Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Studies dealing with the attitudes of various writers of the patristic period towards Hellenism, including the aspect of paideia, have tended to concentrate, up to the present, on a specific writer or time-span. It is no accident that fourth-century writers have loomed large in recent investigations in this area, since the fourth century was pivotal in determining Christian attitudes to pagan literary traditions. Here it is my aim to draw attention not to a single writer or period but rather to the representatives of a Christian literary genre, and to discuss their stance with regard to Hellenism, in particular paideia. My choice falls on the Greek ecclesiastical historians; although they have been scrutinised increasingly in the past twenty years, their collective attitude to Hellenic culture or Greek letters has not yet received a separate study. Those early Greek historical works that have survived to us more or less intact — the histories of Eusebius of Caesarea, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Evagrius Scholasticus — provide us with a more reliable overall picture of the Hellenism of their composers than, for example, the fragmentary Church Histories of Philostorgius and Theodore Lector; taken together, they give us at the same time a useful chronological spread from the early fourth to the late sixth century. The crucial questions to be posed are to what extent these writers deemed Hellenism to be compatible with ecclesiastical historiography, and how typical their perspective on Hellenism was of their own times. Where appropriate, we shall also try to ascertain how these church historians stand with regard to using classical citations and references in their narratives, how they view the classical past, and what their attitude is towards non-Greek culture.
1 On the fourth century see, e.g., Saddington, D. B., ‘The Function of Education according to Christian Writers of the Latter Part of the Fourth Century,’ Acta Classica 8 (1965) 86–101; Malley, W. J., Hellenism and Christianity: The Conflict between Hellenic and Christian Wisdom in the Contra Galileos of Julian the Apostate and the Contra Julianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria Rome 1978); Dostálová, R., ‘Christentum und Hellenismus: Zur Herausbildung einer neuen kulturellen Identität im 4. Jahrhundert,’ Byzantinoslavica 44 (1983) 1–12, with bibliography. For a sample of works dealing with attitudes to aspects of Hellenism in specific writers see Fleury, E., Hellénisme et Christianisme: Saint Grégoire de Nazianze et son temps (Paris 1930) esp. 55–99; Kustas, G. L., ‘Basil and the Rhetorical Tradition,’ in Fedwick, P. J. (ed.), Basil of Caesarea, Christian, Humanist, Ascetic (Toronto 1981) 221–79; Jaeger, W., Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (London 1961) 86–102, on Gregory of Nyssa. See the important contribution by Ševčenko, I., ‘A Shadow Outline of Virtue: The Classical Heritage of Greek Christian Literature (Second to Seventh Century),’ Age of Spirituality: A Symposium, ed. K. Weitzmann (New York 1980) 53–73. The Hellenism of authors of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries is discussed by Lemerle, P., Le Premier Humanisme byzantin (Paris 1971) 43–73. A global treatment is given by Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (Leipzig 1898), while the survey of patristic attitudes to paideia in Jaeger, W., op. cit., remains basic.Google Scholar
2 For a survey of the subject, with bibliography, see Winkelmann, F., ‘Die Kirchengeschichtswerke im oströmischen Reich,’ Byzantinoslavica 37 (1976) 1–10, 172–90; Chesnut, G. F., The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius (Paris 1976) and Allen, P., Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian (Leuven 1981) — all with bibliography. See further Grillmeier, A., Christ in Christian Tradition II.1, trans. Allen, P. and Cawte, J. (London 1987) 29–38.Google Scholar
