Eusebius of Caesarea and the formation of early medieval historicism

The problem of the formation of early medieval historicism occupies a special place in historical science. The formulation of the problem itself is associated with many difficulties. Firstly, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the legality of using the term “historicism” in relation to the early medieval era. In Russian science, “historicism” is often understood as “the principle of cognition of things and phenomena in their formation and development, in organic connection with the conditions that give rise to them, constituting an integral side of the dialectical method” 1 . Researchers often associate its birth with the Renaissance or Modern Times 2. Without going into discussions about the time of the emergence of “historicism” in this understanding, we note that each era had its own understanding of the historical process, an idea of ​​the connection between events and the reasons that gave rise to them 3 . In relation to this era, in our opinion, the use of the term “historicism” is completely justified in this broader sense - as a set of ideas about the course and patterns of the historical process that developed during the early Middle Ages. The historical ideas of each era represent a major problem in their own right. Without understanding this huge cultural and historical layer, it is often impossible to understand the essence, the inner meaning of many events, the motives of people’s behavior in a given situation, the ways of explaining current events that are understandable to the people of that era. “One way or another, writing history at all times meant placing “events” in a context (of meaning), correlating them as a part with the whole.” 4 Historical writings are not just a more or less complete record of events, not just a statement of facts. This is no less a reflection of how a person of that time saw the world, history, himself, and finally, in what categories he thought, how he explained the meaning of what was happening, what he considered important and what was secondary. It is very significant that when describing the same periods of history, different authors describe different facts, assessments and explanations of what is happening differ significantly. Moreover, not everything in these assessments can be explained by the socio-political or class predilections of the authors “Without connection with historical consciousness, it is impossible to explain why the vision of history - from one era to another - is so different. For Titus Livy, history is an epic of Roman valor, for Tacitus it is a drama of horror, for Otto of Fresingei it is the threshold of the end of the world. Why is it that in one era history “teaches philosophy through examples”, in another it is a way to “glorify the Creator”, in a third it is “a school of political wisdom”, in the eyes of still others it is “human stupidity incarnate”? 5 It is obvious that each cultural and historical era, in accordance with its own experience, is capable of extracting from oblivion only a certain number of historical facts that did not exist in written history before it. In order for a certain class of events to gain access to it, that is, to come into the historian’s field of view, they need to be “noticed,” realized, evaluated, that is, the measure of their importance for understanding the course of history as a whole must be determined.” 6 It is these “historical” ideas that are very important for recreating the picture of the world of a person of a distant era, the logic and stereotypes of his thinking, and therefore for recreating the person himself. In domestic science, this aspect of the problem has attracted the attention of scientists only recently and today it is clearly insufficiently studied Relatively recently, domestic historians have started talking about the importance of restoring the system of thoughts and ideas of people of a particular era, studying “the constants inherent in the consciousness of culture, language, religion, education, social communication,” 7 which include the perception of space and time and the associated awareness of history (progressive development or repetition, circulation, regression, statics, not movement, etc.); the relationship of the earthly world with the other world and, accordingly, the perception and experience of death, etc. 8 - that is, that picture of the world that underlies the behavior of the people of the era being studied and thereby leaves an indelible imprint on their social system and culture. Therefore, “the inclusion of mentalities in the picture of the past” 9, an attempt to reveal the internal position of people of that time, to reconstruct their own ideas, to recreate the views, ideas, value and emotional attitudes and reactions of people of that time is an important aspect of understanding real historical life. Secondly, the historicism of the early medieval era is rarely singled out as a special phenomenon. Scientists speak quite confidently about a special type of ancient worldview, about the specifics of ancient Middle Eastern ideas, about the phenomenon of medieval culture (in its classical period). But the transitional era - the slow isolation of the Christian world