for them, everything more and more ancient seems right and deserving of respect, and what is in their time, they consider _-goy contempt and ridiculous. In addition, the question now it is "about some abstract and speculative things, which cannot be investigated in any other way, but about the real river and the country itself, ... of course, time could neither change nor hide. The study of the issue is completely simple and cannot to present difficulties "for whom, who seriously wants to find the truth, since for proof - -? 2 sight is enough. Thus, Herodotus of Halicarnassus
in the fourth book of his "Histories" he says that the whole earth is one, but that it is established to divide it into three parts and give it three names - Libya, Asia and Europe. Of these, Libya and Asia are separated by the Egyptian Nile River, which flows between them, and Asia is separated from Europe by the Phasis River in the country of the Colchians. He knew that some people think this also about the Tanais River, and he mentions it at the end. I consider it perfectly timely to quote here the true words of Herodotus. They are as follows: “I cannot understand why the earth, since it is one, is given a triple name, borrowing its names from three women, and why the Egyptian Nile and Phasis, the river of Colchis, are assigned their borders. Others consider the Tanais River, the Meotian Swamp and the Cimmerian Strait to be such a border. On the other hand, the author of the tragedy Aeschylus at the very beginning of his tragedy “Prometheus Unchained” calls the Phasis River the boundary of the lands of Asia and the countries of Europe.
Taking this opportunity, I want to point out one more thing. Of the scientists dealing with these questions, some believe that the Maeotian Swamp forms the Euxinian Pontus, which spreads partly to the left, partly to the right of this Swamp: that is why it is called the "mother of Pontus." They affirm this, based on the fact that from the so-called Hieron, the channel of this Pontus goes like a kind of river to Byzantium, and therefore they think that it is precisely here that the end of Pontus is ...
... Hearing how the barbarians who lived on the left bank of the Pontus of Euxinus and settled around the Maeotian Swamp fearlessly attack the land of the Romans, he (Shah Khosrov) said that the Persians, if they took possession of Lazika, would probably be without much difficulty, every time as they wish, go straight to Byzantium, without crossing the sea anywhere, as the other barbarian tribes who live there constantly do. Because of this, the Persians sought to subdue Lazika.
(Translated by S. P. Kondratiev. I. S. 247-303; II. S. 17-32)
ABOUT BUILDINGS
Book 3
VII. 8. ... I also told that on the opposite side, if you go towards the Meotid swamp, opposite Lazika there were two fortifications - Sevastopol and Pitiunt; they were destroyed by the Romans themselves, having heard that Khozroes hastily sends an army here with the
-fore it captured these fortifications. 9. Now the emperor Justinian ¦ Sevastopol, which had previously been only a fortress, rebuilt the whole thing anew, surrounded it with such walls and fortifications that it became opportunistic, adorned it with streets and other buildings; in such a way, both in beauty and in size, he has now made it one of the most remarkable cities.

