Download PDF | Alan Cameron - Circus Factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium-Oxford University Press (1976).
375 Pages
Preface
Tue genesis of this book has been described in the preface to its predecessor and companion volume Porphyrius the Charioteer (Clarendon Press, 1973).
Despite an abundant scholarly literature, the ‘factions’ of the Roman and Byzantine circus remain an astonishingly underresearched subject. Three quarters of a century ago one or two scholars essayed an interpretation in social, religious and political rather than sporting terms. Instead of stimulating further detailed research in confirmation or refutation, these paradoxical speculations immediately won the status of unquestioned orthodoxy, attracting little but embroidery in subsequent scholarship. The only problems discussed were those created by these false premises. The most obvious and important aspects of the subject have never been studied at all. Much relevant evidence pointing in other directions has been simply ignored. The ultimate product of this tradition is the 600 pages of J. Jarry’s Hérésies et factions (1968), a book whose spectacular marriage of traditional falsehood with original fantasy has put it beyond the reach of ordinary criticism. Much of the first part of this book is devoted to a criticism of the basic assumptions of this school; but those familiar with its literature will observe that I have silently ignored most of the wilder flights of my predecessors.
In the second part I substitute a more constructive and realistic account of my own; many may prefer to begin with the positive rather than the negative. It was time to make a completely fresh start, to collect all the evidence and set it in a proper perspective. If the factions that emerge lack the glamour of the freedom fighters of tradition, they are no less remarkable in their different way (Chapter XII provides a summary of my thesis)—and are at least firmly rooted in the evidence. If the traditional view is ever to be reformulated, it is likewise evidence, not dogma, that will have to be cited.
More space than might have been expected is given over to questions of terminology (not always easy reading, but inescapably relevant) and to another underresearched topic, the history of popular entertainment in the Roman world. As to my own terminology, while drawing the line at the bogus “demes’ I could not bring myself to abandon ‘faction’, incorrect though it is. Chapters II and VI are revised versions of articles originally published in Byzantinische Zeitschrift and Byzantion respectively, and my Inaugural Lecture Bread and Circuses was adapted from an earlier version of Chapter VII.
Many friends and colleagues have given me the benefit of their advice or generously allowed me to make use of unpublished archaeological material, inscriptions, or papyri: to Timothy Barnes, Zbigniew Borkowski, Sebastian Brock, Geoffrey de Ste Croix, Peter Hermann, Nicholas Horsfall, John Humphrey, Christopher Jones, Wolfgang Liebeschuetz, Fergus Millar, Luigi Moretti, Oswyn Murray, John Rea, Charlotte Roueché, Ian Taylor, David Thomas, and Edward Ullendorff I am variously indebted. Susan French and Gilla Harris coped uncomplainingly with a patched and polychrome manuscript, and the University Press showed their usual skill and patience. John Martindale read the proofs with characteristic vigilance. The argument and presentation of the whole book owes most of such lucidity as it possesses to the vigilant criticism and unfailing judgement of Averil Cameron, who also removed most of its adverbs.
King’s College London, A. CG. April 1975
Introduction
Tus book seeks to trace the history and significance of what are generally (if incorrectly) known as the ‘circus factions’ of the Roman Empire. Jt follows their remarkable story from the principate of Augustus to the eve of the crusades. It thus covers more than 1200 years, though naturally attention is focused on what is generally considered the heyday of the factions in the late Roman/early Byzantine period, that is to say from the fifth to the seventh centuries. Yet this period cannot be understood aright without a careful study of what came before and after.
Those who have concerned themselves with the early Byzantine factions have always in the past been Byzantinists, little acquainted with the early Empire. Those who have studied the factions of the early Empire have been classical scholars, content to take on trust the results of their Byzantine colleagues. In consequence it has come to be agreed by both parties that there is a radical difference between the factions of the early and late Empire. This is not in itself particularly important. What is important is the assumption that this change in the character of the factions represented something much deeper and more significant. They turn into political parties, spokesmen of the people—indeed they ave the people, a sovereign people, able to make and unmake Emperors, and enjoying a variety of lesser powers and privileges.
The fullest and most influential account of this alleged transformation is G. Manojlovié’s study ‘Carigradski Narod’ of 1904, first made generally available in H. Grégoire’s French translation of 1936. Few of the individual points in Manojlovic’s thesis were in fact original: his service was rather to have developed these poirits to their logical conclusions and to have welded them together into a comprelhiensive picture.
This picture, which for convenience of reference I shall often style the ‘traditional view’, is in my judgement mistaken or at least misstated in every material respect.
The more important of these alleged differences between the factions of the early and later Empire may be summarized as follows :
(A) From the fifth century on the factions of Constantinople are usually denoted by the term Sijpor. These ‘demes’ were, as in Attica, residential areas. Thus the entire population of Constantinople was divided between the factions, which must therefore (so it is argued) be more than ‘mere’ sporting associations.
(B) They were constituted from probably as early as the fourth century as an ‘urban militia’. It was in this capacity that in later days they alternately saved and betrayed the city.
(C) The two main parties, the Blues and the Greens, were the standard-bearers of orthodoxy and monophysitism respectively in the religious controversies of the age.
(D) Instead of the four sporting associations of the principate (Red, White, Green, Blue) there emerged just two, the Greens and Blues. This polarization reflects the natural social, economic, political, and religious cleavages of the population as a whole rather than anything so frivolous as their sporting preferences.
(E) A social division between the Blues and the Greens is clearly discernible. The Blues represent the upper, the Greens the lower classes.
(F) Most important of all it was not till the late Empire that the factions came to play a political role.
I shall be arguing that (A), (B), and (C) are simply false: there were no demes (Ch. II) and no regular urban militia (Ch. V); and the factions played no detectable part in doctrinal disputes (Ch. VI). (D), (E), and (F) illustrate the Byzantinist’s unfamiliarity with conditions under the early Empire: (D), the greater importance of the Blues and Greens, and to a lesser extent (E), the social distinction between them, obtained already in the first century (Chs. III-IV), though it is more than doubtful whether either factor had any political significance. As for (F), while the factions as such took no traceable part in politics under the early Empire, we shall sce in part II that the circuses and in particular theatres of both Rome and great eastern metropolises like Antioch had served as political arenas since the Republic.
Unquestionably changes did take place between the age of Augustus and the age of Justinian. The Blues and Greens who terrorized the great eastern cities in the fifth and sixth centuries were a far cry from the modest fan clubs of the first four centuries of the Empire. But both the character and the causes of these changes are very different from what has generally been assumed.
The assumption which I wish particularly to combat is that these changes represent a growth of popular sovereignty. This is the main interest and importance of the subject to most of those who have written on it—especially (though by no means exclusively) to Marxist historians. One scholar has claimed that a direct line ran from the hippodrome of Constantinople to the Russian Revolution.
It must be stated right away that such an interpretation of the character and role of the factions of the late Empire is pure modern hypothesis, wholly unsupported by contemporary evidence. If I had to substitute a general thesis of my own it would be that the ‘rise’ of the factions during this period actually meant a perversion or decline of the traditional means of popular expression. But the matter is altogether too complex to admit of solution in terms of such facile formulae. The political roles of the factions and the people respectively (for they are not identical) will occupy much of the second half of the book.
Meanwhile we may appropriately begin by asking a simple but basic question.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق