Asterius of Amaseia Between Libanius and John Chrysostom on the Kalends of January

Abstract

This article examines Asterius of Amaseia’s Homily 4 on the Kalends of January and compares it with the works of Libanius and John Chrysostom on the same subject. Preached in January 400, Asterius’ sermon takes a distinctive approach, focusing less on condemning pagan aspects and more on criticising immoral behaviour during the festival. The bishop emphasises the economic and non-inclusive nature of the celebration, directly refuting Libanius’ eulogy. Asterius portrays the Kalends as a source of social division and violence, in contrast to Libanius’ portrayal of shared joy. This article suggests that Asterius’ polemic reflects a social conflict rather than a pagan–Christian opposition, presenting the Kalends as a moral problem threatening society, particularly through the corruption of its leaders.

1. Introduction

The Kalends of January were an important festival in the Roman calendar, marking the beginning of the New Year. Originally celebrated in the city of Rome, the festival spread from West to East from the 4th century onwards, becoming the most widespread popular festival in the Empire, despite the Christianisation of the Empire itself (see, e.g., Meslin 1970; Graf 1998; 2008; 2015, pp. 72–73; Di Berardino 2008; Kaldellis 2012; Grig 2017). Characterised by public and private rituals, it spread because of its civic and collective value, which helped strengthen bonds between citizens through socialising rituals such as visits and gift exchanges, subverting hierarchies and social classes. Even the Christian emperor Theodosius endorsed the feast of Kalendae Ianuariae, reforming the legal calendar in August 3891 (Graf 2015, pp. 105–27). Ten years later, two Christian emperors, Arcadius and Honorius, while abolishing pagan rituals, were concerned with safeguarding “the festal assemblies of citizens and the common joy of all” and decreed that festive banquets could be held when publica vota required it2 (see Graf 2008, pp. 20–21; 2015, pp. 155–56).

It has been aptly observed that this festival represented a kind of neutral ground, an occasion of social koinonia shared by all the inhabitants of a city, regardless of their religious identity (see Massa 2011, p. 2; Kaldellis 2012, pp. 191, 200).3 Robert Markus argues that this day, purged of its pagan content, was more than any other “a day for healing rifts, establishing and celebrating social cohesion” (Markus 1990, p. 104). However, the celebration of the Kalends, although permitted by imperial law, was strongly opposed by the bishops. The main reason for this was precisely the participation of large numbers of Christians in the feast, during which, according to descriptions, people indulged in all kinds of extravagance at nightly banquets, cheered on by drinking, dancing, and singing. From the late 4th century, there are numerous testimonies from both Western (see Catarinella 2014) and Eastern bishops who condemned such practices, which they called demonic, and warned Christians not to participate in the feast of the Kalends.

In the East, at the end of the 4th century, within a little more than a decade, three refined and cultured authors wrote some important works on the Kalends festival: on the pagan side, we find Oratio 9 by the rhetorician Libanius (Foerster 1903, pp. 393–98), who had previously written one of his Progymnasmata on the subject (Descriptio 5, Foerster 1915, pp. 472–77), and on the Christian side, the Homily In Kalendas by John Chrysostom (PG 48,953–962)4 and Homilia 4 by Asterius, Bishop of Amaseia (Datema 1970, pp. 39–43). In general, scholars consider these texts to be closely related, despite some disagreements about their chronological relationship. However, attention has tended to focus on the two most prominent figures, Chrysostom and Libanius (see, e.g., Graf 2012), leaving the figure of the Amaseian bishop largely in the shade. The aim of the present paper is therefore to consider the contribution of the lesser-known Asterius, placing him in the climate of intense tension between paganism and Christianity in the late 4th century.

2. The Chronological Context

As mentioned above, the chronological relationship between the three writings has been the subject of differing interpretations by modern scholars.

The most widely accepted hypothesis is that the earliest text is the sermon of John Chrysostom. As he informs us at the beginning of his homily, he preached it on the feast of the Kalends during the absence of Bishop Flavian, while he was still a presbyter in Antioch. The sermon must therefore be dated after 386, the year of Chrysostom’s consecration as presbyter, and before the beginning of 398, when he left Antioch to take up the episcopal see of Constantinople—with a preference among scholars for the early years of his presbyterate.5 However, there are those who see Chrysostom’s text as a response to Libanius’ speech (e.g., Malosse 2014, p. 97 footnote 41). Fritz Graf (2015, pp. 137–38), on the other hand, considering that there are no direct references between the two texts, notes that they represent “two radically different ways of looking at the same traditional event” and hypothesises that both are a reaction to Theodosius’ approval of the decree on the Kalends in August 389 (Cod. Theod. 2.8.19), while not ruling out that Libanius’ encomium might be a response to Chrysostom’s polemic (Graf 2015, p. 140). According to Graf (2015, pp. 145–46), Theodosius’ official endorsement of the Kalendae Ianuariae is at the origin of all the writings on the Kalends that spread in the East and West in a short period of time.