"0. In addition to what concerns the cities of Bosporus1 and Kherson2, which are seaside cities on the same coast [of the Euxine Pon- beyond the Meotid swamp, behind the Taurus and Tauro-Scythians, and are located
- I oayu the limits of the Roman state, then, having caught their walls in a completely
- / neck condition, he made them remarkably beautiful and strong -
11. He erected there also two fortifications, the so-called Alusta
- Gorzubitah. 12. Especially he fortified the Bosporus with walls; from old ---. en this city became barbarian and was under the rule of the Huns; g "edator returned it to the rule of the Romans. 13. Here, on this escape - ¦ - s. there is a country called Dori3, where the Goths have lived since ancient times,
They did not follow Theodoric, who was on his way to Italy.
They voluntarily stayed here and in my time were allied with the Romans, went on a campaign with them when the Romans went against their enemies, whenever the emperor pleased. 14. They reach a population of up to three thousand fighters, in military affairs they are excellent, and in agriculture, which they do with their own hands, they are quite skillful; they are the most hospitable of all people. 15. The region of Dori itself lies on a hill, but it is not rocky and not dry, on the contrary, the land is very good and brings the best fruits. 16. In this country, the emperor did not build either a city or a fortress anywhere, since these people do not tolerate being imprisoned in any kind of walls, but they always loved to live most of all - in the fields. 17. Since it seemed that their country was easily accessible to attack by enemies, the emperor fortified all the places where enemies could enter with long walls, and thus removed from the Goths the anxiety of the invasion of their country by enemies. Such were his deeds here.
Book 4
To cross a vast sea on a ship unsuitable for this, I consider it a difficult task and, of course, full of great dangers. The same thing - in a simple story to measure the greatness of the construction of Emperor Justinian. 2. Due to the greatness of his soul, this emperor, as in everything else, may I be allowed to say so, and in the business of building did more than can be conveyed in words. 3. So, in Europe, trying to harmonize his activities with the requirements of necessity, he quickly accomplished deeds inexpressible and indescribable. 4. They were worthy both of the neighborhood with the river Peter, and the need to defend themselves from barbarians attacking because of this river [on the empire]. 5. To live next to this river went to the tribes of the Huns and Goths; rise [against us] the tribes living within Tauris and Scythia; and then the Slavs, as well as other tribes, whether to call them Savromats-nomads or settlers, as these tribes were called by the most ancient writers-historians, as well as any other animal-like tribe that had to either graze their flocks here or settle permanently.
Since the emperor Justinian had to fight with them for an endless time and since he was not used to doing anything somehow, it was more necessary for him to build an innumerable number of fortifications and put in them an inexpressible number of military garrisons, as well as prepare everything else that could to hinder the movement of enemies who start a war without any communication and do not recognize social laws. 7. After all, these enemies have a law - to start a war for no reason, or to march after departure

embassies, or even more so to end it with some kind of treaty, or for the time [of the armistice] refrain from military action, but they start the matter without any argument and stop it only with this weapon.
VII... 16. Now in the future I am going to the country of the Scythians. There was a fortification bearing the name of St. Kirill; Emperor Justinian rebuilt the parts that had suffered from the top of his head with all care. 17. Following him was an ancient fortification, named Ulmi-~on. Since the barbarian-sklavins arranged their gardens here for a long time and lived in these places for a very long time, it became completely deserted, and nothing remained of it except the name . 18. And so, and building it again from the very foundation, the emperor made these places free from attacks and malevolence of the Slavs.
(Translated by S. P. Kondratiev. S. 223-249)
Modern Pantelemon or Medjidia.
SECRET HISTORY
(Justinian provoked the Huns and other barbarians to raid Byzantium.)
XI. 10 Therefore, not a single place, not a single mountain, not a single cave, or anything else, on Roman soil remained unplundered, and many places happened to be plundered no less than five times. (11) However, about this and what was done by the Medes, Saracens, Slavs, Antes and other barbarians, I have told in previous books. But, as I said at the beginning of this book, here I need to tell the reason for what happened.
XVIII. (20) As for Illyria and all Thrace, if we take from the Ionian Gulf to the suburbs of Byzantium, including Hellas and the region of Chersonesos, almost every year since Justinian began to own the Roman der-

zhava, raided and did the most terrible deeds in relation to the local population of the Huns, Sclavins and Antes1. (21) With each raid, I think, more than twenty myriads of Romans were killed and enslaved here, which is why the whole of this land became a truly Scythian desert2 ...
And from the time they invaded the lands of Colchis3, to this day, they themselves, and the Lazians, and the Romans are constantly dying.
However, neither the Persians, nor the Saracens, nor the Huns, nor the Sclavinian tribe, nor any other barbarians happened to leave the Roman borders without loss. 26 For at the time of invasion, and still more at the time of sieges and battles, they had to face great opposition, and they perished no less than the Romans.
XXIII. 6 Further, despite the fact that the Medes and Saracens plundered most of Asia4, and the Huns, Slavs and Antes - all of Europe, destroying some cities to the ground and carefully plundering others by means of monetary contributions; despite the fact that they took the population into slavery along with all its property and depopulated the whole earth with their daily raids, he [Justinian] did not remove taxes from anyone, making the only exception for the cities taken by attack, and then only for a year.
(Translated by A. A. Chekstova. S. 291-322)