Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:33:10.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Robert Browning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The riot at Antioch in the early spring of A.D. 387 is described in two eye-witness accounts, that of Libanius—in particular Orations 19–23—and that of John Chrysostom—in particular the 21 Homiliae ad populum Antiochenum de statuis. Consequently, it has often been studied in more or less detail by modern scholars, each approaching it from his own point of view. It might seem that all that could be said has been said. Nevertheless, certain features of the disorders, which have some interest for the social history of the period, have not been adequately dealt with. It is as a contribution to the understanding of these that the present study is written.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 1-2 , November 1952 , pp. 13 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Robert Browning 1952. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Homiliae de statuis of John Chrysostom I shall refer to by number and chapter, and also by page and section of Montfaucon's edition : other works of Chrysostom will be referred to by number and chapter, and by Montfaucon's volume, page, and section. Migne reprints Montfaucon's page numbers.

2 References to earlier literature are given in R. Goebel, De Ioannis Chrysostomi et Libanii orationibus quae sunt de seditione Antiochensium, Diss. Göttingen, 1910. See also E. S. Bouchier, A Short History of Antioch, 164–170; Stein, E., Geschichte des spätrömischen Retches, 1, 318Google Scholar; Baur, C., Johannes Chrysostomus und seine Zeit 1, 212–233Google Scholar; V. Schulze, Altchristliche Städte und Landschaften, III : Antiocheia 102–108; Dudden, F. Homes, Life and Times of St. Ambrose 1, 356–369Google Scholar; A. Moulard, Saint Jean Chrysostome, sa vie, son oeuvre 76–80.

3 On this brigandage, and its connection with patrocinium, cf. C. Th. 1, 29, 8, of 9th April, 392. A. D. Dmitrev, ‘Dvizhenie Latrones kak odna iz Form Klassovoi Borby v Rimskoi Imperii,’ Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1951 (4), 61–72, though dealing primarily with the second and third centuries, adduces evidence relevant to our period also.

4 Liban. or. 20, 3. Perhaps he feared the fate of Theophilus, consularis Syriae in 353, whom the people of Antioch ‘calcibus incessens et pugnis conculcans seminecem laniatu miserando discerpsit’, Amm. Marcell. 14, 7, 6. The memory of his assassination was still alive in 387, cf. Liban. or. 19, 47. On this incident cf. also Amm. Marcell. 15, 13, 2; Liban. or. 1, 102, or. 46, 30; Julian Misop. 370c.

5 Liban. or. 19, 4.

6 It is probably in connection with these disturbances that C. Th. 10, 10, 19 of 2nd March, 387, was published, confirming the bouleutai in their possessions and condemning delatores. Here, as in Antioch, the curiales seem to have been to the fore in the riot.

7 Socrates HE 5, 13; Sozomenus 7, 14; Ambros. ep. 40, 13. In this connection it is interesting to note that John of Nikiu (ed. R. H. Charles, p. 87) speaks of a rumour that Theodosius had been defeated by Maximus before the riot of 387. His chronology is very confused.

8 Rufin. HE 2, 22–7; Socrates HE 5, 16–17; Sozomenus 7, 15; Theodoret HE 5, 22; Eunap. Vit. Aedes. 44–5.

9 Rufin. HE 11, 18; Sozomenus 7, 25; Theodoret HE 5, 17, 3; Malalas 347, 18, etc.

10 Liban. or. 19, 28.

11 A. Hug, Studien aus dem classischen Alterthum (1886), 156.

12 A. Güldenpenning and J. Ifland, Der Kaiser Theodosius der Grosse, 140, n. 3.

13 T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders I2, 475, n. 2.

14 D'Alton, J. F., Selections from St. John Chrysostom, 125, n. 3Google Scholar.

15 cf. the series of regulations in C. Th. 13, 1, 1–21, and the name pragmateutikon chrysion in Basil ep. 88 = MPG 32, 469.

