Secret History

Reviewers largely praise The Secret History for its sheer entertainment value, describing it as a scandalous, gossipy, and highly engaging read that offers a refreshingly candid, albeit biased, glimpse into the Byzantine court. Many find its "lurid fervor" and "poison pen" attacks on the emperor and his inner circle to be immensely fun and audacious. It is often likened to an ancient tabloid, making it remarkably accessible and easy to digest, even for those who might typically find ancient history intimidating. Its unique perspective provides an "other side" to official histories, challenging readers to consider different narratives of power and corruption. The book's distinctive style and unrelenting criticism are seen by some as a compelling literary exercise and a "delightful piece of slightly biased literature."

Despite its entertainment, the book is widely criticized for its extreme bias, rampant hyperbole, and questionable historical accuracy. Procopius's claims, such as depicting Emperor Justinian as a literal demon or attributing an impossibly high number of deaths to him, are frequently cited as grotesque exaggerations that undermine the text's credibility. Reviewers often point to the author's potentially dubious motives, suggesting the work might be fueled by personal resentment, a desire for retaliation after a perceived slight, or even as an "insurance policy" against political upheaval. The characters are often portrayed in a one-dimensional, purely negative light, which some readers find exhausting or unpleasant. Furthermore, some note structural disorganization, uneven flow, and a lack of contextual information, which can make it challenging for readers unfamiliar with the period to fully grasp the nuances.

Ultimately, The Secret History is not regarded as a reliable factual history to be taken at face value. Instead, its enduring value lies in its role as a provocative literary work and a fascinating historical artifact that challenges conventional narratives. It serves as a powerful example of ancient invective, prompting readers to critically analyze authorial intent and the complexities of historical interpretation. This book is highly recommended for those who enjoy scandalous political gossip, historical satire, or exploring the darker, more human side of imperial power. It will particularly appeal to readers prepared to engage with it critically, viewing it more as an ancient sensational exposé than a sober academic text, and to anyone interested in the art of historiography and the varied ways history can be told.