{"title":"Heresy and polemic: reassessing the fifth-century ecclesiastical historians of Late Antiquity","authors":"Anna Lankina","doi":"10.1353/acl.2022.a914031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Scholars have tended to emphasize distinctions within late antique historiography, breaking it up into categories of ecclesiastical/‘pagan’, orthodox/heretical, Greek/Latin, narrative/chronicle, and others. The division of ecclesiastical historians into orthodox/heretical has led to designating non-Nicene history writing as polemical. I hope to show that drawing a stark line between the ecclesiastical historians discounts the significant connections between them. Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret serve as a good starting point for the reintegration of these historians into the literary culture of which they were a part. I examine these histories to demonstrate their commonalities while simultaneously showing their distinctiveness. Specifically, I focus on how these historians presented the imperial role in the destruction of religious property.","PeriodicalId":41891,"journal":{"name":"Acta Classica","volume":"74 19","pages":"245 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Classica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/acl.2022.a914031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT:Scholars have tended to emphasize distinctions within late antique historiography, breaking it up into categories of ecclesiastical/‘pagan’, orthodox/heretical, Greek/Latin, narrative/chronicle, and others. The division of ecclesiastical historians into orthodox/heretical has led to designating non-Nicene history writing as polemical. I hope to show that drawing a stark line between the ecclesiastical historians discounts the significant connections between them. Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret serve as a good starting point for the reintegration of these historians into the literary culture of which they were a part. I examine these histories to demonstrate their commonalities while simultaneously showing their distinctiveness. Specifically, I focus on how these historians presented the imperial role in the destruction of religious property.