16 cf. C. Th. 12, 13, 2–4.

17 cf. the negotiatorum matricula in connection with lustralis collatio, C. Th. 16, 2, 15, § 1; 11, 5, 1; 13, 1, 3.

18 Liban. or. 19, 25.

19 Liban. or. 22, 4.

20 De stat. 3, 7 = 47D.

21 De stat. 5, 3 = 63D.

22 De stat. 8, 4 = 96A.

23 C. Th. 13, 1, 15. Cf. also Liban. or. 33, 33, ἄρτι βαρεῖαν αὐτοὺς ὑπομείναντας φοράν. Are the arrangements for convoying gold and silver bullion mentioned in C. Th. 8, 5, 48, of 4th March, 386, connected with this?

24 Though traditionally a voluntary gift, aurum coronarium had by now become firmly embodied in the regular system of taxation. Cf. C. Lacombrade, ‘Notes sur l'aurum coronarium,’ REA 1949, 54–9.

25 Chron. min. 1, 240.

26 Chron. min. 1, 243, 297.

27 Chron. min. 1, 242.

28 Liban. or. 19, 26.

29 De stat. 8, 4 = 96A.

30 Mr. G. E. M. de Sainte Croix has suggested to me that the new tax was a superindictio of iugatio-capitatio, and that this is the reason why it was imposed by a special imperial decree. This is an attractive theory. But there seems to be little certain evidence for adaeratio of this tax in Syria so early as 387. (On this whole problem cf. S. Mazzarino, Aspetti sociali del Quarto Secolo, 1951, 137–216.) And if the new tax were iugatio-capitatio, it would fall above all on the peasants of the city territory. Now they were not involved in the riot; surely, therefore, if they had been subject to the tax, their conduct would have presented a contrast with that of the townsmen which John Chrysostom could not fail to develop in his 19th homily, where he speaks at length on the virtues of the peasants. The argumentum ex silentio carries some weight here.

31 Liban. or. 22, 5 ff. Libanius calls this φωνὴν … στασιαστικήν, σχῆμα μὲν ἔχουσαν ἱκετείας, ἔργον δὲ ἀπειθείας.

32 Liban. or. 20, 3.

33 Liban. or. 19, 27.

34 Liban. or. 19, 31.

35 Generally an article of military or official clothing at this time; cf. in particular C. Th. 14, 10, I pr. of 382, ‘nullus senatorum habitum sibi vindicet militarem, sed, chlamydis terrore deposito, quieta coloborum ac penularum induet vestimenta,’ also 7, 6, 4 of 396, 1, 15, 16 of 401. For this usage in Libanius cf. or. 46, 17, or. 30, 15, where there is mention of a πράκτοροѕ χλαμύѕ. But the word is used in a more general sense of a civilian outer garment, such as might be worn on a winter day in Antioch : cf. P. Oxy. 1288, 24, fourth century; Liban. or. 45, 19.

36 Presumably one of the baths near the palace on the island.

37 Liban. or. 22, 6. Were the lamps outside the baths (cf. ἐπὶ τὸ πλησιάζον βαλανεῖον) and so part of the famous Antiochene street lighting (cf. Amm. Marcell. 14, 1, 19, and the passages cited by De Jonge in his note ad loc.)? If so, it is to be borne in mind that this lighting system was maintained by a levy of oil from the citizens, and was no doubt felt by the poorer among them as a burden (cf. Liban. or. 33, 35–7). Even if the lights were inside the baths, they may have been in some way a charge on the citizens of the surrounding district. Cf. CJ 8, 11, 19, of 9th January, 424, where the revenue from certain buildings in Constantinople is to be devoted in part to lighting a public bath-building in the neighbourhood. We can only guess just what this act meant to those who took part in it, but we need not guess blindly.

