Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

56 2. the eastern empire: theodosius to anastasius
were unhappy with Flavian’s failure to condemn Chalcedon and began a
concerted propaganda and diplomatic campaign to persuade Anastasius to
remove him. Meanwhile, in Constantinople itself, Macedonius began
reverting to the capital’s more usual uncompromising adherence to
Chalcedon, while the highly articulate Monophysite theologian Severus,
also present in the capital (508–11), brought further pressure to bear on
Anastasius from the anti-Chalcedonian side. 136
It is against this background of increasing polarization that Anastasius’
adoption of a less neutral stance from 511 onwards must be understood.
Like Zeno, Anastasius understandably viewed stability in the east as a more
important priority than reconciliation with the west, and accordingly took
various steps to ensure that he retained the support of Monophysites – first
through the deposition of Macedonius at Constantinople, then through
the deposition of Flavian at Antioch (in favour of Severus), and finally
through decreeing the inclusion of controversial Monophysite phraseology
in the liturgy of the capital’s churches. The reaction to this last move
was more extreme than Anastasius can have anticipated. There were several
days of serious rioting (November 512), during which much blood was
shed and parts of the city were burnt, but most worrying was the overthrow
of statues of Anastasius accompanied by calls for a new emperor.
Anastasius’ response was to appear in the hippodrome without his diadem
and to offer his abdication – a course of action which quelled the unrest. 137
While this may seem an idiosyncratic way of dealing with such a crisis, it is
perhaps better viewed as a remarkable demonstration of the susceptibility
of the capital’s populace to a calculated display of imperial piety.
It did not, however, mark the end of religious turmoil, for Anastasius’
actions of 511–12 provoked a further serious challenge to his position, a
revolt orchestrated by an army officer, Vitalian, who commanded units of
barbarian federates in Thrace. 138 The failure of their supplies to arrive in
513 and dissatisfaction among the regular troops with the magister militum
for Thrace, Hypatius, 139 enabled Vitalian to win their support, 140 but the
real issue for him – as indeed for many inhabitants of the Balkans – was
Anastasius’ stance on Chalcedon. That this was not a mere pretext for
Vitalian’s personal ambitions is indicated by the way he was prepared, on
the first two occasions when he advanced against Constantinople (513 and
514), to withdraw after Anastasius agreed to take steps which offered the
hope of resolving the religious issue. His willingness to do so, particularly
136 Frend, Monophysite Movement ch. 5; Gray,Defence of Chalcedon 34–40; Meyendorff, Imperial Unity
202–6.
137 Evagr. HE iii.44; Malal. pp. 407–8; Marcell. Chron. s.a. 511–12 with Croke (1995) 114–16.
138 For full details, see Stein, Bas-Empire ii.178–85; Capizzi (1969) 123–7; PLRE ii, s.v. Fl. Vitalianus
139 2;Croke (1995) 117–19. Probably not the nephew of Anastasius: Cameron (1974) 313–14.
140 John Ant. fr. 214e (�FHG v.32).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008