International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Eirini Chrestou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Katerina Nikolaou
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 
Faculty of History and Archaeology, Athens, Greece; 
[e-mail]
Popular Resistance to Authority: From the Circus Factions to the Citizens
Byzantine imperial ideology was dominated by stereotypes which stressed its Christian 
elements. Divine providence helps the chosen one ascend the throne; the ruler serves as the 
temporary representative of God on earth, his place is between God and men, so that he may act 
as an intermediary between Him and his subjects. In actual fact, the emperor ought to comply 
with the fundamental principles of Christian teaching and exercise power in a spirit of justice and 

---

380
philanthropy. At the same time, emperor and state were checked and balanced by the three main 
pillars of Byzantine polity: the senate, the army, and the circus factions, whose power and ability 
to intervene varied from time to time. Apart from being God’s chosen, the Byzantine emperor was 
also the people’s choice and his authority was propped by the social contract between him and the 
three fundamental state institutions, because the head of state had to be legitimized in the collective 
consciousness of his subjects as a unifying authority.
Throughout the ages there were Byzantine monarchs who did not always conform to the ideal 
of a good ruler, to natural law, to moral and Christian teaching; when that happened, the ruler in 
question found himself at odds with either the Senate, the army, or the circus factions – whichever 
body held political sway at the time – that would then step in and restore τάξις (order). As long as 
the circus factions were a state institution with an influence on public affairs, the citizens found 
expression through these organized groups. It is not self-evident that these groups followed a specific 
political line. They did, however, from time to time or on occasion, have specific positions and goals. 
But ever since the circus factions were weakened politically and their participation in public life 
was limited mainly to ritualistic ceremonies (since around the middle of the seventh century), the 
people intervened in public affairs in a spontaneous and unorganized fashion. Since then, its role 
varied, either being ancillary to the organized bodies – the senate and, most importantly, the army 
– that served as checks to imperial power, or taking center stage whenever it was formed as a result 
of maneuvers that directly impinged on the interests of the lower classes and galvanized resistance, 
without necessarily enjoying the support of the other state agents.
The middle of the seventh century, when the institution of co-emperor reinforced the practice 
of dynastic succession and the position of the army was strengthened by the creation of the thematic 
organization, also marked the beginning of a decrease in the level of political influence the circus 
factions could exert. The participation of the people in current events was not carried out through 
the actions of the organized circus factions; instead, it was unorganized and spontaneous. Thus, 
the circus factions of Constantinople no longer represented politically the citizens of the imperial 
capital, who will henceforth be defined by Byzantine authors in terms of “people”, “crowd” or “mob” 
whenever they took a leading role in, or caused, riots and mass popular reactions.
The paper will chart, using specific instances as examples, the course of transition from 
organized collectives to unorganized (at least not officially sanctioned by authorities or in an open 
manner) spontaneous popular reactions as a means of setting limits to political authority and 
restoring order.

---

381