3 For the text of Philostorgius' HE, see Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte (ed. Bidez, J., GCS; 2nd ed. Berlin 1972); on its contents cf. Bidez, J., ‘L'historien Philostorge,’ Mélanges d'histoire offerts à Henri Pirenne (Brussels 1926) 23–30. The fragmentary text of the HE of Theodore Lector was also edited by Bidez, J., Theodoros Anagnostes Kirchengeschichte (GCS; 2nd ed. F. Winkelmann; Berlin 1972). The HE of the Byzantine historian Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulus (PG 145–47), while it deals with the patristic period and is based on the works of the early Greek church historians, falls beyond the scope of this article. Cf. Gentz, G. and Winkelmann, F., Die Kirchengeschichte des Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulus und ihre Quellen (2nd ed. Berlin 1966).Google Scholar
4 The Chronicle survives in an Armenian translation and in Jerome's version of the canons: see respectively Karst, J., Eusebius' Werke 5. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Kommentar (GCS 20; Leipzig 1911), and Helm, R., Eusebius' Werke 7. Die Chronik des Hieronymus (GCS 47; 2nd ed. Berlin 1956). On the apologetic nature of the Chronicle, see Sirinelli, J., Les Vues historiques d'Eusèbe de Césarée durant la période prénicéenne (Dakar 1961) 31–134, and Grant, R. M., Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford 1980) 3–9. For a different view, see Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass. & London 1981) 113: ‘The Chronicle may be interpreted rather as primarily a work of pure scholarship.’Google Scholar
For the text of the HE see Schwartz, E., Eusebius' Werke 2 (GCS 9.1–3; Leipzig 1903–1909). The most obvious characteristic of apologetic writings present in the HE is the citation of opponents' works in order to point up self-contradiction or error; on the correlation between history and apologetic for Eusebius see Sirinelli, J., La Préparation Évangélique (Sources Chrétiennes 206; Paris 1974) 19–20; on Eusebius' apologetic technique in general, and its effectiveness, see Berkhof, H., Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam 1939) 52–53; Barnes, , op. cit. 164–88.Google Scholar
5 In the index to his edition (GCS 9.3.60ff.), Schwartz lists only the Homeric citation in Mart. Pal. 1.1 (907.21–908.1).Google Scholar
6 A detailed analysis of Eusebius' sources in the Chronicle, based on Jerome's reworking, is given by Helm, (n. 4 above) 279–455.Google Scholar
7 The panegyrical aspects of Eusebius' portrayal of Origen's adolescence are discussed by Hornschuh, M., ‘Das Leben des Origenes und die Entstehung der alexandrinischen Schule,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 71 (1960) 3–7, and by Grant, R. M., ‘Eusebius and his Lives of Origen,’ in Forma Futuri: Studi in Onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino (Torino 1975) 641–42. See also Nautin, P., Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre (Paris 1977) 31ff., for an analysis of Eusebius' biography of Origen.Google Scholar
8 HE 3.8–9 (trans. Oulton, J. E. L., Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History 2 [Cambridge, Mass. & London 1973] 19–21). Origen's attitude to paideia is analysed by Krause, W., Die Stellung der frühchristlichen Autoren zur heidnischen Literatur (Vienna 1958) 78–85.Google Scholar
9 HE 6.19.1 (trans. Oulton, 2.55–56).Google Scholar
10 See n. 1 above, in particular Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa.Google Scholar
11 The old edition of Hussey, R., Socratis Scholastici Ecclesiastica Historia (Oxford 1853) has still to be superseded.Google Scholar
12 E.g., 3.16.24–26, supposed citations from Epimenides, Aratus and Euripides; 3.23.15–16, mention of Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon; 6 prooimion, allusion to Greek comic poets; 7.6.8, reference to Plato's second and third cause; 7.25.13, mention of ancient writers like Strabo and Nicolaus Damascenus, and a citation from Xenophon, , Hellenica 1.1.22.Google Scholar
13 Gregory of Nyssa had already passed more or less the same judgement on Eunomius' style; see Norden (above, n. 1) 558–62, who also analyses Eunomius' language. Cf. Vandenbussche, E., ‘La part de la dialectique dans la théologie d'Eunomius “le technologue”,’ RHE 40 (1944–45) 17–72 esp. 47–49, who points to the similarity between the attitude of the Cappadocians and that of the church historians to Eunomius.Google Scholar
14
See Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961) 1400, s.v.