Chrysostom launches his vehement invective against the celebration of the Kalends, exhorting Christians not to participate in the festivities in the service of the devil, since they are “citizenship of heaven” (see, e.g., Sandwell 2007, pp. 146–47). This idea finds a significant parallel in the first of the Discourses on the Poor Lazarus (PG 48,963–982), delivered on the second day of January, after the feast of the Kalends (PG 48,970). Together with the discourses on Lazarus, the sermon on the Kalends seems to form a chronological series of sermons, as shown by the reference in the first discourse to 1 Corinthians 10:31–32, quoted “yesterday” (Χθὲς), as a bulwark against drunkards and tavern-goers (de Laz. 1.6, PG 48,970; in Kal. 6, PG 48,962), and by several manuscripts that transmit them together and one after the other (Augustin 2005, pp. 233–34, 240). Here, as in In Kalendas, Chrysostom focuses on drunkards and tavern keepers, contrasting the satanic feast with the spiritual feast of the Christians, and juxtaposing the drunken dancers with the faithful who have enjoyed the spiritual dances and drunk from the cup of spiritual teaching.

Libanius’ Oratio 9 appears to have been written in the last few years of his life, since the rhetorician notes at the end that, owing to “the prohibition of imperial laws” (9.18, p. 398: νόμου κεκωλυκότος), the altars of the gods no longer receive what they once did: the fire, blood, and smoke of sacrifices (see Graf 2012, pp. 175–76). The reference must be to the prohibition of pagan rites by Theodosius’ edicts, promulgated between 391 and 392. At the beginning of his discourse, Libanius defends himself against accusations from those who criticise him for having written numerous panegyrics but never a eulogy for the feast of the Kalends; he therefore declares that he is composing this eulogy because it is better to end one’s life having paid one’s debts than to depart still in debt (9.3, p. 393). Since it is generally agreed that Libanius died around 393, the speech is typically dated to 1 January 392 or 393 (see, e.g., Graf 2008, p. 5; 2015, pp. 129–30; Quiroga Puertas 2003, p. 267; Marcone 2017, p. 177). However, not all scholars interpret Libanius’ statement as a reference to the last few years of his life, with some even declaring the speech impossible to date (Martin 1988, p. 191; Cribiore 2013, p. 142). Libanius’ work represents the extreme defence of the last adherents of pagan tradition, the last resistance to the onslaught of Christianity. The feast he describes, although stripped of all pagan religious connotations, remains a solemn moment capable of fostering harmony and reconciling the various segments of society of the city. In Descriptio 5, a scholastic exercise whose dating cannot be established (Gibson 2014, pp. 128–30), Libanius lists, in chronological order, the different phases of the feast, spread over three days (see Quiroga Puertas 2003, pp. 269–71).

Unlike Chrysostom and Libanius, Asterius’ sermon can be dated precisely. In the last chapter, the bishop gives some detailed historical references, describing the miserable fate of some consuls of the recent past. Although Asterius does not mention their names, the allusions were probably clear to his audience, perhaps even almost proverbial, as suggested by the recurrence of the first three examples in Jerome’s Epistle 60, where they are used to illustrate the transience of earthly honours.6 We can easily identify the individuals alluded to as Rufinus (consul in 392), Timasius (389), Abundantius (393), and Tatian (391), who is mentioned with his son Proclus. Of particular significance is the mention of the last consul, referred to as “last year’s one” (4.9.4, p. 43: Ὁ δὲ τοῦ παρελθόντος ἐνιαυτοῦ). The description of this figure—ambiguous between men and women—who in life possessed “as much land as is not easy to say but was buried in as much land as those who had mercy on him granted”, undoubtedly refers to Eutropius, consul in 399. This interpretation is further supported by the concluding reference to the Ecclesiastes passage: “Vanity of vanities” (see Ioh. Chrys, In Eutrop.).

In view of these chronological data, Hom. 4 was certainly delivered by Asterius at the beginning of January in the year 400, only a few years after the works of Chrysostom and Libanius. Scholars have traditionally held that Asterius’ homily is a response to Libanius’ discourse, as first noted in Richard Foerster’s edition of the works of the Antiochian rhetorician (Foerster 1903, p. 391 footnote 1) and later reiterated, for example, by Max Schmid (1911, pp. 41–43), Cornelis Datema (1970, p. 229), Wolfgang Speyer (1986, col. 629), Anthony Kaldellis (2012, p. 189), and Fritz Graf (2015, p. 139).

3. Asterius, Homily 4

Asterius’ accusatory discourse against the Kalends begins by contrasting two feasts that took place at the same time, yesterday and today: they are neither harmonious nor fraternal but hostile and opposed to each other. One is the feast of the external crowd, which collects much of Mammon’s money and attracts vulgar and illiberal commerce; the other is the feast of holy and true religion, which teaches communion with God and the virtue of a purified life (4.1.1, p. 39: Δύο κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἑορταὶ συνέδραμον ἐπὶ τῆς χθιζῆς καὶ τῆς ἐνεστώσης ἡμέρας, οὐ σύμφωνοί τε καὶ ἀδελφοί, πᾶν δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐχθρῶς τε καὶ ἐναντίως ἔχουσαι πρὸς ἀλλήλας. Ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ ἔξωθεν συρφετοῦ, πολὺ συνάγουσα τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὴν ἄλλην καπηλείαν ἐφελκομένη, τὴν ἀγοραῖόν τε καὶ <ἀν>ελεύθερον· ἡ δὲ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ἀληθοῦς θρησκείας, οἰκείωσιν τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν καὶ τοῦ κεκαθαρμένου βίου τὴν ἀρετὴν ἐκπαιδεύουσα: “Two celebrations took place at the same time—yesterday and today –, not in harmony or in a sisterly manner, but entirely opposed and hostile to one another. One belongs to the external crowd, gathering much money from Mammon and attracting other forms of commerce, being vulgar and illiberal; the other pertains to the holy and true religion, fostering communion with God and cultivating the virtue of a purified life”).

