Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barry Baldwin. The Date of A Circus Dialogue. Revue Des Études Byzantines, Tome 39, 1981. Pp. 301-306.
Barry Baldwin. The Date of A Circus Dialogue. Revue Des Études Byzantines, Tome 39, 1981. Pp. 301-306.
Barry Baldwin. The Date of A Circus Dialogue. Revue Des Études Byzantines, Tome 39, 1981. Pp. 301-306.
Abstract
REB 39 1981 France p. 301-306
B. Baldwin, The Date of a Circus Dialogue. — This dialogue, the so-called Acclamations against Calopodius, preserved by
Theophanes, is attached by the latter, and by most modern scholars, to the Nika Revolt. For historical and prosopographical
reasons, the author concludes that the dialogue probably belongs to the later years of Justinian's reign, some time between 547
and 565.
Baldwin Barry. The Date of a Circus Dialogue. In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 39, 1981. pp. 301-306.
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1981_num_39_1_2123
THE DATE OF A CIRCUS DIALOGUE
Barry BALDWIN
15. PG 92, 1025, where it is rejected as a vox nihili. Admitted, however, to Lampe 's
Patristic Greek Lexicon.
16. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI. 1199.
17. Bellum Persicum 1. 15. 31 ; Bellum Gothicum 2. 13. 16.
18. Cf. Stein, p. 512; Bury, p. 46 n. 2; Jones, Later Roman Empire, Oxford 1964,
p. 567. The phrase is also employed by Agathias, Hist. 3. 2. 4.
19. Bellum Persicum 1. 24 ; it is worth noticing that Narses is never mentioned in the
Secret History.
20. His military role is given by the Paschal Chronicle, Theophanes, and Cedrenus
{PG 121, 705); omitted by Malalas and Zonaras (PG 134, 1323-5).
21. Op. cit., p. 276.
304 Β. BALDWIN
22. Op. cit., Ill, p. 163 n. 9; Stein, p. 450 n. 1, is non-commital on the matter.
23. Codex Justinianeus 1. 2. 24; Vita Dan. 49; Theoph. A. M. 6004; Vita Eutych. 85.
The position of primicerius was a senior one, apparently held for two years ; cf. Jones,
op. cit., p. 568.
24. A. M. 6051 ; Malalas, Chronographia, XVII : Bonn, p. 490.
25. Either this Calopodius had had sons before becoming a eunuch, or it is merely
a foolish error on the chronicler's part. Note that Theophanes and the Paschal Chronicle
insert a son of Mundus (unknown to Procopius) into their Nika narratives.
26. MGH SS, XI (Berlin 1894), p. 235 : Hypatius patricius seditione populi Imperator
levatus et iussu Justiniani Augusti interfectus est et cum eo Pompeius, et paene triginta
milia hominum in circo gladio necati sunt.
27. A cognate example is that of the Rufinus whose successful peace-making mission
to Persia endeared him (for a while) to Justinian. Theophanes (A. M. 6023) places this
before the Nika troubles, Malalas (Bonn, p. 477) immediately after.
THE DATE OF A CIRCUS DIALOGUE 305
concert. Three compelling reasons for detaching the dialogue from 53228.
How did Theophanes come to connect the dialogue with the Nika riots ?
I offer one supplement to the detailed discussions of Maas and Cameron.
Malalas inserts an account of factional violence immediately after his
notice of the praepositus of 558/9. This is a possible pointer to associations
of circus riots and the name Calopodius29.
Cameron assigns the dialogue to the beginning of Justinian's reign,
finding this the most natural context for a document proclaiming the host
ility of a Blue emperor towards the Greens. His argument rests exclusively
upon the Procopian diatribe in the Secret History against Justinian's
indulgence to the Blues30. But as Procopius makes clear, this all has to do
with Justinian's pre-imperial days. Once on the throne, he and Theodora
went through various charades to keep the populace divided, including
a pose by the emperor as punisher of the Blues31.
And we have more than the malice of Procopius. According to Malalas
and the Paschal Chronicle32, Justinian, both in 527 in concert with Justin
and in 529 after disturbances at Antioch, took stern measures against
Blues and Greens alike.
Maas opted for the latter part of the reign on the grounds that the ana
thema on those who denied the emperor's orthodoxy (lines 25-6) implies
an allusion to Justinian's lapse into Aphthartodocetism. But it is surely
unlikely that petitioners would risk imperial displeasure by such tactless
hints. Cameron33 calls it a puzzling and neglected remark. Neglected,
28. Cameron, it may be added, rightly scouts efforts to link the references in the dia
logue to Manichaeans and Samaritans to events contemporary with 532, an approach
adopted by Karlin-Hayter. These are terms of stock abuse. Moreover, Malalas has many
references to troubles with Manichaeans and Samaritans in Justinian's time. It is worth
noticing that (unless the text is defective) the Greens do not even bother to answer the
charge of Manichaean.
29. Cameron thinks that Theophanes shoved in the dialogue without reading it, a
notion perhaps supported by the summarising comment of the Paschal Chronicle that
there is much abuse of Justinian himself by the Greens, a travesty if intended as a precis
of the actual dialogue.
30. Anecdota 7. Bury, p. 22 n. 1, is wrong in saying that this is the only evidence for
connecting Justinian with the Blues ; Malalas (p. 426) furnishes the same information.
Beware here of Migne, whose Latin version makes the emperor a Green! A similar
howler in Bury, p. 42, n. 1 , who makes a Blue out of the demonstratively Green John
the Cappadocian (Lydus, De mag. 3. 62).
31. Anecdota 10. 18.
32. Malalas : Bonn, p. 422, 449 ; Chron. Pasch. 334B (PG 92, 869). Cf. Stein, p. 240,
449 ; Bury, p. 40.
33. Cameron, p. 142.
306 Β. BALDWIN
34. See Bury, p. 48 n. 2, for Malalas' references, the dates of the riots, and their major
details.
35. An earlier version of this paper was read at the Fifth Annual Byzantine Studies
Conference at Dumbarton Oaks on October 27, 1979. In the ensuing discussion, it was
noted that no Calopodius is actually called spatharius outside the dialogue. But, as earlier
seen, the chroniclers are capable of getting such things wrong. Allowance must also be
made for promotion within the eunuch ranks. Furthermore, the functions of one such
office were on occasion assimilated to another. A case in point is Chrysaphius, the all-
powerful minister of Theodosius II. He held the position of primicerius sacri cubiculi,
but exercised the functions of spatharius and is so referred to by most of the sources.
Cf. Stein, I, p. 297 ; E. A. Thompson, History of Attila and the Huns, Oxford 1948, p. 99
n. 4.