This dissertation analyzes the struggle between the imperial court and the periphery in the context of Justinian’s reforms in the early A.D. 530s. The reforms targeting select Roman provinces sought to reduce the size of the imperial bureaucracy while simultaneously attempting to maintain imperial vertical authority. The reforms epitomize the imperial court’s struggle to rein in the imperial bureaucracy in the provinces of the Roman Empire. The analysis is framed within the cultural, social, political and economic evolution occurring in Late Antiquity. It shall be proposed that the reforms are one example of the imperial court’s attempt to limit the distance between itself and its provincial resources, particularly with regard to fiscality. The reforms also embody the political dynamics between the emperor and his bureaucracy, which is composed of the Roman elite. Roughly two centuries earlier, the Tetrarchic reforms fundamentally changed the relationship between both parties. Specifically, the upper stratum of the aristocracy saw the balance of power tilt in its favor substantially.

The emperor Justinian's religious policy has sometimes been characterized as haphazard or incoherent. This dissertation examines religious policy in the Roman Empire from the accession of the emperor Justin to the inception of the Three Chapters controversy in the mid 540's AD. It considers the resolution of the Acacian Schism, Justinian's apparent ambivalence with regard to the Theopaschite formula, the attempt to court the anti-Chalcedonians in Constantinople in the period leading up to the Council of 536, and the relationship between the genesis of the Three Chapters and Second Origenist controversies. Even during these seemingly disparate episodes, this dissertation argues that it is possible to account for the apparent incoherence of this period. To do so, we create an account which includes and appreciates the embeddedness of imperial policy within a social context with two key features. First, we must bear in mind the shifting interests and information available to the individual agents through and over whom the emperor hoped to project influence. Second, we must identify the shifting and hardening symbolic and social boundaries established through the interactions of these same, competing agents. These form the basis for in- and out-group categorization. The individual interests of individual people—whether Justinian, Vitalian, Dioscorus, Leontius, Eusebius, Theodore Askidas, or Pelagius—within complex networks must always be accounted for to give a complete picture. When this social context is accounted for, Justinian's approach appears as that of a rational actor, having incomplete information, with consistent policy goals, working within inconsistent constraints to achieve those goals.