Michael Bauer (1911, p. 21) speculates that Asterius preached his sermon on Sunday 1 January 400 in competition with the Kalends festival. Datema (1970, pp. 228–29), on the other hand, observing that the festival of the Kalends lasted until the fourth and even the fifth day, believes that Asterius is referring to the transition between the end of the pagan festival of the Kalends and the day of the Christian festival of the Epiphany, 6 January, the day on which Asterius’ sermon would have been delivered. Graf (2015, pp. 73, 74, 138) also supports this hypothesis. The same contrast between the pagan feast of the Kalends and the Christian feast of the Epiphany is also drawn in a sermon by Maximus of Turin, who asks his faithful how they can celebrate the Epiphany religiously after having celebrated the Kalends of Janus with such devotion (serm. 63.2: Quomodo igitur potestis religiose Epifaniam Domini procurare, qui Iani kalendas, quantum in vobis est, devotissime celebrastis?: “How then can you properly observe the Lord’s Epiphany, when you have celebrated the Kalends of January with all the devotion you can muster?”). But more often in his sermons, as in those of other Western bishops, the antithesis is between the Kalends and the celebration of the Christian feast of the Nativity (see, e.g., Max. Taur., serm. 61c.4; 63.1; 98.1; 98.2).

Datema’s hypothesis is supported by the fact that the festive atmosphere of the Kalends, which officially lasted three days (in Antioch; for example, see Liebeschütz 1972, pp. 228–30), only gradually faded over the next two days but still left its mark on people’s spirits, as Libanius testifies in his Descriptio 5. The rhetorician recalls that on the fourth day, when everyone reluctantly went back to work, like a horse that after a while is subjected to the yoke again, the climax of the feast faded away, although it did not disappear completely even on the following day (descr. 5,14, p. 477).7

Another of Datema’s arguments is based on the mention made by Asterius at the beginning of his discourse, when he laments the absence of many of the faithful from the liturgical assembly, a mention that is related to what Gregory of Nyssa says in his sermon In die luminum (GNO 9, pp. 221–42) about the poor attendance of the faithful on the Sunday before Epiphany, called in Cappadocia “the holy day of Lights” (ἡ ἁγία τῶν Φώτων ἡμέρα, see Greg. Naz, or. 39.1; 40.1). During this important solemnity, which was celebrated with great fervour in Cappadocia (see Mossay 1965), the baptism of Christ was commemorated, and the neophytes were baptised (Mossay 1965, pp. 35–44). Datema believes that Asterius is referring to this rite when he speaks of communion with God and the purification of life at the beginning of his sermon (4.1.1, p. 39).

However, there are also some elements that seem to cast doubt on Datema’s hypothesis. For example, as we shall see, when Asterius argues against the lack of a clear purpose for the feast of Kalends, he contrasts this with the Christian feasts, each of which has its own motivation, by listing in order Christmas, the Feast of Lights, and Easter, without proving any evidence that any of these is the feast celebrated on that day. Had the Feast of Lights been the feast of the day, the bishop would have at least mentioned it and given it more prominence. Moreover, it is strange that Asterius concentrated only on the condemnation of the Kalends, without pausing to celebrate properly the day of Christ’s baptism, on which the faithful were also baptised, about which nothing is said. The comparison made by Datema with the beginning of Gregory’s sermon also shows how Asterius is animated by a single concern, directed solely against the feast of Kalends. Indeed, unlike the Bishop of Amaseia, Gregory begins by rejoicing that on the day of the Feast of Lights, he has found his flock, which, having despised “carnal concerns” (τῶν σαρκικῶν φροντίδων), has gathered in full to worship God, so numerous that the interior of the sanctuary cannot contain them. Today, he rejoices, but this is not always the case: even on the previous Sunday, the faithful wandered in outward error, a circumstance that never fails to provoke indignation (GNO 9, p. 221: ὅταν δὲ ἑτέρως ἔχῃ καὶ τὴν ἔξω πλάνην ἦτε πλανώμενοι, ὡς ὑπόγυον ἐπὶ τῆς παρελθούσης κυριακῆς πεποιήκατε, σχετλιάζω πολλὰ: “But when things are otherwise and you too are led astray by the external error, as you did disgracefully on the past Sunday, I have much to reproach”).

