(Προκόπιος), one of the most eminent Byzantine historians, was a native of Caesareia in Palestine, where he was born, at the beginning of the sixth century of the Christian era. He went to Constantinople when still a young man, and there obtained so much distinction as an advocate and a professor of eloquence, that he attracted the attention of Belisarius, who appointed him, in A. D. 527, his ὑπογραφεύς, or secretary. In this quality Procopius accompanied the great hero on his different wars in Asia, Africa, and Italy, being frequently employed in state business of importance, or in conducting military expeditions. In the Gothic war we find him entrusted with the commissariat department, and at the head of the Byzantine navy, a post of vital importance for the success of the campaign. Procopius returned with Belisarius to Constantinople a little before 542. His eminent talents and corresponding merits were appreciated by the emperor Justinian, who conferred upon him the title of illustris, made him a senator, and in 562 created him prefect of Constantinople. Procopius died a little before, or a little after the death of Justinian, that is, about A. D. 565, at the age of sixty and upwards, probably nearer to seventy. Of this great historian Gibbon says, with much truth, that according to the vicissitudes of courage or servitude, of favour or disgrace, he successively composed the history, the panegyric, and the satire of his own times. It is, however, still doubtful whether Procopius actually was the author of that collection of satire and scandal which is attributed to him, under the title of or We shall speak of it after first mentioning two other points of doubt regarding our author, the solution of which has occupied the mind and the pen of eminent scholars. First, it has been questioned whether he was a Christian or a Pagan. Space, however, will not allow us to give even the shortest account of the different opinions that have been, or are still, prevalent on that subject, and we consequently merely mention that, while Eichel and La Mothe de Vayer, both quoted below, declared him to be a Pagan, Gerard Vossius, Fabricius, Harles, and others thought that he was a Christian. Indeed, Procopius frequently speaks of faith, either Christian or Pagan, in a manner inconsistent with his own words, so as fully to justify doubts respecting his creed. Assemanni and Cave take a middle course. The latter thinks that he was neither Christian nor Pagan entirely, but being somewhat of a sceptical turn of mind (or perhaps we ought to say, extremely liberal and excessively tolerant in religious matters) he used to despise the supersitions of the Pagans in his conversations with Christians, and would admit, when in company with Pagans, that there was also truth without the sphere of Christianity. We may add that Justinian, who was a bigoted Christian, whether in orthodoxy or heterodoxy, would probably not have permitted a Pagan to discharge the functions of a senator, or a prefect of Constantinople. The other doubtful point alluded to above is of a very strange description. For, since Procopius has given a most graphic description of the plague which devastated Constantinople in 543, rendering his narrative still more lucid and scientifically descriptive, by entering into medical details concorning the symptoms of the disease, &c., it has been thought by some that he was a professional medical man. He thus figures as a physician in several French medical dictionaries. But this is going too far. Procopius betrays, in all his works, a vast deal of miscellaneous knowledge, and while describing the plague, probably derived some additional information from medical friends, which, however, no more makes him a physician, than his work on the Buildings of Justinian constitutes him a professional architect.