Articles

A Pagan and Christian interpretation of the 387 Riot of the Statues

Emperor Theodosius IA Pagan and Christian interpretation of the 387 Riot of the Statues

Justin Stephens (Assistant Professor of History Metropolitan State University of Denver)

ATINER Conference Paper Series: No. MDT2013-0391,April 24 (2013)

Abstract

This paper explores the conflicting accounts of John Chrysostom and Libanius regarding events related to the 387 Riot of the Statues in Antioch. I argue that the differing accounts were both authors’ attempts to shape the perception of the persons responible for attaining the pardon. As such, each author was putting forth a respective model for politics in the late fourth century. For his part, Chrysostom held up the pardon as proof of a new Christian model for politics in which bishops and monks held sway with imperial officials and the emperor. Libanius, meanwhile, ignored the role of bishops and monks and instead credited the imperial official Caesarius and the emperor Theodosius.



In doing so, he was ignoring the growing role of Christian officials in imperial politics in favor of a more traditional model of politics. Despite the fact that neither author was entirely accurate, there is clear evidence that Chrysostom’s version of events carried the day. Ultimately, the events following the riot demonstrate the power of the Christian pulpit in the late fourth century. In short, Chrysostom used his sermons, which were both more frequent and earlier than Libanius’ orations, to build an audience that was hostile towards Libanius’ version of events.

Click here to read this article from the ATINER Conference Paper Series

Sponsored Content