Relire Procope : deux ouvrages récents sur une oeuvre-monde

Re-reading Procopius: Two Recent Books about an “oeuvre-monde”

The simultaneous publication of the Companion to Procopius of Caesarea, edited by M. Meier and F. Montinaro, and of G. Greatrex’s Historical Commentary to the Persian Wars, represents a milestone for Procopian studies, which have been heavily renewed in the last two decades. While the Companion gives a synthetic view on a variety of topics regarding Procopius and his three works (Wars, Secret History, Buildings), the Commentary offers a detailed linear reading of the first two books of the Wars. Far from exhausting the subject, both volumes call for further research on a set of problems, old and new. Against the methodologically traditional views according to which one could retrieve the author’s opinions in spite of, or thanks to, the apparent contradictions between his texts, a recent critical trend deems the “real Procopius” to be ultimately unknowable, and tries to explain away the discrepancies of tone between his works by the diversity of literary genres. Although this paradigmatic shift aims to disarm the subjectivity trap in the interpretation of Procopius, its focus on genre and narratological processes runs the risk of forgetting the author. Another point of contention resides in the dates of the Secret History and the Buildings. This old debate has seen few progresses until recently, with Battistella’s suggested date of 553/554 for the Secret History, and Montinaro’s ongoing work on the two recensions of the Buildings. Deeply linked with these chronological problems, strong arguments have also been made regarding the unicity of Procopius’ works. In three interconnected texts, belonging to three different genres, the author may have ambitioned to describe the world in its totality, although one may doubt whether this resulted from a preexisting plan or appeared during the writing process. The inclination towards literary analyses does not eclipse the need for a historical reading of Procopius’ works. Recent research on the reign of Justinian and its wider background have thus shed light on the world depicted by the author of Caesarea. In this point of view, the classicism of Procopius should be seen as a tool rather than an end in itself, and the historical reality be studied alongside its representation. Though the threat of a split between literary and historical analyses may loom over Procopian studies, the two volumes under review will undoubtedly promote dialogue between the various lines of interpretation.