from the ancient world and its gradual formation - does not usually fall into the field of view of researchers. Meanwhile, the worldview of people who lived at the turn of the ancient and medieval eras was not fully determined either by the categories of the previous era or by the ideas of the classical Middle Ages, although it combined elements of both. It is this transitional type that is of the greatest interest, since it shows how this grandiose transformation of the entire system of world perception is carried out at the turn of two eras. Thirdly, a completely special situation arises around the assessment of the content of Byzantine culture. “From the very beginning, Byzantium interested science, first of all, as an epilogue to antiquity... Byzantine historiography was studied by the Hellenists only as a kind of “Christianized” continuation of the traditions of ancient historiography. This view, in principle, did not change until the end of the last century: Karl Krumbacher, whose book until recently was the only fundamental body of knowledge about Byzantine written monuments, was guided primarily by ancient cultural and historical values in the assessment of Byzantine literature. Proximity to ancient forms determined in his eyes the significance of the works of the Byzantines. The main criteria were not in Byzantine reality itself, but in the ancient past, and just as the main literary merit of the medieval Greeks was attributed to philological commenting on the ancients, all Byzantine culture and literature appeared as if it were a student’s commentary on the masterpieces of antiquity, not being connected either with its time or with the movement forward.” 10 In modern Byzantine studies this problem has not lost its urgency. Quite widespread in modern science is the opinion about the ancient “content” of Byzantine civilization. This situation is in many ways not accidental. The medieval culture of the Greeks itself turned to the ancient heritage as a standard, a classical model. In this regard, science has developed the concept of imitation, “mimesis,” as an important factor in the Byzantine worldview. 11 “The well-known statement of Theodore Metochites - “Everything has already been said and nothing is left to descendants” - reinforces the seemingly entrenched statement about the absence in Byzantine historical writing of any new technique, a new critical method and, most importantly, a fundamentally new perception of the world, compared to antiquity.” 12 However, as studies by Byzantinists show, behind the external similarity of these characteristics in the ancient and Byzantine traditions are hidden two different types of worldview, the differences between which are found not only in some nuances and shades, but also in the very picture of the world, the system of values, and understanding of the basic categories of human thinking. At the XX International Congress of Byzantinists in Paris in August 2001. The problem of ancient content and the originality of the Byzantine tradition again became the focus of attention of scientists. The President of the International Association of Byzantine Studies, Professor at Harvard University Igor Shevchenko, at the very beginning of the Congress, focused on this problem and modern approaches to its resolution. He identified two main approaches that have been established in modern historical science: negativist and apologetic. The negativist direction praises the “achievements of mimesis”, the closeness of Byzantine models to ancient traditions. The apologetic direction, on the contrary, extols the original features that show the specificity and uniqueness of Byzantine culture. At the same time, I. Shevchenko emphasized the unproductiveness of both approaches, since neither one nor the other direction makes it possible to objectively assess the real contribution of Byzantium and resolve this problem. He emphasized that both approaches rather express the attitude of modern researchers to the Byzantine heritage than the ideas of the Byzantines themselves. Therefore, the modern historical researcher faces the necessary task of studying the Byzantines’ own view, their value system, their own understanding of the originality of their works and their place in the world. 13 Taking into account all these aspects, we are fully aware of the complexity and debatability of the problem posed. The emergence at the beginning of the 4th century in the Greek (early Byzantine) tradition of a special genre of church history is a unique phenomenon that has so far been little studied. Despite the abundance of works devoted to the problem of the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages, 14 the cultural life of this most complex era requires further in-depth and comprehensive study. Neither the formation of early medieval historicism nor the colossal mental shifts have yet been comprehended by science. The historical views of the bearers of the new ideology, the creators of the new culture, if they attracted the attention of researchers, then, as a rule, scientists limited themselves to the study of the Latin tradition 15 and, above all, the works of Augustine the Blessed. According to the fair remark of V.M. Tyulenev, “Augustine’s “City of God” eclipsed not only the entire previous historical and philosophical thought of Christianity, but also the intellectual achievements of the immediate successors of the great Father of the Church.” 