How violent was late antique society? Ostensibly, the sources at hand attest to widespread and recurrent violence; riots, as well as clashes between religious groups, are regularly reported. The nature of the evidence, however, gives pause for thought: as scholars such as Peter Van Nuffelen and Martin Zimmermann have emphasized, what we know about individual episodes of ancient violence largely derives from literary sources, whose authors never intended to provide a complete or impartial account of the events in question. Instead, they produced rhetorically crafted texts, designed for specific audiences, in which the representation of violence - whether exaggerated or minimized - serves the purpose of promoting political, moral and theological aims.

Building on this scholarly trend, Jonathan Stutz's stimulating monograph engages in a rhetorical examination of a range of fourth- and early fifth-century literary sources, across a number of different genres, which recount or refer to episodes of collective violence. Stutz analyses how the authors behind these texts - primarily emperors, orators and members of the ecclesiastical elite - represented both riots and religious strife in order to advance broader political or religious messages. In addition, he draws out the argumentative strategies they employed to influence, manipulate and challenge their respective audiences' perceptions of these events. As a corollary, he argues that the performative nature of rhetorical and literary representations of violence, that is, their "ability [...] to structure and change the reality perceived by the audience" (9), provided the crucial means by which late antique society could address, and attempt to resolve, religious conflicts and political crises.

The bulk of the monograph is structured around close readings of selected literary sources, arranged in rough chronological order and divided into seven chapters, which are organized by theme and genre. Chapter 2 explores how the rhetorical trope of the irrational and dangerous crowd, as evidenced in Dio Chrysostom's To the Alexandrians (Or. 32), played out in Constantine's letter to Alexander and Arius (Euseb. Vit. Const. 2.64-72), in which the involvement of ordinary Christians in the Arian controversy was framed as a threat to the safety of the empire. Chapter 3 looks at Athanasius' accounts of violence against Alexandrian churches in his apologetic works. Stutz argues that by representing such violence as sacrilege committed by irrational and violent adversaries, who are also cast as persecutors, Athanasius sought to provoke an emotional response from his readers in order to convince them of his own interpretation of the events.

In Chapter 4, Stutz examines Julian's Misopogon, interpreted here as an abstruse expression of imperial anger, and the orations composed by Libanius in response (Or. 15 and 16). Chapter 5 identifies the manipulation of emotions as one of the key rhetorical strategies by which John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on the Statues, sought to promote moral reform, and thus reconciliation with Theodosius, after the Riot of the Statues at Antioch in AD 387. Chapter 6 focuses on Gregory of Nazianzus's orations and his autobiographical poem, as well as the anonymous Funerary Oration in honour of John Chrysostom. Stutz contrasts Gregory's calls for unity with the defence of the Johannite schism in the Funerary Oration, emphasizing differing rhetorical uses of concord.

Chapter 7 centres on epistolography and examines how Ambrose and Augustine employed the language of friendship to manage crises in several of their letters. Chapter 8 then turns to historiography and shows how Rufinus structured his account of the destruction of the Serapeum in 391 (Hist. eccl. 11.22-30) to present the event as a legitimate and legally sanctioned act of anti-pagan violence.

While many of sources discussed are rather well-trodden in scholarship, Stutz's readings are, for the most part, fresh and convincing. Two minor points of criticism can be made. In Chapter 4, Stutz states that Lib. Or. 16 was "addressed to [Julian] himself" (80) and that the audience of Lib. Or. 15 was "the city of Antioch" (77). Yet from Socrates it is evident that both orations were delivered in a private setting (Hist. eccl. 3.17.8); moreover, this fails to engage with the argument that both orations postdate Julian's death. [1] Second, the book's chronological scope could have been more clearly defined. Its subtitle ("Crowd Violence and Religious-Political Discourses in Late Antiquity") implies a treatment from the fourth to the sixth century or even beyond, while elsewhere the chronological scope is defined as the fourth century (1, 202), even though fifth-century sources are also discussed. Furthermore, Stutz at one point seems to imply that Dio Chrysostom is a late antique orator (16), and Procopius is referred to as a "later Byzantine" historian (210).

Throughout the book, the author shows the advantages of his approach to literary and rhetorical representations of collective violence. The chief value of Stutz's book lies in its close readings, which will be of use to scholars working on late antique rhetoric and violence.

Note:

[1] Lieve Van Hoof and Peter Van Nuffelen: 'Monarchy and Mass Communication: Antioch A.D. 362/3', in: JRS 101 (2011), 166-84.

Karl Robinson