What do you think?
Rate this book
Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium
Book by Cameron, Alan
- GenresHistoryAncient History
374 pages, Hardcover
First published November 4, 1976
6 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 12, 2020
Circus factions, blues and greens at rome and Byzantium.
Almost every person who has an interest in classic period has seen the chariot race in Ben Hur. The whole movie might be a bit too much, but that hippodrome, the danger, the shouting of the crowd… It is easy to understand why this was such a big deal in ancient Rome and how very similar the charioteers were to modern race drivers but the fans were in in spirit far closer to modern football fans then to race fans. This book is two things at once. It has a first part dedicated to debunking several assumptions and exaggerations that have been made about the role of the die hard fans of the racetrack, the greens and blues (linked to the color of the race teams). The second part is an attempt to a more in depth reconstruction of the greens and blues and to answer some of the questions left open by the debunking of assumptions of part 1.
Although I liked the idea and method behind it, it is a book only suitable for professionals. Alan Cameron goes out of his way to discuss source material, fragments, stele’s, tomb ornaments, topography and more leaving a reader less interested in the why’s how’s kinda lost. I would not call myself an amateur or novice on this time period but I am no scholar, that does mean off course that for those looking to work on this subject it is a great read. Some might rightfully argue how so, because the book has quite an age to it. The thing is, as I understand it and based on more recent albeit shorter comments and discussions of circus factions of the ancient era, Alan Cameron and those sharing his view succeeded in shifting the consensus, which I will go a bit more into detail.
It would do the book and hard work injustice to summarize it whole but in short Cameron’s issue with past interpretations of the greens and blues is that it the past theories tended to cherry pick source material so the greens and blues could more easily fit in the overarching narrative that aimed to make Rome and Byzantium as distinct entities. Cameron is clearly on the side of those who found this radical line between Rome and Byzantium to be unsustainable. Cameron’s study on the circus factions is part of the wider effort to point out evolution, gradual changes and continuation between Rome and Byzantium. Thus the first part is dedicated to first explaining and then deconstructing and contradiction theories that supported the radical change narrative. Theories, like the circus factions or the demes became the replacement of the violent politics of the late republic. The second thing Cameron is fighting against is a tendency to make the conflict between greens and blue’s into more then it was, debunking theories that blues and greens represented social strata, certain districts, adhered to specific religions sects or that early Byzantine emperors can be subdivided in blues or greens, going as far as to describe their reigns as marked by “blue or green politcs”.
The second part of the book is then a more detailed account of what the Demes were rather then what they weren’t. It is here that the age of the book does show. One line in particular stood out to me; “in both cases there is undoubtedly a ritual element, he ritual violence which a social anthropologist has recently claimed as a typical feature of the phenomenon of what he calls male bonding.” This “new” idea has spawned since then a whole subdivision of anthropological research into violence and the role it plays in itself in a society. Correctly does Cameron scowl that previous research of the demes has dismissed violence and riots that they were unable to link (even if with weak evidence) to a religious or political issue. A few times Cameron makes explicit the need to accept that the Roman attitude towards violence even if seemingly pointless, differed greatly from our own and sticking to dismissing it as unworthy of study doesn’t help in understanding it.It is precisely this angle that I find most intriguing about the demes. This Roman and later Byzantine attempt to channel anger, a need to vent violence, frustrations and a bit of fun by using the races and the demes. An equally interesting little sidenote he makes is on how the then in power Brazilian Junta used football, the star player Pele and hooligans in their control over Brazilian society. The demes, as according to Cameron served an albeit rowdy and less then perfect tool to control the more violent and vocal sections of the urban population. A partially engineered rivalery over which the emperor could magnanimously lord over. However this bit about how the Demes became this channel as by intent by the Byzantine emperors. I must say here that I found it a bit underdeveloped as well (and or confusing, there is a whole subpart on the link with preexisting theater groups of brawler/claques that was less structured then I would have liked) and I would have preferred a more structured analysis how the long line of emperors differed in this matter.
One aspect I have left a bit underdeveloped myself in this review, is the continuation factor. As I said earlier, Cameron can and should be placed in the camp that emphasizes continuation between Roman and Byzantine imperium. For starters, although the demes were divided in two colors, Green and blue, like ancient Rome the circus had Red and white charioteers and fans, including emperors. Once again however I found the analysis on the why the focus of the factional demes violence and confrontation went to two instead of four colors a bit lacking. A second factor of evolution and gradual change between Rome and Byzantium; is imperial presentation. The early emperors were first citizens, the veneer of imperialist grandeur came more gradually. While early emperors could and did watch theater from front row seats, they sat on the same level as the rest of the audience. The later emperors favored the imperial box from which they watched the arena games and the circus races. Even more important is the imperial office hold on entertainment, while in republican times any wealthy person could hold races and games, the emperor, more and more closely guarded the privilege, became the sponsors of these games. With the end of arena combat and the gymnasiums due to christian pressure, the circus and races became the almost sole moment for the public to interact with the emperor, shouting their demands and pleas at him and in one brutal event, the nika revolt, shouting Nika Nika, and the horrendous riots of 532 that burned a quarter of Constantinople that followed afterwards.
