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.
|