16 Only recently has an attempt been made to consider the emergence and development of Christian historicism using the example of Lactantius’s essay “On the Deaths of the Persecutors,” which is considered as the first example of a new genre of historical prose for Christian literature of the Latin West. As for the formation of early medieval historicism in the Greek tradition, this problem is even less developed. The only work in Russian and Western historiography in which early Byzantine church historians appear not so much as providers of information about the past, but as thinkers developing their own “philosophy of history” is the monograph by I. V. Krivushin, published in 1998 17 . It is devoted to the study of church historical concepts of church historians of early Byzantium and examines a compact group of orthodox authors. The author rightly notes that “the early Byzantine tradition of church history writing became the historiographical phenomenon that, on the one hand, divided and, on the other hand, united ancient and early Christian historical thought with European medieval historiography” 18. However, as a result of his research, paradoxically, the author actually excludes from the general line of development of early Byzantine historiography the “father of church history,” the founder of this new genre 19 . Meanwhile, the Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius (c. 260–339) is a key figure in the process of forming a new type of worldview. At the very beginning of the 4th century, he created the first “Church History,” which marked the beginning of a new genre and reflected the formation of new mental structures, a new type of historicism. Eusebius found himself at the intersection of different traditions. On the one hand, chronologically, the life and active creative work of Eusebius dates back to the period of late antiquity; he was brought up within the framework of ancient culture. On the other hand, being a Christian bishop, he himself accepted and contributed to the establishment in society of a Christian value system, which was in many ways opposed to ancient ideals. Accordingly, he was forced to correlate these two systems and, one way or another, solve the problem of a new understanding of history and reality. His works not only contain the foundations of new, Christian medieval ideas, but also reflect the process of painful transformation of the entire system of worldview. It is obvious that it was the works of Eusebius that served in the Greek tradition as the starting point from which we can talk about the formation of early medieval historicism. III-IV centuries - this is a period of fundamental transformation of the mass consciousness of people, a period of rethinking previous ancient values, breaking down ancient ideas and forming a new, Christian worldview and its corresponding attitude to historical reality. At this time, basic ideas about the world and history were formed that would become dominant in the medieval era. The historical views of the “transitional era” cannot be characterized as some kind of mechanical combination of the principles of ancient and medieval historicism. Including elements of both into the understanding of history, the man of that era thought in his own categories, which did not coincide with the ideas of either the ancient past or the medieval future. Eusebius himself, Bishop of Caesarea, is a complex and extraordinary personality. We know extremely little about the life of this man, and the main source of information about him is his own writings or small remarks in the writings of his followers. It is traditionally believed that he was born in Palestine, received a solid education from Presbyter Pamphilus, took part in the collection and systematization of the books of Origen and other early Christian authors, and was one of the most educated people of his time. Then, with the beginning of the persecution of Christians (in 303), he was forced to wander around Palestine, Egypt and Phenicia, was imprisoned, but survived. With the establishment of Christianity under Constantine, a sharp turn occurred in the fate of Eusebius. He was close to the court and soon became a confidant of the emperor. His steadfastness in defending the Christian faith and broad education brought Eusebius popularity in church circles in the East, and in 311 he became bishop of Caesarea in Palestine 20 . At the same time, the events of the beginning of the 4th century are assessed differently. Some researchers speak with respect and reverence about Eusebius’s steadfastness in defending the Christian faith and associate his rise precisely with the recognition of his steadfastness and courage by his contemporaries. Other historians, on the contrary, passionately paint a portrait of a flattering courtier, deceitful and corrupt, ready to sacrifice absolutely everything for the sake of his own well-being and career. Meanwhile, neither one nor the other opinion is in any way confirmed by the sources available to us. None of the works that have reached us contain direct indications about the place and time of the birth of Eusebius. It is assumed that his place of birth was Palestine, and in particular Caesarea. This opinion is confirmed mainly by the fact that the prefix παλαιστίνος was often added to the name of Eusebius. However, back at the end of the 19th century, Η P Rozanov noted that in most cases the word is immediately used έπίσκοπος, therefore the word παλαιστίνος could and most likely simply meant the name of the region in which Eusebius was bishop. The baptism of Eusebius in Palestine, which he himself mentions in his work (Vita Constantini, I, 8), is also not indisputable proof of the birth of Eusebius in Palestine. 