International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Maria Kouroumali
Athens, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Historical Causation and Interpretation: 
The Role of Supernatural Agency in Procopius of Caesarea
The interpretation of events in the Graeco-Roman historiography of Antiquity has long been 
an area of scholarly study and debate. Factors such as personal participation and knowledge of 
protagonists, the use of sources, subjectivity, and bias are examined in order to assess the accuracy 
and reliability of each work. Supernatural forces also often play a decisive role in the causation and 
interpretation of the historical narrative. Supernatural agency as a driving force appeared primarily 
in the form of Tyche-Fortune while God, the supreme and omnipotent authority, was introduced 
into these works after the advent of Christianity. The importance accorded to these forces is directly 
related to the perspective and mentality of each historian. In the case of Late Antique historians, 
and more specifically, Procopius of Caesarea, the presence of both supernatural powers has led the 
scholars to attempt to determine his religious beliefs rather than focus on the role of these forces 
as interpretative factors. This paper will look at the role of supernatural agency in the historical 
work of Procopius and argue that they play a significant part in the causation of events and his 
interpretation of them.
Teresa Wolińska
University of Łodź, Institute of History, Łodź, Poland; 
[e-mail]
The Use of the Title of 
Basileus
in Procopius’ Writings and Basileia of Arethas
According to Procopius of Caesarea, emperor Justinian I granted a royal title to Arethas (Al-
Harith), the sheik of Ghassanids: “For this reason the Emperor Justinian put in command of as 
many clans as possible Arathas, the son of Gabalas, who ruled over the Saracens of Arabia, and 
bestowed upon him the dignity of king (ἀξίωμα βασιλέωϛ), a thing which among the Romans had 
never before been done.” If we take the text of the Byzantine chronicler literally, it means that other 
Arab tribes in alliance with Byzantium were made subordinate to Arethas and that he was given the 
royal dignity, expressed not by the Latin rex, but the Greek equivalent basileus. 
Arethas’ royal title has long been the subject of a heated debate, in which many scholars (V. 
Christides, A. G. Grouchevoy, G. Greatrex, I. Shahîd, E. Chrysos, Ch. Robin and others) have taken 
part. Some of them maintain that an Arab tribesman could not be bestowed the title which had 
been reserved exclusively for the emperor himself. Vassilios Christides translates the term basileus 
as supreme phylarch. Irfan Shahîd is of a different opinion. He points to the fact that Procopius’ 
text clearly shows that Arab tribes were divided and ruled by different phylarchs. Justinian made an 

---

63
attempt to unite his allies. Irfan Shahîd also discusses the evolution of the word basileus. He argues 
that before Heraclius (610-641) it was used occasionally while referring to emperor, but it was not 
an official title.
As far as I know, nobody has tried to look in detail into the issue of Arethas’ title in the context of 
such notions as king/emperor (basileus), royal power and royalty in the works of Byzantine writers, 
especially of Procopius. Particularly interesting sound Barbarian rulers’ titles – of Hephtalites, 
Axumites, Goths, Wandals, Ethiopians, Lazi and others. It seems worthy to compare the terms used 
to describe Byzantine allies and foes, and to have a closer look into the titles of earlier Arab rulers 
(e.g. from Petra). An analysis of particular cases where the Byzantine chronicler is using the word 
basileus to define alien countries’ rulers will allow to see the case of Arethas in a wider context 
and to answer the question if his case was so exceptional indeed. Such an analysis will also help 
determine what personal features Byzantine authors expected from those who were in power.