Aspekte Der Politischen Verflechtung Des Patriarchen In Der Mittelbyzantinischen Zeit
The patriarch of Constantinople became an important political factor in the 
 middle Byzantine period. Three aspects will be discussed: 1. Responsibility 
 for the inauguration of the ruler, 2. Support of usurpations and political 
 coups, 3. Mediation.
Kaiserprophetien und Hochverrat. Apokalyptische Schriften und Kaiservaticinien als Medium antikaiserlicher Propaganda
Im Juli oder August des Jahres 1280 erließ Kaiser Michael VIII. Palaiologos († 11.12. 1282) ein Gesetz, das auf den ersten Blick etwas eigenartig anmutet. Der eigentliche Text dieses Gesetzes ist nicht berliefert. Allein der Historiker Georgios Pachymeres berichtet ber den Vorgang; seine Mitteilung dar ber und insbesondere der Kontext der Ereignisse sind allerdings schwer zu verstehen. Schon Karl Krumbacher kennzeichnete die Lekt re dieses Geschichtswerkes – vçllig berechtigt – als „qualvoll“, und der Abschnitt (IV,24), der mit der Nachricht ber das Gesetz endet, gehçrt zu den schwierigsten. Es ging jedenfalls um bestimmte „Flugbl tter“ (v2lousa), deren Besitz, Lekt re oder gar Ver-
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.