The fact that Hom. 4 is a sermon directed entirely against an “external” feast, rather than celebrating a Christian solemnity, and the absence of any reference to the Epiphany or catechetical instruction for neophytes, lead me to conclude that it was not delivered during the liturgical celebration of Epiphany. Indeed, as we shall see, the text appears to be a rhetorical exercise rather than a sermon, a ψόγος,8 that is, a work condemning the Kalends, which is programmatically at odds with Libanius’ laudatory work on the subject.

As an invective delivered in the chronological context between the end of the feast of the Kalends and the beginning of the feast of the Epiphany, Hom. 4, in my view, acquires a more fitting level of significance: it aims at distracting Christians from the festive and immoral atmosphere created during the three days of the feast and at bringing them back to a behaviour consistent with Christian morality, in view of the imminent solemnity of the Day of Light. Indeed, in view of the fact that, during the feast of the Kalends, the liturgical assembly had been deserted by many of the faithful, who had “preferred the pleasure of vanity” (4.1.2, p. 39: προτιμῶντες τὴν ἐκ τῆς ματαιότητος τρυφὴν), the Bishop sets out to imitate Solomon (Proverbs 5:3–14). He shows the vanity of the human feast and exhorts his followers to abandon it. The condemnation of “vanity” (ματαιότης), repeated twice at the beginning, is precisely the central theme of the text and is also repeated frequently in the final chapters of the discourse, which concludes with a quotation from Eccl 1:2: Ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων (4.8.1, p. 42; 4.8.7, p. 43; 4.9.5, p. 43).

The first attack that Asterius launches against the pagan festival concerns the fact that it does not conform to two principles or laws required of a public festival (4.2.1, p. 39: Ἑορτῆς τοίνυν πανδήμου οὗτος ὁ θεσμὸς καὶ ὁ νόμος: “This, then, is the rule and the law of a universal festival”): first, the purpose of the celebration is not clear, and second, the joy is not shared by all, but concerns only a part, while the rest live in mourning and sadness (see Driver 2005, pp. 237–39). To the first objection, Asterius adds that many contradictory myths are told about its origin, but none of them are true. As for the second, he denies that few rejoice while most are afflicted and that this is characteristic not of a festival but of a war, in which the victors boast of their victory and the vanquished mourn their defeat (4.2.2, p. 39).

With this observation, which makes the feast of Kalends a divisive rather than a unifying celebration, Asterius seems to be responding directly to the account offered by Libanius. Indeed, the Antiochian rhetorician repeatedly insists on the joy that pervades the entire population during the feast, which spreads throughout the empire and rejoices everyone (9.4, p. 394); it promotes reconciliation between all social components, citizens, foreigners, children, and women (9.14, p. 396), and the joy is shared by those who give and those who receive (9.17, p. 397), so much so that he declares that if one could always live as on these feast days, one would no longer speak of the islands of the blessed (9.10, p. 395). Libanius also begins with the same concept in Descriptio 5, distinguishing the feast of Kalends from all other feasts as the only one common to all those living under Roman rule (5.2, p. 472: μίαν δὲ οἶδα κοινὴν ἁπάντων: “But I know one that is common to all”).

According to Asterius, the festive atmosphere and general joy described by Libanius are not characteristic of the feast of Kalends, but only of Christian feasts. This is clear in the sermon dedicated to the feast of the martyrs, where the description of the feast contrasts sharply with the one he proposes for the feast of the Kalends. At the beginning of Hom. 10, an Encomium for the holy martyrs (ἐγκώμιον εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους μάρτυρας), he asks the following: “What is so solemn and noble as to see a whole city (τὸ πόλιν ὅλην) come out all at once (παγγενῆ) from the centre of the city and occupy a sacred place to celebrate the pure mysteries of the truest piety? (εὐσεβείας ἀληθεστάτης)” (10.1.1, p. 135). Even more significant is the beginning of Hom. 3, which is specifically dedicated to the fight “against avarice” (κατὰ πλεονεξίας) but it is still framed in the context of the annual martyrs’ feast. Here, Asterius asks the Christians present, who have come from both the city and the countryside, why they have all come together (3.1.1, p. 27: ὑπὲρ τίνος ἠθροίσθημεν; “For what purpose have we gathered?”): “For what reason are the martyrs honoured with the construction of illustrious buildings and with these annual meetings? For what purpose (πρὸς τίνα σκοπὸν) have our fathers instituted what we see […]?”. The answer is clear to all who reflect a little (3.1.2, p. 27): “Solemn feasts are common schools for the education of souls” (κοινὰ παιδαγωγεῖα τῶν ψυχῶν αἱ πανηγύρεις συνάγονται), where one can learn “something useful” (τι χρηστόν). This is clearly not the case with the feast of the Kalends; on the contrary, the feast of the Martyrs fulfils both the principles prescribed by Asterius: it has a precise and defined purpose—namely, “education”—and it is a common feast that brings together all the citizens.

Asterius’ criticism of the lack of a clear purpose for the celebration of the Kalends could also be a reference to the very recent edict of Honorius and Arcadius in August 399, which declared the abolition of pagan sacrifices but preserved festive gatherings and “the common joy of all” (Cod. Theod. 16.10.17: communis omnium laetitia, cited in footnote 1). Asterius denies the legitimacy of a festival that has formally lost its pagan connotations, thus distorting its origin and purpose, but which retains its commercial and economic character, which excludes the majority of the population.