, for instances of the citation of this apocryphal saying of Christ. Socrates' treatment of the Apollinarii is discussed by P. Lemerle (n. 1 above) 49–50 with n. 13.Google Scholar
15 Ad adulescentes 2 (PG 31.565b1–5); also Wilson, N. G., Saint Basil and the Value of Greek Literature (London 1975) 20.24–28.Google Scholar
16 Basil, , Ad adul. 3 (PG 31.569c1–d2); Wilson 21.31–34; Theodoret, , The Healing of Pagan Afflictions 1.125 (the gardener who picks roses and leaves the thorns), 1.126 (the bees which visit both sweet and bitter flowers, taking the sweetness and leaving behind what is bitter): ed. Canivet, P. (Sources Chrétiennes 57; Paris 1958) 136.2–15. The problem of how Christians thought they were to use the classics is treated by Chr. Gnilka, , ‘Usus Iustus. Ein Grundbegriff der Kirchenväter im Umgang mit der antiken Kultur,’ Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 24 (1980) 34–76.Google Scholar
17 The edition begun by Bidez, J., Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte, and published by Hansen, G. C. (GCS 50; Berlin 1960), is out of print. However, the text of Bidez–Hansen, furnished with introduction and notes by B. Grillet and G. Sabbah and a French translation by A.-J. Festugière, is now being made available in the Sources Chrétiennes, beginning with vol. 306, Sozomène: Histoire Ecclésiastique 1–2 (Paris 1983).Google Scholar
18 On the relationship of these two church historians see now Sabbah, G., ibid. 59–87.Google Scholar
19 Information on Gaza and its schools is to be found in Downey, G., Gaza in the Early Sixth Century (Norman, Oklahoma 1963); cf. Kustas, G. L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki 1973) 5–6 n. 3; 59–61. Grillet, B. (Sozomène: Histoire Ecclésiastique [above, n. 17] 16–17) suspects the existence of monastic schools in the area. On the clasical citations and references in Sozomen's HE see ibid. 17–18 n. 4, 82–83 n. 4, 83 n. 1; cf. Hansen, G. C., Studien zu dem Kirchenhistoriker Sozomenus (diss. Berlin 1960) 54–55, on the few rhetorical passages outside the dedication.Google Scholar
20 Sozomène: Histoire Ecclésiastique (above, n. 17) 63–65.Google Scholar
21 Ibid. 43.Google Scholar
22 On this point see Momigliano, A., ‘Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century a.d.,’ Momigliano, A. (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1963) 91–92; Allen, P. (above, n. 2) 55–58; cf. Winkelmann, F. (above, n. 2) 6 n. 36, and Hansen, G. C., ‘Griechische und lateinische Geschichtsschreibung in der Spätantike,’ Klio 66 (1984) 611.Google Scholar
23
See Lampe (above, n. 14) 887 s.v.
.Google Scholar
24 On this literary affectation in the later Roman Empire see Cameron, Alan and Cameron, Averil, ‘Christianity and Tradition in the Historiography of the Later Roman Empire,’ Classical Quarterly n.s. 14 (1964) 316–28. For discussions of similar affectations in later Greek literature cf. Moravcsik, G., ‘Klassizismus in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung,’ in Polychronicon: Festschrift F. Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag (Heidelberg 1966) 366–77, and Hunger, H., ‘On the Imitation (mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature,’ DOP 23–24 (1969–70) 15–38.Google Scholar
25 For a discussion of Sozomen's treatment of this theme see Grillet, B., Sozomène. Histoire Ecclésiastique (above, n. 17) 45–48.Google Scholar
26 See HE 3.16 (appraisal of the works of Ephrem, which seems to bespeak a knowledge of Syriac); 5.14 (Sozomen's family resident in Bethelia, where the temple formerly had a Syriac name); 6.34 (familiarity with Syrian monks).Google Scholar
27 On Theodoret as a native speaker of Syriac, and on his knowledge of Hebrew, see Canivet, P., Histoire d'une entreprise apologétique au Ve siècle (diss. Paris 1957) 24–27.Google Scholar
28 For the text of Theodoret's HE see Parmentier, L., Theodoret: Kirchengeschichte (GCS 19; Leipzig 1911), reworked by Scheidweiler, F. (GCS 44; Berlin 1954). On the text of The Healing of Pagan Afflictions (Curatio), see n. 16 above.Google Scholar
29 Curatio 1.50 (Pythagoras); 1.31 and 1.53 (Socrates).Google Scholar
30 See Parmentier's preface to the edition of the HE, pp. ci–cvi.Google Scholar
31 Canivet, , Une Entreprise apologétique (above, n. 27) 129–30, emphasises the richness of the classical allusions in Theodoret's correspondence. See ibid. 257–90 on Theodoret's profane learning.Google Scholar