To wrap up this review. It has a lot of interesting ideas, deconstructions and is great material of scholarly research despite its age. Yet it simply lacks a bit for readers like me who can’t help but notice that there is quite a bit underdeveloped ideas in here, the focus was on the debunking of existing assumptions rather then building a new coherent easy to grasp concept. One section I particular I found disappointing, is the final chapter on the decline of the factions. It is very short and comes across as bit of an afterthought. Racing continued on until the 12th century as did the demes role as imperial tools for glamouring the emperors attendance during the races. This is all fine but I can’t help but wonder what effect the gradual feudalization of the byzantine society had on racing and this distinctly urban phenomenon of the demes and rioting. That will be something I have to find in another book.
interestingly in Ben hur due to a directors choice to go for a stereotypical white equals good; Ben hur is riding for the white team and his adversary, while using black horses for obvious reasons, is riding for the reds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frE9r...
Almost every person who has an interest in classic period has seen the chariot race in Ben Hur. The whole movie might be a bit too much, but that hippodrome, the danger, the shouting of the crowd… It is easy to understand why this was such a big deal in ancient Rome and how very similar the charioteers were to modern race drivers but the fans were in in spirit far closer to modern football fans then to race fans. This book is two things at once. It has a first part dedicated to debunking several assumptions and exaggerations that have been made about the role of the die hard fans of the racetrack, the greens and blues (linked to the color of the race teams). The second part is an attempt to a more in depth reconstruction of the greens and blues and to answer some of the questions left open by the debunking of assumptions of part 1.
Although I liked the idea and method behind it, it is a book only suitable for professionals. Alan Cameron goes out of his way to discuss source material, fragments, stele’s, tomb ornaments, topography and more leaving a reader less interested in the why’s how’s kinda lost. I would not call myself an amateur or novice on this time period but I am no scholar, that does mean off course that for those looking to work on this subject it is a great read. Some might rightfully argue how so, because the book has quite an age to it. The thing is, as I understand it and based on more recent albeit shorter comments and discussions of circus factions of the ancient era, Alan Cameron and those sharing his view succeeded in shifting the consensus, which I will go a bit more into detail.
It would do the book and hard work injustice to summarize it whole but in short Cameron’s issue with past interpretations of the greens and blues is that it the past theories tended to cherry pick source material so the greens and blues could more easily fit in the overarching narrative that aimed to make Rome and Byzantium as distinct entities. Cameron is clearly on the side of those who found this radical line between Rome and Byzantium to be unsustainable. Cameron’s study on the circus factions is part of the wider effort to point out evolution, gradual changes and continuation between Rome and Byzantium. Thus the first part is dedicated to first explaining and then deconstructing and contradiction theories that supported the radical change narrative. Theories, like the circus factions or the demes became the replacement of the violent politics of the late republic. The second thing Cameron is fighting against is a tendency to make the conflict between greens and blue’s into more then it was, debunking theories that blues and greens represented social strata, certain districts, adhered to specific religions sects or that early Byzantine emperors can be subdivided in blues or greens, going as far as to describe their reigns as marked by “blue or green politcs”.
The second part of the book is then a more detailed account of what the Demes were rather then what they weren’t. It is here that the age of the book does show. One line in particular stood out to me; “in both cases there is undoubtedly a ritual element, he ritual violence which a social anthropologist has recently claimed as a typical feature of the phenomenon of what he calls male bonding.” This “new” idea has spawned since then a whole subdivision of anthropological research into violence and the role it plays in itself in a society. Correctly does Cameron scowl that previous research of the demes has dismissed violence and riots that they were unable to link (even if with weak evidence) to a religious or political issue. A few times Cameron makes explicit the need to accept that the Roman attitude towards violence even if seemingly pointless, differed greatly from our own and sticking to dismissing it as unworthy of study doesn’t help in understanding it.It is precisely this angle that I find most intriguing about the demes. This Roman and later Byzantine attempt to channel anger, a need to vent violence, frustrations and a bit of fun by using the races and the demes. An equally interesting little sidenote he makes is on how the then in power Brazilian Junta used football, the star player Pele and hooligans in their control over Brazilian society. The demes, as according to Cameron served an albeit rowdy and less then perfect tool to control the more violent and vocal sections of the urban population. A partially engineered rivalery over which the emperor could magnanimously lord over. However this bit about how the Demes became this channel as by intent by the Byzantine emperors. I must say here that I found it a bit underdeveloped as well (and or confusing, there is a whole subpart on the link with preexisting theater groups of brawler/claques that was less structured then I would have liked) and I would have preferred a more structured analysis how the long line of emperors differed in this matter.