The economic aspect of the feast, which permeates the whole of Asterius’ discourse, is made clear in the commentary on a phrase that the supporters of the feast of the Kalends evidently used to justify the feast itself: “It is an annual commemoration and joy” (4.3.1, p. 39: Ἀνάμνησίς ἐστιν καὶ εὐφροσύνη ἐνιαυτοῦ). Asterius denies that this is a joy and condemns the rite of greeting (salutationes) and kissing with which coins and gold are exchanged for no reason. In contrast to this festival, which is again described as “having no cause or purpose” (4.3.4, p. 40: οὗ δὲ αἰτία καὶ σκοπὸς ἄπεστιν), Christian feasts, true and authentic festivals, have a precise explanation: Christmas is celebrated for the divine manifestation in the flesh, the Feast of Lights for the forgiveness of sins, and Easter for the resurrection.

One of the most characteristic moments of the feast of the Kalends is the rite of exchanging gifts (strenae), which Libanius celebrates as a source of joy shared by the giver and the receiver (9.17, p. 397: κοινὸν δὲ ἄρα τὸ τῆς ἐντεῦθεν εὐφροσύνης τῷ τε λαβόντι τῷ τε δόντι: “So, the joy that comes from this is shared by both the one who received and the one who gave”); he also points out that there are those who take “equal pleasure in giving and receiving” (9.9, p. 395: ἴση ἡ τέρψις δοῦναί τε καὶ λαβεῖν), while those who cannot receive still find “pleasure in giving” (τό γε δοῦναι ἡδὺ); and he concludes with an elegantly constructed comparison: the earth is made beautiful in the spring by the flowers, while during the feast of Kalends, it is made beautiful by the gifts that come and go everywhere (ποιεῖ δὲ καλὴν τὴν γῆν τῷ μὲν ἦρι τὰ ἄνθη, τῇ δὲ ἑορτῇ τὰ δῶρα πανταχῆ πανταχόθεν ἰόντα: “What makes the earth beautiful is flowers in spring, and in the feast, the gifts coming from everywhere and in every direction”). Libanius also devotes a great deal of space to this ritual in Descriptio 5. He begins by describing the desire that animates all those who are waiting for the feast; then, when the feast arrives, “everyone set about spending: both those who had much money and those who had saved a few silver coins” (5.3, p. 473). On the day before the feast, gifts are taken around the city to set a sumptuous table, some exchanged between the rich and the powerful, others between the rich and the poor: in this way, the less well-off honour and maintain good relations with the rich, while the latter share some of their wealth with the poor (5.5, p. 473). Finally, he recalls that, in these days, everything is in everyone’s hands, as if the earth were spontaneously producing, and he concludes with an expression similar to that of his Oratio, affirming that it is equally pleasant to give and to receive (5.12, p. 476: πάντων ἐν χερσὶ πάντα καθάπερ τῆς γῆς ἀνιείσης. οὕτω τοι ἥδιστον ὁμοίως καὶ δοῦναι καὶ λαβεῖν: “Everything is in everyone’s hands, just as when the earth yields forth. Thus indeed, it is sweetest both to give and to receive equally”).

In contrast to this flattering description by Libanius, Asterius describes the absurdity of the practice of exchanging gifts, which hurts the giver and leaves the recipient with nothing because the gold exchanged is as unstable as the ball that players throw at each other (4.4.1, p. 40). The contribution is imposed by a necessity from which one cannot escape (4.4.2, p. 40) to the point that it leads people to give away the money they have and also the money they do not have (4.4.4, p. 41), forcing them into debt and thus becoming “the principle of poverty and the beginning of misfortune” (4.5.1, p. 41: ἀφορμὴ πενίας, δυστυχημάτων ἀρχή). To Libanius’ irenic description, which acknowledges a mutual exchange between rich and poor, Asterius contrasts a much more ruthless picture, in which “the greatest and most powerful plead, the least beg, and all gradually move into the lap of the superior” (4.4.2, p. 40: Ὁ γὰρ μείζων καὶ ἔνδοξος δυσωπεῖ, ὁ ἐλάττων αἰτεῖ, καὶ πάντες βαθμοῖς ἐπὶ τοὺς κόλπους τῶν ὑπερεχόντων κινοῦνται), comparing the situation to what happens at the confluence of waters: the smaller stream joins the larger, which in turn is covered by another, and so several streams flow together into the river, which in turn flows into another, until the last one pours its waters into the sea. This image, used by Asterius, well represents a one-way flow of money into the hands of those who are more powerful and already have an abundance of wealth, without benefiting any of those in need (4.4.3, p. 40).

It is precisely this custom of exchanging gifts that, according to Asterius, is totally uneducational for the youngest children, who are taught to be “greedy” (4.6.1, p. 41: φιλαργύρους): they go from house to house giving fruit decorated with silver ornaments and demanding a gift of double the value in return. This impresses a mercantile and illiberal attitude on their weak minds. On the contrary, Libanius argues that the feast teaches everyone not to be too attached to money but rather to give it up and place it in the hands of others (9.15, p. 397). And, stressing that the feast is also very dear to schoolmasters who have the opportunity to reap the golden fruits of their labour, he concludes that the feast of the Kalends can also be beneficial “for the acquisition of culture” (9.17, p. 397: καὶ περὶ κτῆσιν παιδείας), a message diametrically opposed to that of Asterius.

