On the Rhetoric of Ruins and Restorations: Conflict over Cult Sites in Late Antiquity
This article discusses competing interpretations of and rhetoric concerning cult sites in late antiquity. It highlights concerns by Christian and Greco-Roman intellectuals over their ruins and restorations, and locates those concerns within larger metanarratives of the past that are utilised to “pro...
| Published in: | Journal of early Christian history |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2020
|
| In: |
Journal of early Christian history
|
| RelBib Classification: | AG Religious life; material religion BE Greco-Roman religions CB Christian life; spirituality KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity TB Antiquity |
| Further subjects: | B
cultural memory
B Jewish temple B Emperor Julian B John Chrysostom B cult sites B Late Antiquity B temple of Apollo |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This article discusses competing interpretations of and rhetoric concerning cult sites in late antiquity. It highlights concerns by Christian and Greco-Roman intellectuals over their ruins and restorations, and locates those concerns within larger metanarratives of the past that are utilised to “prove” the superiority of one tradition over the other. Applying theories of “cultural memory” and “memory politics,” it notes the inherent instability of cultural artifacts and the necessity to constantly “fix” an audience’s perception and interpretation of said artifacts. In this study, the artifacts in question are the temple of Apollo in Daphne and the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, while the agents who attempted to fix the memory of these sites through either appeal to their ruins or to their attempted restorations are, respectively, John Chrysostom and the emperor Julian. They each exploited the tools at their disposal in this polemical battle, variously turning to powerful rhetorical appeal to the senses, authoritative and text-like interpretation of the sites’ states for their audiences, and even attempts at altering the sites’ physical spaces when possible. The significance of the contest over these two cult sites lies in the convergence of Chrysostom and Julian upon them, illustrating not only substantial agreement about the nature and terms of a competition they each perceived between rival traditions, but perhaps more importantly, the stark polarisation of both figures and the resistance which each met from their respective constituencies—resistance which itself helps to explain the zeal with which they enacted their programmes. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2471-4054 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of early Christian history
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2020.1783336 |