One aspect I have left a bit underdeveloped myself in this review, is the continuation factor. As I said earlier, Cameron can and should be placed in the camp that emphasizes continuation between Roman and Byzantine imperium. For starters, although the demes were divided in two colors, Green and blue, like ancient Rome the circus had Red and white charioteers and fans, including emperors. Once again however I found the analysis on the why the focus of the factional demes violence and confrontation went to two instead of four colors a bit lacking. A second factor of evolution and gradual change between Rome and Byzantium; is imperial presentation. The early emperors were first citizens, the veneer of imperialist grandeur came more gradually. While early emperors could and did watch theater from front row seats, they sat on the same level as the rest of the audience. The later emperors favored the imperial box from which they watched the arena games and the circus races. Even more important is the imperial office hold on entertainment, while in republican times any wealthy person could hold races and games, the emperor, more and more closely guarded the privilege, became the sponsors of these games. With the end of arena combat and the gymnasiums due to christian pressure, the circus and races became the almost sole moment for the public to interact with the emperor, shouting their demands and pleas at him and in one brutal event, the nika revolt, shouting Nika Nika, and the horrendous riots of 532 that burned a quarter of Constantinople that followed afterwards.
To wrap up this review. It has a lot of interesting ideas, deconstructions and is great material of scholarly research despite its age. Yet it simply lacks a bit for readers like me who can’t help but notice that there is quite a bit underdeveloped ideas in here, the focus was on the debunking of existing assumptions rather then building a new coherent easy to grasp concept. One section I particular I found disappointing, is the final chapter on the decline of the factions. It is very short and comes across as bit of an afterthought. Racing continued on until the 12th century as did the demes role as imperial tools for glamouring the emperors attendance during the races. This is all fine but I can’t help but wonder what effect the gradual feudalization of the byzantine society had on racing and this distinctly urban phenomenon of the demes and rioting. That will be something I have to find in another book.
interestingly in Ben hur due to a directors choice to go for a stereotypical white equals good; Ben hur is riding for the white team and his adversary, while using black horses for obvious reasons, is riding for the reds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frE9r...
December 6, 2015
I surely wasn't expecting such a brilliant work. It was recommended to me by Nicola Bergamo, an Italian "Byzantinist" who is working on this field, to make my knowledge on this area bigger.
Cameron here debunks the theories that the circus factions were political or religious parties, militias and that the whole of the city was divided between them and instead presents the view that the "factions" of the 5th-6th centuries Roman Empire were formed by a few hundreds (at best 2400 people, as seen by statistics at Constantinople from the reign of Maurice) who were in fact a mix of theatre and circus clacques (merged for political purposes) which fought each other not for political, but instead because of sporting reasons or due to the actions of pantomimes (effectively many cities hadn't hippodromes and yet the "Greens" and the "Blues" existed). He makes very solid scholarship and just makes one or two odd trivial mistake (like the dates of birth and death of Sidonius Apollinaris and his claim that Constantine X was deposed by a popular riot) and I don't think he supports his idea that the factions declined in the 12th century (he could have at least proved that they didn't exist any more in the 13th century or in the late 12th by using the silence of the coetaneous sources and he ends up speculating a bit about the conection between their decline and the move of the imperial residence from the Great Palace to the Blachernae) even if I generally agree with him on that.
Concluding, this a very good book even if a bit outdated (it was written in 1976).
Cameron here debunks the theories that the circus factions were political or religious parties, militias and that the whole of the city was divided between them and instead presents the view that the "factions" of the 5th-6th centuries Roman Empire were formed by a few hundreds (at best 2400 people, as seen by statistics at Constantinople from the reign of Maurice) who were in fact a mix of theatre and circus clacques (merged for political purposes) which fought each other not for political, but instead because of sporting reasons or due to the actions of pantomimes (effectively many cities hadn't hippodromes and yet the "Greens" and the "Blues" existed). He makes very solid scholarship and just makes one or two odd trivial mistake (like the dates of birth and death of Sidonius Apollinaris and his claim that Constantine X was deposed by a popular riot) and I don't think he supports his idea that the factions declined in the 12th century (he could have at least proved that they didn't exist any more in the 13th century or in the late 12th by using the silence of the coetaneous sources and he ends up speculating a bit about the conection between their decline and the move of the imperial residence from the Great Palace to the Blachernae) even if I generally agree with him on that.
Concluding, this a very good book even if a bit outdated (it was written in 1976).
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews