Witnesses for the Persecution-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Witnesses for the Persecution

Published:2019 Issue:3 Volume:3 Page:337-368
ISSN:2470-2048
Container-title:Studies in Late Antiquity
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Flower Richard¹

Affiliation:

1. Associate Professor in Classics and Late Antiquity, University of Exeter

Abstract

During the reign of Constantius II (337–361), a number of Christian bishops were exiled from their sees, reportedly for their opposition to the emperor's “Homoian” theological position. Several of them (Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Vercelli) responded to their institutional insecurity and geographical isolation by writing accounts of their experiences in a range of textual forms: letters to individuals or groups, historical narratives with quoted documents, or formal invectives. This article explores the variety of ways in which these examples of exilic literature construct different forms of communities in order to weave supportive narratives around the authors and their allies: Hilary and Lucifer emphasized their possession of parrhesia both within and through their texts; Athanasius constructed a network of opposition to heresy with himself as its focus; Eusebius presented himself as the lynchpin of a north Italian community which he could still lead from exile in Palestine. Through inscribing particular roles onto both their readers and other figures discussed within the texts, these exiled authors sought to foster their own reputations as leaders of these communities and arbiters of membership, thereby bolstering their positions at a time when their authority was under serious threat.

Publisher

University of California Press

Subject

History,Classics

Link

http://online.ucpress.edu/SLA/article-pdf/3/3/337/241712/sla_2019_3_3_337.pdf

Reference100 articles.

1. Hilary, In Constantium 7 (Sources chrétiennes 334: 180). All translations of this text are from R. Flower, Imperial Invectives against Constantius II: Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers and Lucifer of Cagliari, Translated Texts for Historians 67 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2016).

2. On the history of the text and the issue of its date, see H. C. Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II.: Untersuchungen zur dritten Phase des arianischen Streites (337-361), Patristische Texte und Studien 26 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 361

3. T. D. Barnes, Review of A. Rocher, ed., Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance, Journal of Theological Studies (n.s.) 39 (1988): 609-11 at 610

4. Flower, Imperial Invectives, 29-30, all supporting this date. In contrast, L. R. Wickham, Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church, Translated Texts for Historians 25 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997), ix argues that it was composed after the death of Constantius II in 361, while A. Rocher, ed., Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance, Sources chrétiennes 334 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1987), 29-38 produces a complicated solution that involves a two-stage writing process, with an initial draft being revised once Constantius was dead.

5. The position patronized by Constantius at the time of the text's composition is now generally described using the less polemical term “Homoian,” on account of the key theological term homoios used in the creeds agreed at the Councils of Seleucia-Ariminum in 359 and Constantinople in 360. The development of “Homoian” theology and the careers of its main supporters at this time are discussed in detail in H. C. Brennecke, Studien zur Geschichte der Homöer. Der Osten bis zum Ende der homöischen Reichskirche, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 73 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1988).