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.
The Date of Priscian’s De laude Anastasii
T PURPOSE of this paper is to date a largely neglected source for (as I shall argue) the early part of the reign of Anastasius, a Vorarbeit to a projected new edition of Priscian's poem. The year is A.D. 512, according to S. L. Endlicher,l its first editor, and, more recently, E. Stein.2 But apart from line 299, on which Endlicher and Stein rested their case, nothing (it seems) points to a date later than 503. So we may begin by looking rather carefully at line 299. Lines 299-300 describe the Jortissima facta' of Anastasius' nephew Hypatius,
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.