"

Edit 25 Nov 07
The anonymous editor immediately before me believed that they had ""deleted weasel words, tried to bring it back to a neutral perspective"". The edit was a basic misunderstanding of the Secret History; I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't read the work. The SH does indeed ""claim to"" report, rather than ""report"" scandals in Justinian's reign: the work remains completely uncorroborated by any other contemporary witness, and some of the purported scandals are so outrageous, the causes given by Procopius so bizarre and unknowable (viz., that Justinian was a devil and had the gift of invisibility), that much of it does not so much report anything as give vent to the bile of the author: that's why I let stand the deletion of ""apparently"" (""The Secret History apparently reveals an author who had become deeply disillusioned""), since that particular word is a ""weasel word"" on the part of some Wikipedia editor. But the so-called 'revelations' are indeed ""titillating (and doubtful)"" rather than ""revealing"" (and ""revealing revelations"" is very bad copy editing, too). Similarly again, given that there is no doubt that the same author wrote both the SH and the Buildings, the panegyric of Justinian is undeniably insincere; since the Buildings bears the mark of official patronage in other respects, the panegyric can indeed be viewed as written at Justinian's behest, or something like it: stet. All of this is ground well traveled by the various editors of the work over the centuries, and represents the clear consensus of modern scholars.   "