20.500.12556/RUL-180429 Eunomios, ein Meister des Wortes? Das Lob der Gegner und dessen Ambivalenz Eunomius, a master of words? The ambivalence of his opponents’ praise This article offers a chronological overview of the reactions of the Cappadocian Church Fathers – Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa – to the Anomoean doctrine of Eunomius, as well as the portrayal of their dispute in the accounts of fourth­ and early fifth­century church historians: Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Rufinus, and Philostorgius. Particular attention is devoted to Eunomius’ linguistic and dialectical prowess because it appears that these very abilities earned him a certain distinction even among his pro­Nicene adversaries, despite his position as one of the leading advocates of the pro­Arian cause. Although the Arian dispute was formally conclu­ded at the Council of Constantinople in 381, divisions persisted into the first half of the fifth century between pro­Nicene historians and those sympathetic to the pro­Arian orientation. Consequently, their evaluations of Eunomius are inevitably shaped by their theological commitments. Yet, irrespective of the side these authors supported, all concur in portraying Eunomius as a great master of words. At first glance, this appears to be a strength acknowledged even by his oppo­nents, but in reality this is not the case; their praise functions as a subtle yet devastating critique aimed at Eunomius’ complete discreditation.Članek prinaša kronološki pregled odziva kapadokijskih cerkvenih očetov, Bazilija Velikega, Gregorja iz Nazianza in Gregorja iz Nise, na Evnomijev anomojski nauk in predstavlja, kako so njihov spor z Evnomijem v svojih poročilih ubesedili cerkveni zgodovinarji 4. in prve polovice 5. stoletja, Sokrat Sholastik, Sozomen, Rufin in Filostorgij. Posebno pozornost posveča Evnomijevim govorniškim in dialektičnim spretnostim, saj se zdi, da je Evnomij, čeprav je bil eden glavnih predstavnikov pro­arijanske usmeritve, prav zaradi teh spretnosti pri svojih nicejskih nasprotnikih užival poseben sloves. Kljub temu da je koncil v Konstantinoplu leta 381 formalno zaključil arijanski spor, so bili cerkveni zgodovinarji v prvi polovici 5. stoletja še vedno razdeljeni na tiste, ki so zagovarjali nicejsko usmeritev, in tiste, ki so sledili pro­arijanski. Teološko prepričanje izbranih avtorjev je v vseh vidikih določalo njihovo oceno Evnomija. A čeprav je njihovo mnenje o Evnomiju sicer povsem različno, ga vsi – ne glede na njihovo opredelitev v teološkem sporu – predstavljajo kot mojstra besede. Na prvi pogled se torej zdi, da gre za odliko, ki jo Evnomiju priznavajo tudi njegovi nasprotniki. Vendar v resnici ni tako. Hvala, izražena s strani nasprotnikov, je uničujoča kritika, katere cilj je popolna degra­dacija Evnomija. Evnomij Sokrat Sholastik Sozomen Rufin Filostorgij ambivalentnost hvale cerkveni zgodovinarji kapadokijski cerkveni očetje ambivalentnost hvale 4.-5.st. Eunomius Socrates Scholasticus Sozomen Rufinus Philostorgius church historians Cappadocian Church Fathers ambivalence of praise 4th-5th century true false true Nemški jezik Angleški jezik Članek v reviji 2026-03-09 12:03:00 2026-03-09 12:03:03 2026-03-10 04:28:30 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2025 0 0 Str. 49-70 št. 2 Letn. 7 2025 0000-00-00 Zaloznikova Objavljeno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 2025-12-29 821.14'02.09 2670-6210 10.4312/clotho.7.2.49-70 270498051 RAZ_Cedilnik_Alenka_2025.pdf RAZ_Cedilnik_Alenka_2025.pdf 1 67DB0976161E34EC74076E434153EE3C 79bed2444a88aea4faba04c8397b362049f55ef1bbd1ec9f6bdd641e46ee567b 411bbdab-1ba8-11f1-a1ba-0050569b8976 https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=229810 https://journals.uni-lj.si/clotho/article/view/21430 0 647d9349-1ba8-11f1-a1ba-0050569b8976 https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=229811 Filozofska fakulteta Clotho 0 0 0