32 However, the style of the Hist. Rel. is no less learned than that of Theodoret's works: see Canivet, P. and Leroy-Molinghen, A. (ed. and trans.), Histoire des moines de Syrie (Sources Chrétiennes 234, 257; Paris 1977, 1979), esp. 234.43.112.Google Scholar
33 Ed. by Bidez, J. and Parmentier, L., The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia (London 1898; repr. Amsterdam 1964). See also Allen, P., op. cit. (above, n. 2); Udal'cova, Z. V., ‘K voprosu o mirovozzrenii vizantiiskogo istorika VI v. Evagrius,’ Vizantijskij Vremmennik 30 (1969) 63–72; Caires, V. A., ‘Evagrius Scholasticus. A literary analysis,’ Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982) 29–50. See also the French translation with notes by Festugière, A.-J., Évagre: Histoire Ecclésiastique (1975), and the works cited in nn. 1 and 2 above.Google Scholar
34 E.g., the same echo from Homer twice (25.4; 201.30); an allusion to Herodotus (55.24–25); a citation from Thucydides 2.45 (14.15–16); an observation that the diction of Thucydides would be required to describe the significance of the Emperor Anastasius' taxation reforms (136.32–137.2); an allusion to Thucydides' account of the plague (177.7–8); a reference to Plutarch (222.24–223.2).Google Scholar
35
E.g., 26.27f. (
); 66.13 (
).Google Scholar
36
See, e.g., 123.26 (
); 28.14 (
); 124.12 (
); 136.3–4 (
).Google Scholar
37
See, e.g., 162.18 (
); 169.1–2 (
).Google Scholar
38 See the Vita of Severus by Zachariah Scholasticus, ed. Kugener, M.-A., PO 2 (1907) 7–115 esp. 12–13; and the Vita by John of Beith Aphthonia, ibid. 207–64, esp. 213, 215.Google Scholar
39 On Evagrius' stance with regard to Zachariah see Allen, P., ‘Zachariah Scholasticus and the historia ecclesiastica of Evagrius Scholasticus,’ JTS n.s. 31 (1980) 471–88. On Evagrius' attitude in general to Severus cf. P. Allen (above, n. 2) 172.Google Scholar
40
See 64.11 (
) and 156.7 (
).Google Scholar
41 For a more detailed discussion of this chapter and its significance see Allen, P. (above, n. 2) 238–41.Google Scholar
42 HE 3.40.41; cf. P. Allen (above, n. 2) 159–61.Google Scholar
43 Some have even argued that Theodoret's apologetic efforts lack conviction because the need for apologetic had passed. See, e.g., Geffcken, J., Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig 1907) 313–15, and Bardy, G., ‘Apologetik,’ RAC 1 (1950) 543. Brok, M. F. A., ‘De waarde van de “Graecarum Affectionum Curatio” van Theodoretus van Cyrus als apologetisch Werk,’ Studia Catholica 27 (1952) 201–12, and Canivet, , Une Entreprise apologétique (above, n. 27) 325–32, both see Theodoret's apologetic as a response to a contemporary situation.Google Scholar
44 Text cited in Norden (above, n. 1) 534. On Gaza, see n. 19 above. Concerning the amalgam of Christianity and Hellenic learning in Alexandria in this same period, see Saffrey, H.-D., ‘Le chrétien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'école d'Alexandrie au VIe siècle (1),’ REG 67 (1954) 396–410, and Downey, G., ‘Julian and Justinian and the Unity of Faith and Culture,’ Church History 28 (1959) 346, with n. 24.Google Scholar
45 Philostorgius, on the other hand, to judge from the fragments of his HE which have come down to us (see n. 3 above), was more unashamed in his recourse to the classics. See Bidez, J., art. cit. (above n. 3) 3 et passim.Google Scholar
46 For some of the similarities between church historians and their contemporaries see Markus, R. A., ‘Church history and the early church historians,’ in Studies in Church History 11 (1975) 12 (Sozomen and Philostorgius compared with Zosimus); Cracco Ruggini, L., ‘The Ecclesiastical Histories and the Pagan Historiography: Providence and Miracles,’ Athenaeum 55 (1977) 107–26; P. Allen (above, n. 2), passim (esp. for Evagrius and Theophylact Simocattes). For studies based on pagan or secular historians and treating some of the similarities in question see, e.g., Scavone, D. C., ‘Zosimus and his Historical Models,’ GRBS 11 (1970) 57–67; Cameron, Averil, Agathias (Oxford 1970). Winkelmann, F., ‘Rolle und Problematik der Behandlung der Kirchengeschichte in der byzantinischen Historiographie,’ Klio 66 (1984) 257–69, pleads for the integrated study of ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical historical works.Google Scholar
