On the Rhetoric of Ruins and Restorations: Conflict over Cult Sites in Late Antiquity

D. R. Edwards
{"title":"On the Rhetoric of Ruins and Restorations: Conflict over Cult Sites in Late Antiquity","authors":"D. R. Edwards","doi":"10.1080/2222582X.2020.1783336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article discusses competing interpretations of and rhetoric concerning cult sites in late antiquity. It highlights concerns by Christian and Greco-Roman intellectuals over their ruins and restorations, and locates those concerns within larger metanarratives of the past that are utilised to “prove” the superiority of one tradition over the other. Applying theories of “cultural memory” and “memory politics,” it notes the inherent instability of cultural artifacts and the necessity to constantly “fix” an audience’s perception and interpretation of said artifacts. In this study, the artifacts in question are the temple of Apollo in Daphne and the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, while the agents who attempted to fix the memory of these sites through either appeal to their ruins or to their attempted restorations are, respectively, John Chrysostom and the emperor Julian. They each exploited the tools at their disposal in this polemical battle, variously turning to powerful rhetorical appeal to the senses, authoritative and text-like interpretation of the sites’ states for their audiences, and even attempts at altering the sites’ physical spaces when possible. The significance of the contest over these two cult sites lies in the convergence of Chrysostom and Julian upon them, illustrating not only substantial agreement about the nature and terms of a competition they each perceived between rival traditions, but perhaps more importantly, the stark polarisation of both figures and the resistance which each met from their respective constituencies—resistance which itself helps to explain the zeal with which they enacted their programmes.","PeriodicalId":40708,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Christian History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2222582X.2020.1783336","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Christian History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2020.1783336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This article discusses competing interpretations of and rhetoric concerning cult sites in late antiquity. It highlights concerns by Christian and Greco-Roman intellectuals over their ruins and restorations, and locates those concerns within larger metanarratives of the past that are utilised to “prove” the superiority of one tradition over the other. Applying theories of “cultural memory” and “memory politics,” it notes the inherent instability of cultural artifacts and the necessity to constantly “fix” an audience’s perception and interpretation of said artifacts. In this study, the artifacts in question are the temple of Apollo in Daphne and the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, while the agents who attempted to fix the memory of these sites through either appeal to their ruins or to their attempted restorations are, respectively, John Chrysostom and the emperor Julian. They each exploited the tools at their disposal in this polemical battle, variously turning to powerful rhetorical appeal to the senses, authoritative and text-like interpretation of the sites’ states for their audiences, and even attempts at altering the sites’ physical spaces when possible. The significance of the contest over these two cult sites lies in the convergence of Chrysostom and Julian upon them, illustrating not only substantial agreement about the nature and terms of a competition they each perceived between rival traditions, but perhaps more importantly, the stark polarisation of both figures and the resistance which each met from their respective constituencies—resistance which itself helps to explain the zeal with which they enacted their programmes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论废墟与修复的修辞:晚期文化遗址的冲突
摘要本文讨论了对古代晚期邪教遗址的相互竞争的解释和修辞。它强调了基督教和希腊罗马知识分子对他们的废墟和修复的担忧,并将这些担忧定位在过去更大的元叙事中,这些元叙事被用来“证明”一种传统相对于另一种传统的优越性。运用“文化记忆”和“记忆政治”的理论,它指出了文化文物固有的不稳定性,以及不断“修复”观众对所述文物的感知和解释的必要性。在这项研究中,有问题的文物是达芙尼的阿波罗神庙和耶路撒冷的犹太神庙,而试图通过对这些遗址的废墟或修复来修复这些遗址记忆的特工分别是约翰·克里索斯托姆和皇帝朱利安。在这场争论中,他们每个人都利用了自己掌握的工具,以各种方式转向对感官的有力修辞吸引力,为观众对网站状态的权威和文本式解释,甚至试图在可能的情况下改变网站的物理空间。对这两个邪教场所的竞争的意义在于Chrysostom和Julian对它们的融合,这不仅表明了他们各自认为的竞争传统之间的性质和条款达成了实质性的一致,而且可能更重要的是,两位人物的明显两极分化以及各自选区的阻力——阻力本身有助于解释他们制定计划的热情。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Fear and Self-Truth: Parrēsia in Augustine’s Doctrine of Emotions Christian Persecution in Antiquity , by Wolfram KinzigChristian Persecution in Antiquity, by Wolfram Kinzig, Translated by Markus Bockmuehl, Baylor University Press, 2022., viii + 173 pp., ISBN: 978-1-4813-1388-9 Witnessing with Parrēsia : Fearless Speech in the Acts of the Apostles Paul's Ambivalent Parrēsia Parrēsia beyond Humankind? Exploring the Representation of the Voice of Creation in the Epistle to the Romans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1