The reign of Anastasius I, 491-518
﻿ Anastasius' long rule at the turn of the sixth century has tended to be neglected, yet it was a critical time in the history of the Later Roman Empire. On his accession, there were many problems facing the state: conflicts, both internal and external, religious disputes, and financial and administrative chaos. It is the aim of this thesis to assess the significance of Anastasius' reign, with a systematic survey of the key areas of imperial government. After an introductory chapter examining the primary sources, the second and third chapters consider revolts and wars. Chapter Two looks at two internal uprisings, that of the Isaurians (491-498) and that of Vitalian (514-516). The third chapter concentrates on external conflicts and political relations. The first section considers the Persian offensive (502-506) and the role of the Arabs, while the second part examines the ambiguous position of Theoderic in Italy, and explores how Anastasius sought to stabilize the balance of power with counter-alliances with the Franks and Burgundians. Chapter Four deals with the doctrinal schism dividing the orthodox from the monophysite. It outlines the background to this crisis and investigates the vicissitudes of Anastasius' policy as he sought to reconcile increasing eastern monophysitism with the west's intransigent orthodoxy. Chapter Five examines Anastasius' financial rehabilitation of the state and concludes that his success lay in a much wider reorganisation of the empire's resources: he restructured the fisc and introduced changes to municipal administration, agrarian legislation and the organisation of the army. This chapter also considers measures to halt the escalating violence of the faction riots, and it closes with a survey of the emperor's building policy. The thesis concludes that Anastasius' reign resolved many of the problems facing the empire in the fifth century, paving the way for Justinian in the sixth.
AN EARLY EPITOMATOR OF JOSEPHUS: EUSTATHIUS OF EPIPHANEIA
Few authors of classical antiquity have claimed s much attention s Flavius Josephus from scholars in a wide variety of disciplines: whether our interest in the Jewish historian is historical, literary, text-critical or concerned with bis Nachleben, reference works and detailed studies are there for the asking. From this wide net cast by scholars of Josephus, however, there has slipped through a short text, the provenance and significance of which have still to be clarified. In the codex Paris, gr. I555A, s. XIII-XIV, ff. 5-7, we find a text introduced by the words Ευσταθίου έπιφανέως σύριας Επιτομή της αρχαιολογίας ίωσήπου. The text is preceded by a) an acephalous extract from Joseppus' Ύπομνηστικόν βιβλίον (PG 106, 10-175), b) a calculation of the years from Adam to Christ (ff. 3-4), and c) an incomplete list of Roman emperors (ff. 4~5). Immediately following our text in the manuscript are extracts from an epitome of church history, published by J. A. Gramer, who noted at the time the title on f. 5: Ευσταθίου .. . ίωση που. Harking back to this in his edition of the little-known sixth Century historian Eustathius of Epiphaneia, C. M ller remarked: Eustathius ille fortasse non est diversus ab historico nostro. Ceterum fragmentum illud quum nonnisi summa capita historiae Judaicae paucis verbis indigitet, non erat cur excriberem. Whether it was this remark, or the doubtful attribution to an obscure sixth Century historian, which damned our seemingly unpromising fragment to subsequent oblivion, it is impossible to teil. Suffice it to observe that there is no mention of the manuscript of the text or of its authenticity in any of the reference works concerning either the transmission of Josephus Jewish Wars (BJ) and Jewish Antiquities (AJ) or in the epitomes made of them in ancient times.
The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the Problem with Jerusalem
Following Knauf's suggestion (2000), the article raises the possibility that in most periods in the second and first millennia BCE the main built-up area of Jerusalem was limited to a mound on the Temple Mount. This mound, which may have covered an area of five hectares and more, was boxed-in under the Herodian platform. At these periods activity in the City of David ridge was restricted to the area near the Gihon spring. In the Iron IIB and late Hellenistic Periods the fortified settlement expanded simultaneously to both the City of David ridge and the southwestern hill. In these two periods there was no need to fortify the western side of the City of David, as this line ran in the middle of the city.