38 Liban. or. 22, 7.

39 Not wooden statues, as some commentators and translators believe. For these portraits of emperors, painted with wax colours on wooden panels, and distributed to the cities of the empire, cf. H. Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, 19, 3, Paderborn, 1934), particularly the passages cited on p. 35 n. 2; p. 36 n. 1; p. 49 n. 6.

40 Presumably all this takes place in front of the palace, and the paintings and statues are part of the official décor, as flags or coats of arms might be to-day.

41 cf. the similar occurrence at Antioch in 353, when the angry crowd set fire to the house of one Eubulus, Amm. Marcell. 14, 7, 6.

42 These are presumably a local police force. Neither Hommel's article in P-W 2te Reihe XII, 1855–58 nor Hirschfeld's article “Die Sicherheitspolizei im römischen Kaiserreich” (Sb. Berlin 1891, 845–877 = Kleine Schriften 567–612) discusses the police force at Antioch.

43 The comes Orientis. On these titles cf. Glanville Downey, A Study of the Comites Orientis and the Consulares Syriae, Princeton, 1939, 18–19. A similar expression, ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δήμων, seems to be used of the Praefectus Augustalis by Pallad. Dial. 6 = p. 36, 27 Coleman-Norton.

44 Liban. or. 19, 36. This must have been a mere guard of honour. There does not seem to have been any regular garrison at Antioch at this time.

45 Liban. or. 23, 17.

46 Liban. or. 22, 11.

47 Liban. or. 19, 37, John Chrysostom de stat. 3, 6 = 45c. There had recently been proclaimed an Easter amnesty (cf. de stat. 6, 3 = 76c) which may in general have prohibited criminal trials during Lent. But in any case it would not apply to those charged with maiestas and certain other serious crimes. Cf. the edicts of Easter amnesty in the Western Empire, C. Th. 9, 38, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8.

48 Liban. or. 19, 29 δαίμων πονηρός: John Chrysostom de stat. 15, 1 = 152E, 21, 1 = 214B, 21, 3 = 217C τὴν οὕτω φιλουμένην ἐβάσκηναν δαίμονες, ibid. = 218B.

49 Liban. or. 19, 30.

50 Liban. or. 19, 28. Cf. also or. 20, 3, John Chrysostom de stat. 2, 3 = 24D, 3, 1 = 36D, 5, 3 = 63E, 6, 1 = 73E, 17, 2 = 174E, and particularly 17, 2 = 175C–D ἐντεῦθεν αἱ ρίζαι τῆς πονηρίας ἐβλάστησαν τῇ πόλει, ἐντεῦθεν οἱ τὸ ἧθος αὐτῆς διαβάλλοντές εἰσιν, οἱ τὰς αὑτῶν φωνὰς τοῖς ὀρχουμένοις πωλοῦντες, καὶ τριὼν ὀβολῶν τὴν ἑαυτῶν προπίνοντες σωτηρίαν, οἱ πάντα ἄνω καὶ κάτω κινοῦντες.

51 Liban. or. 41, 6.

52 Liban. or. 41, 7, where we are told that the claque of the pantomimi is paid a retaining fee even when the pantomimi are not performing.

53 Liban. or. 41, 15 ἔν γε τοῖς προτέροις χρόνοις οὐδὶν τοιοῦτον οὔτε ἐλέγετο οὔτε ἐπράττετο, κτλ.

54 Liban. or. 41, 2.

55 Liban. or. 46, 17 ἐν γὰρ δὴ τοῖς θεάτροις ἔχουσι, τὴν ἰσχὺν δεσποτείαν τῶν ἀγοραίων ἔχοντες διὰ τὴν ἐν ταῖς φωναῖς ἐξουσίαν, κτλ.

56 Liban. or. 26, 8.

57 Liban. or. 26, 17.

58 Liban. or. 29, 2.

59 Liban. or. 56, 2.

60 Liban. or. 56, 15. For the explanation of this phrase cf. Seeck, , ‘Libanius gegen Lucianus,’ RhM 73 (1920–1924), 88–9Google Scholar. For euphemiai in the baths cf. Liban. or. 27, 13.