The festival makes the city a place to avoid for the peasants, who are whipped, reviled, mocked, and robbed of everything they have (4.6.2, p. 41), but, Asterius continues, this then happens to everyone: the powerful, the poor, children, and the simple (4.6.3, p. 41).

Asterius pays special attention to the soldiers in arms, explaining with subtle irony how they too can benefit from this feast (4.7.1, p. 41: Σκεψώμεθα δὲ ὅπως καὶ οἱ ἔνοπλοι στρατιῶται παρὰ ταύτης ὠφελοῦνται τῆς ἑορτῆς: “Let us consider how even the armed soldiers are benefited by this feast”). Not only do they suffer heavy financial losses, but they are also morally corrupted. In fact, by imitating the techniques of actors and learning the laxity of customs, they mock and ridicule (4.7.2, p. 41: κωμῳδοῦσιν: “they ridicule”; see above 4.6.2, p. 41 on the peasants: κωμῳδοῦνται: “they are ridiculed”) the laws and the authorities by getting on a chariot as if on a stage and leading the procession. According to Asterius, this might be enough, but he goes on with his usual irony, describing how the brave soldier, with leonine courage, who in armour is wonderful to look at for his own but terrible for his enemies, “becomes effeminate” (γυναικίζεται): he wears women’s clothes and shoes, styles his hair as women do, holds the distaff in his hand and spins wool with the right hand that previously held the trophy, and changes his voice to imitate a female tone (4.7.3–4, pp. 41–42). The bitter conclusion is as follows: “These are the benefits (τὰ χρηστά) of the commemoration! These are the advantages (τὰ συμφέροντα) of the feast!” (4.7.4, p. 42).

From various sources, especially Latin writers, we know of the custom, popular during the feast of the Kalends, of wearing masks of animals (especially deer), women, and deities such as Janus and Saturn, to mark the rite of passage into the new year (see Meslin 1970, pp. 79–84, 98–101; Graf 1998, pp. 210–11). Unlike other Christian preachers, Asterius focuses exclusively on the soldiers who disguise themselves as women—a practice considered the most disreputable of all, particularly given that it is committed by those who have been chosen to be the guardians of law and power (4.7.1, p. 41). In the West, the masquerade of men in women’s clothing on the occasion of the Kalends is widely condemned by Caesarius of Arles and in a sermon variously attributed to Ambrose, Augustine, and Maximus of Turin.9 In the East, neither Chrysostom nor Libanius mentions this particular practice. Chrysostom may be alluding to the custom of using masks of divine fashion when he speaks in In Kalendas of demons leading processions in the forum and animating nocturnal festivals with pranks and insults (1, PG 48,954: δαιμόνων πομπευσάντων ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς: “While demons having paraded through the marketplace”) and again of devilish processions and wicked and licentious men crowding the forum (3, PG 48,957: Ὅταν ἀκούσῃς θορύβους, ἀταξίας καὶ πομπὰς διαβολικὰς, πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀκολάστων τὴν ἀγορὰν πεπληρωμένην […]: “When you hear noises, disorder, and devilish processions, and see the marketplace filled with wicked and dissolute people […]”). Another reference is found about a century later in John Lydus, who tells of what used to happen on the third day of the Kalende festival, when “the crowd, without fear, mocked the rulers not only with words but also with gestures (or: with disguises) for the purpose of derision” (mens. 4.10: καὶ ἀδεῶς τὸ πλῆθος ἀπέσκωπτεν εἰς τοὺς ἄρχοντας οὐ ῥήμασι, ἀλλὰ καὶ σχήμασιν ἐπὶ γελοῖον ἔχουσι).

After the soldiers, Asterius’ polemic turns to those who occupy the pinnacle of honour, the consuls, to whom Libanius also devotes a thought at the end of his speech, since the festival of Kalends marks the handover to the newly elected consuls (9.18, pp. 397–98). According to Asterius, they squander wealth in vanity and take as much as they can from all sides without restraint (4.8.1–2, p. 42): those who steal from soldiers, those who sell justice and truth, and those who squander the treasury, accumulate wealth and do not care about dishonourable and unjust gains (4.8.2, p. 42). During the festival, the consuls distribute money to charioteers, flute players, mimes, dancers, effeminate people, prostitutes, those who fight the beasts, and the beasts themselves, with the sole purpose of seeing their names written on the contracts (4.8.3, p. 42). In the eyes of the Bishop of Amaseia, this is nothing more than an act of folly and blindness: God promises to write the names of those who feed the poor in the Book of Life, but the consul thinks it important to appear in the deeds of notaries and in the buying and selling of slaves, applauded by vulgar flatterers (4.8.4–5, p. 42).

