No Voice of Reason: Socrates of Constantinople's Adaptation of Athanasius of Alexandria as a Source for his Ecclesiastical History

IF 0.5 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
K. Dahm
{"title":"No Voice of Reason: Socrates of Constantinople's Adaptation of Athanasius of Alexandria as a Source for his Ecclesiastical History","authors":"K. Dahm","doi":"10.1353/jla.2023.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article explores Socrates of Constantinople's literary strategies in his use of Athanasius of Alexandria as a source for his Ecclesiastical History against the contemporary ecclesiastical and political background. Contrary to the prevailing view which sees Socrates as a blind copyist of Athanasius, this article argues that Socrates deliberately abandoned or altered aspects of his source as a criticism of Athanasius's depiction of the fourth-century \"Trinitarian Controversy.\" Focusing on two case studies—the Melitian Schism and the Council of Serdica—I suggest that Socrates was unsettled by the way in which Athanasius had dealt with dogmatic disputes and dogmatic conflict. Athanasius exemplified the same irreconcilability that Socrates deemed responsible for the severity and longevity of the divisions caused by the \"Trinitarian Controversy.\" Accordingly, Socrates adjusted Athanasius's narrative, investing his (often hostile) interpretations of events with a new, irenic message which he hoped would serve as a clarion call for conciliation at a time when ecclesiastical unity and peace were again threatened by the simmering \"Nestorian Controversy.\"","PeriodicalId":16220,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Late Antiquity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Late Antiquity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jla.2023.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:This article explores Socrates of Constantinople's literary strategies in his use of Athanasius of Alexandria as a source for his Ecclesiastical History against the contemporary ecclesiastical and political background. Contrary to the prevailing view which sees Socrates as a blind copyist of Athanasius, this article argues that Socrates deliberately abandoned or altered aspects of his source as a criticism of Athanasius's depiction of the fourth-century "Trinitarian Controversy." Focusing on two case studies—the Melitian Schism and the Council of Serdica—I suggest that Socrates was unsettled by the way in which Athanasius had dealt with dogmatic disputes and dogmatic conflict. Athanasius exemplified the same irreconcilability that Socrates deemed responsible for the severity and longevity of the divisions caused by the "Trinitarian Controversy." Accordingly, Socrates adjusted Athanasius's narrative, investing his (often hostile) interpretations of events with a new, irenic message which he hoped would serve as a clarion call for conciliation at a time when ecclesiastical unity and peace were again threatened by the simmering "Nestorian Controversy."
没有理性的声音:君士坦丁堡的苏格拉底将亚历山大的亚他那修作为其教会史的来源
摘要:本文探讨了君士坦丁堡苏格拉底在当代教会和政治背景下,以亚历山大的亚他那修作为其《教会史》的来源的文学策略。与普遍认为苏格拉底是亚他那修的盲目复制者的观点相反,本文认为苏格拉底故意放弃或改变其来源的某些方面,以批评亚他那修对四世纪“三位一体之争”的描述。“集中在两个案例研究上——梅利提安学派和塞尔迪卡理事会——我认为苏格拉底对亚他那修处理教条主义争端和教条主义冲突的方式感到不安。亚他那修举了苏格拉底认为对“三位一体之争”造成的分歧的严重性和持久性负有责任的不可调和性。因此,苏格拉底调整了阿他那修的叙述,用一种新的、充满敌意的信息来诠释他对事件的(通常是敌对的)解释,他希望在教会团结与和平再次受到酝酿中的“聂斯托利争议”的威胁之际,这能成为和解的号角。“
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Late Antiquity
Journal of Late Antiquity HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
50.00%
发文量
18
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信