61 Liban. or. 56, 16.

62 Liban. or. 22, 7.

63 Hom. in Matt., 37, 6 = 7, 423c.

64 Amm. Marcell. 14, 11, 12–13.

65 Yet the fact that a man who had taken part in disorders in Berytus was involved among the ringleaders of the Antioch riot—or that Libanius cculd plausibly allege that he was—suggests that there was some community of view and personal contact between the groups in different cities, at least in Syria.

66 Cf. A. Maricq, ‘Factions du cirque et partis populaires,’ Acad. Royale de Belgique, Bull. de la classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5e s rie, t. 36 (1950), 396–421, where most of the important earlier literature is cited.

67 Greg. Naz. or. 37, 18 = MPG 36, 301.

68 Theodoret HE 2, 17, 5,

69 cf. Malalas 386 14–23; Procop. Anecd. 9 = 56, 23 Haury.

70 cf. Poland in P–W 2te Reihe, v, 2473–2558 for exhaustive discussion and literature.

71 P. Oxy, 1691, 2.

72 Mitteis-Wilcken, , Grundzüge der Papyrologie, 11, 2, no. 381Google Scholar.

73 Historians generally date Theodosius' break with Maximus in Autumn 387, when he visited Thessalonica and was betrothed to Galla : cf. Zosimus 4, 44. They may be right. But the accounts of the Antioch riot of early Spring 387 offer some evidence—hitherto neglected—for an earlier date. Both Libanius (or. 20, 4, or. 22, 8) and John Chrysostom (hom. 21, 2 = 217b) speak only of statues and paintings of Theodosius and members of his family. Yet only a few years before, Cynegius the Praetorian Prefect had taken official portraits of Maximus to Alexandria—and presumably elsewhere too—to mark the recognition by Theodosius of Maximus as a colleague (Zosimus 4, 37, 3). Had these portraits by now been removed as relations between the two emperors grew more strained?

74 C. Th. 13, 1, 15; Liban. or. 33, 33.

75 Liban. ep. 846, 878.

76 C.Th. 8, 3, 1, of 9th September, 364; 12, 1, 70, of 30th January, 365; 12, 6, 5, of 4th July, 365.

77 C.Th. 11, 7, 12, of 3rd May, 383.

78 Tac. Hist. 1, 55.

79 In Isaiam 13 = MPG 30, 589A–B ὁ βασιλικὴν ἰκόνα καθυβρίσας ὡς αὐτὸν ἐξαμαρτήσας τὸν βασιλέα κρίνεται. Cf. also ‘Bas. in Isaiam’ ap. Johann. Damasc. de imaginibus 3 = MPG 94, 1365B–C.

80 Expos. in ps. CXVIII, 10, 25 = CSEL 62, 219, ‘et qui statuam contempserit imperatoris, imperatori utique cuius statuam consputaverit fecisse videtur iniuriam.’

81 Schwartz, , Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, 1, 220Google Scholar, ll. 8–12.

82 Mansi 8, 898A–C.

83 C. Th. 9, 44, I, of 6 th July, 386.

84 The official cult of the imperial statues seems to have been sufficiently flourishing in 425 to be forbidden by an edict of Theodosius II (C. Th. 15, 4, 1, of 5th May, 425). On the ‘adoration’ of imperial statues at this period cf. inter alia Greg. Naz. or. 4, 80 = MPG 35, 605B; Philostorg. 2, 17 = p. 28 Bidez, Ambrose Hexaem. 6, 57 = CSEL 32, 1, 248; Expos, in ps. CXVIII 10, 25 = CSEL 62, 219; Jerome in Daniel. 3, 18 = MPL 25, 530C; Consult. Zacchaei et Apollonii 1, 28 = pp. 34–5 Morin.

85 Liban. or. 23, 25.