Finally, through an elaborate rhetorical construction rich in chiasmus and parallelism, the bishop, addressing the consul directly, advises him whom he should favour with money: the maimed poor and not the dissolute musician, the widow before the prostitute, and before the harlot the respectable woman. He urges him to care for the virgin who sings to God and to hate the seductive singer, to support the orphan and to forgive the poor man’s debts. Instead, the consul prefers to empty a multitude of purses for an indecent spectacle and unrestrained laughter, squandering enormous amounts of wealth that are the harvest of the tears of the poor, who suffered imprisonment and flogging and risked the gallows just so that the dancers could receive their compensation (4.8.6–7, pp. 42–43). After this harsh criticism of money squandered—raised through the suffering of the poor and spent on frivolous entertainments—Asterius concludes as follows: “And what is the purpose? Vanity” (4.8.7, p. 43: Καὶ τί τὸ τέλος; Ματαιότης). After all this, death comes inexorably: the body, wrapped in a small garment, is lowered into a small tomb, where forgetfulness and the passage of time erase all that has been performed. Yet divine judgement will punish these misdeeds and the choices that led to them (4.8.8, p. 43).

As proof of this, as a kind of divine punishment, the last thought is dedicated to the miserable fate of the consuls of recent years: one, Rufinus, beheaded like the evildoers; another, Timasius, who died miserably in the sands of the desert (4.9.1, p. 43); another, Abundantius, an exile in Colchis who was saved by the barbarians; then another, Tatian, who was condemned to death and then pardoned, but died in great disgrace (4.9.3, p. 43); and finally, the last and most recent, Eutropius, a very rich landowner who ended up in the confines of a small tomb given to him by those who took pity on him (4.9.4, p. 43). Finally, Asterius explicitly quotes the passage from Ecclesiastes 1:2 “Vanity of vanities” to describe these accusations as phantoms of transient dreams that give pleasure for a short time and then fade, blossom, and wither (4.9.5, p. 43: φάσματά ἐστιν τὰ ἀξιώματα ἀνυποστάτων ὀνείρων, τέρψαντα πρὸς ὀλίγον, εἶτα παραδραμόντα, ἀνθήσαντα καὶ μαρανθέντα: “Titles of honour are phantoms of unsubstantial dreams, giving pleasure for a short time, then passing by, blooming and then withering”).

4. Asterius’ Polemic

As we have seen, Asterius’ Hom. 4 presents a sharp critique of the celebration of the Kalends of January. Although he begins by contrasting the pagan festival with the Christian one, he quickly shifts focus to denounce the immoral and degrading attitudes its participants, stressing in particular the economic and non-communal aspect of the celebration. After reviewing the misfortunes that befell the humblest and simplest members of society, he goes on to criticise the actions of the soldiers, the guardians of the law and power, and then those of the consuls, whose corruption, as well as the transience and the instability of their power, he notes above all.

Unlike the sermons of other Christian bishops who argued against the feast, Asterius’ polemic against the Kalends seems to focus less on condemning its pagan character in contrast to Christian virtue. Moreover, he selects only some of the immoral aspects of the festival, leaving out others condemned by the bishops, such as idolatry, overeating as opposed to Christian fasting, drunkenness and dancing, and the observance of calendar days to obtain omens and predictions. This attitude has been explained by two possible motivations: on the one hand, Asterius’ main aim is to propose an ironic refutation of Libanius’ arguments (Schmid 1911, p. 43), and on the other hand, the bishop’s focus is no longer on the opposition between paganism and Christianity, but rather on the internal conflict within Christianity itself (Kaldellis 2012, p. 191).

I believe that in order to explain Asterius’ originality, these two positions must be integrated.

Asterius’ discourse is a true ψόγος, i.e., a refutation of Libanius’ laudatory discourse (ἐγκώμιον), starting from the title, where it is presented as an accusatory discourse against the Kalends festival: Λόγος κατηγορικὸς τῆς ἑορτῆς τῶν Καλανδῶν (“Accusatory speech against the feast of the Kalends”). As we have seen, the bishop follows and overturns many of the arguments of the Antiochian rhetorician, emphasising the feast’s lack of a clear purpose, its failure to foster shared joy among citizens, and the narrow economic interests that pervade it. Whereas Libanius emphasises the festive atmosphere which dispelled fears and anxieties among all classes of the population—even reaching prisoners and consoling a father grieving the loss of his son (9.11–14, pp. 395–97)—Asterius describes a city marked by hostility and division, rife with the oppression of the strong against the weak, the extortion of the poor, and the ridicule, violence, mockery, and harassment of its most defenceless citizens.

