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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
