Antonina spank him. But wait a moment. Besides being fiction this is not an unreasonable extrapolation. If Procopius was not in their bedroom, he did insist that Belisarius was always under his wife's power to control, either with spells or caresses. If so that minor scene thrown into Antonina to lighten up A Byzantine Slut is entirely justifiable. Belisarius would not be the first powerful man who relaxed with a dominating woman. The critic could have made a more serious charge when I made Procopius out to be a eunuch of which there is no evidence. Although that was payback for his slanders of Antonina I can say in defense that I am not the only person who has suspected it. For certain Procopius was jealous of her hold over the general which the prissy aristocrat seemed unwilling or perhaps unable to understand.
I say payback. Admittedly I had an agenda in writing Antonina. The lady is so often maligned for her infidelity. Much less is she praised and admired for her accomplishments. Truly Antonina was a protofeminist of note. Not only Procopius but hordes of historians since seem to have resented this, admonishing her infidelity instead of emphasizing her strength. For example, when Belisarius sent her to safety outside besieged Rome, instead of sitting and worrying she raised a small army that coordinated with relieving forces from Constantinople. Even Procopius – certainly not her friend or admirer – admitted that it was Antonina who chaired the gathering of generals.
In the twilight of the ancient paradigm it was entirely natural for Justinian to want to reconquer Italy if he was to consider himself a Roman emperor. But despite another western prejudice to see this as his most important goal – and largely a failure, his most important work had to be defending against Persia, the ancient and powerful enemy. I submit that recalling Belisarius from Italy was not primarily to preclude a potential coup by the general or his supporters, but more important to scare the bejeebers out of Chosroes. This tends to be downplayed a bit but if Procopius does not make even more of it than he does, it needs to be remembered that the historian was not present when Belisarius sent the Persians home without loosing a single arrow.
The world of Constantine on the other hand is sketchily known, filled with superstition, deceit, and selfish ambition. Charlemagne ruled Gaul and much of Italy yet until the very end of the narrative he considered himself, in theory at least, the deputy of the Emperor who headed a single Christian community. The classic western narrative of Charles neglects this linkage. (Charles was “king of the Franks” - not Gaul - in Constantine's time, as Witiges had been king of the Goths - not Italy - in that of Justinian.) Then too, novelists are inclined to ignore the complexity of men like Constantine's uncle Nicephorus who though ambitious, treasonous, and scheming, I portray as supportive of the throne where his own ambition is not compromised. Indeed, he is inclined to see retirement to a monastery for prayer and study as his ideal future. (My fiction but entirely typical for Byzantine statesmen.)
What then was my purpose in writing these books if not to write a best seller? Aside from fulfilling a sixty year old desire to portray the maligned Antonina sympathetically, my motivation has been to bring a realistic impression of Byzantium to the common reader of historical fiction. There has been very little fiction written and less good fiction. Both books are intended as much as an introduction to the Byzantine era as they are a story. Regrettably byzantinists lament the lack of interest yet seem unwilling to encourage the writing of serious fiction which might attract readers; and to the layman Byzantine history still seems as static and wooden as its icons. Yet Antonina and her noble husband lived at the junction of the classical and medieval worlds, Constantine VI and Irene in a very different, smaller, more religious, and thoroughly medieval paradigm. 1100 years of the highest civilization in the western world is stereotyped and ignored thanks in great part to the dead hand of Edward Gibbon who maligned and stereotyped it. If any of my insights can enliven the view, still shared by many people, of Byzantium as dull and static, and of Byzantines as simply an underhanded and religion-obsessed people in exotic clothing than I have achieved something. Perhaps after reading one of my novels they will be lead to John Julius Norwich instead of holding to Edward Gibbon's still prevailing and still prejudiced view of the later Roman Empire of the East.