As far as the polemic against the Kalends is concerned, certain themes common among Christian bishops, aimed at overcoming the resistance of paganism, are notably absent in Asterius’ text. For example, a common argument in all the sermons against the Kalends is the call for Christians to abstain completely from the feast and to celebrate in a Christian way—a kind of “anti-celebration” (Graf 2012, p. 180). This is clearly seen in Augustine, who, emphasising the opposition vos/illi, exhorts Christians to distinguish themselves from pagans in both customs and actions (serm. 26.2 Dolbeau: Segregaris enim de gentibus, mixtus corpore gentibus, dissimili vita. […] noli misceri gentibus similitudine morum atque factorum. Dant illi strenas, vos date eleemosynas. Committunt se casibus illi terrenarum, committite vos sermonibus scripturarum divinarum. Currunt illi ad theatrum, vos ad ecclesiam. Inebriantur illi, vos ieiunate: “In fact, even though you remain physically among the pagans, you are separated from them if your life is different. […] Do not be mixed with the pagans in the likeness of customs and deeds. They give gifts; you give alms. They commit themselves to the misfortunes of worldly things, commit yourselves to the teachings of divine Scriptures. They rush to the theatre; you rush to church. They get drunk; you fast”). A similar appeal is found in John Chrysostom, who repeatedly urges his congregation to “stay at home” (3, PG 48,957: οἴκοι μεῖναι […] οἴκοι διὰ τὸν Θεὸν μεῖναι […] οἴκοι μένε […] τὰς οἴκοι διατριβὰς). Asterius, on the other hand, explains that even the home is no longer a safe place during the Kalends: if leaving the house is a nuisance, staying at home is not without its inconveniences, since beggars and jugglers, organised in gangs, harass every house and, showing greater tenacity than the tax collectors, besiege people’s homes and do not leave until they have obtained some money (4.4.4, pp. 40–41). According to Asterius, there is no safe place for anyone during the feast of the Kalends because the frenzy of laughter and revelry, which ultimately leads to death, spread indiscriminately: it is precisely this foolish and harmful pleasure that the bishop sets out to banish (4.1.2, p. 39: τὴν μωρὰν καὶ βλάπτουσαν τέρψιν λόγῳ τῶν ψυχῶν ἀπελάσωμεν, ὥσπερ τινὰ φρενῖτιν ἐν τῷ γελᾶν καὶ παίζειν τὸν θάνατον ἄγουσαν: “Let us banish, with the word of reason, the foolish and destructive pleasure, like a kind of madness that, through laughter and play, leads to death”), aiming to expose the vanity of the human feast and to turn those who delight in it away from such vain and erroneous zeal (4.1.4, p. 39: Διὸ κἀγὼ τὴν ματαιότητα τῆς ἀνθρωπικῆς ἑορτῆς ὑποδείξας τῷ λόγῳ πειράσομαι τοὺς ἐραστὰς ἐκείνης ἀποστῆσαι τῆς πεπλανημένης σπουδῆς: “Therefore, I too, having pointed out the vanity of the human festival by my discourse, will try to turn away the lovers of that misguided zeal”).

Another example is the metaphor of war, which is often used by Christian bishops to describe the battle that Christians must wage against the diabolical forces behind the Kalends feast. John Chrysostom uses this metaphor at the beginning of his In Kalendas, where in his aggressive anti-pagan polemic, he exhorts the faithful to take courage and go into battle. However, this war is not against the Amalekites or barbarian invaders, but against the demons parading through the forum (1, PG 48,954: Θαῤῥοῦντες τοίνυν ἐπὶ τὴν μάχην χωρῶμεν. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμῖν πόλεμος συνέστηκε νῦν: “Therefore, let us proceed to battle with courage. For indeed, a war has now arisen for us as well”). Asterius also speaks of the festival of the Kalends as a war (4.2.1, p. 39), but not in the sense of a battle to be waged against an enemy. Rather, he considers the result it produces, which pleases the victors and plunges the vanquished into despair.

In Asterius’ Hom. 4, the focus is not on the juxtaposition of pagans and Christians, but rather on the contrast between a few arrogant, powerful men and the many unfortunate victims of the festival. The Bishop of Amaseia is less concerned with the danger posed by pagan resistance than with the condition of the population, in which the disparities between a wealthy few and the impoverished masses, between unbridled luxury and abject poverty, are becoming increasingly apparent. This interest pervades Asterius’ entire oeuvre, as evidenced by the significant presence in his sermons of the Lukan parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). Like the Cappadocian Fathers and John Chrysostom, who also favoured this parable (see Alexandre 1972), the Bishop of Amaseia condemned the society of his time as a “diptyque”—to use Jean Bernardi’s expression (Bernardi 1968, pp. 67, 278, 346)—divided between a few rich individuals who enjoyed great wealth and a multitude of poor people who lacked everything.

5. Final Remarks

The chronological and perhaps geographical coincidence—if one accepts the hypothesis of an Antiochene origin for Asterius, or at least of his education in Antioch (Bauer 1911, p. 25)—has led us to consider together the three texts on the feast of the Kalends by John Chrysostom, Libanius, and Asterius of Amaseia. In this context, Asterius’ approach to the subject proves particularly interesting since his invective offers a direct refutation of Libanius’ eulogy of the Kalends, challenging and overturning its fundamental tenets. For Asterius, the polemic against the feast of the Kalends, which encouraged greed and violence, was not primarily an aspect of the struggle against paganism, but a broader critique of social decay. The feast threatened the moral fabric of civic life, starting with its leading representatives, soldiers and consuls, who were wholly devoted to earthly power and wealth. Unlike Chrysostom and other bishops who condemned the Kalends, Asterius did not primarily denounce the festival’s pagan and idolatrous nature but emphasised the moral damage that such celebrations inflicted on all people.