21 Sources also do not name the exact time of birth of Eusebius. Researchers express different opinions on this matter, generally assigning the date of birth of Eusebius to the period from the mid-250s to the first half of the 260s, but most researchers consider the very beginning of the 260s to be the most likely date. 22 No more or less reliable information has also been preserved about the parents or relatives of Eusebius of Caesarea. The very name Ευσέβιος ό Παμφίλου (Socrates, 1.8, 1, 1, 10, 1, etc., Sozomen, II, 19), as A. Yastrebov rightly notes, is not the same as Αλέξανδρος τού Φιλίππού, that is, it does not indicate the father, but was taken by Eusebius, most likely because of his great affection for his teacher Pamphilus, who died a martyr in 309. From information about the relatives of Eusebius, one can find references only to the Bishop of Nicomedia Eusebius. Some researchers are inclined to consider him the brother of Eusebius of Caesarea on the basis that Blessed Theodoret cites a letter from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, I, 5), where Eusebius of Caesarea is directly called his brother “Ευσέβιος ό άδελφος σου, ό έν Καισαρεία " However, it is likely that this appeal rather indicates not the family relationship of the two bishops, but their belonging to the same faith. Little is known about the teachers and mentors of Eusebius. What is known for certain is that one of them was a certain Namphilus, whom Eusebius himself mentions. Obviously, he had a great influence on the formation of the views, life and work of Eusebius himself. As a sign of respect and gratitude to the teacher, Eusebius apparently took his name The education and broad outlook of the Bishop of Caesarea are beyond doubt. According to the testimony of his contemporaries and followers, Eusebius was indeed a very educated man, well acquainted not only with the early Christian tradition, but also with ancient culture. Blessed Jerome in his “Letter to Pammachius and Oceanus” writes, “Who can be smarter, more learned and more eloquent than Eusebius?” 23 Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History 24, I, 1) says that Eusebius was “a man of great learning (πολυμαθέστατος), an expert in the Divine Scriptures, as well as Greek poets and historians.” Evagrius Scholasticus characterizes him as “a man extremely eloquent in everything” (Ecclesiastical History 25, I, 1). He apparently spent a significant part of his life “traveling” or “wandering” in distant lands. From his “Ecclesiastical History” it follows that he personally visited the libraries of the city of Elia, spent some time in Antioch 26, Palestine, Tyre, Egypt, etc. Many researchers who analyzed in detail his “Ecclesiastical History”, Preparatio Evangehca and other works noted that to write them “it was necessary to rummage through all the libraries of Egypt, Phenicia and Greece” 27. Even more controversial is the theological position of Eusebius in the Arian dispute that unfolded at the beginning of the 4th century. Already a bishop, Eusebius had to take part in the Christological dispute. In fact, he supported Arius and for his pro-Arian position in 324 he was condemned and deposed by the Synod of Antioch. However, the next year at the Council of Nicaea he was not only rehabilitated, but also played a very noticeable role at it (he addressed a welcoming speech to the emperor) and took an active part in the development of the Nicene Creed. 28 Despite this, Eusebius turned out to be unrecognized. The Orthodox Church did not canonize him either as a saint or as a “father of the church.” Researchers also cannot say with complete certainty whether Eusebius was truly an Arian. In the traditional understanding, Eusebius of Caesarea appears to be a moderate Arian (semi-heretic), whose “moderation” was dictated by political rather than dogmatic reasons 29. However, theologians who have specifically studied the legacy of Eusebius see only a very small amount of truth in this very widespread opinion. The question of Eusebius’s Arian sympathies cannot be resolved unambiguously. A very authoritative Orthodox theologian, Saint Athanasius the Great, considered Eusebius an Arian 30 On the other hand, Eusebius of Caesarea resolutely rejects the main idea of Arius about the origin of the Son “from non-existent” (Theodoret, Church History, I, 12) In the “Epistle of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on the Faith set forth in Nicaea,” the text of which is given Theodoret (Ecclesiastical History, I, 12), Eusebius expounds the Orthodox doctrine of the Father and the Son, adopting the terms έξ της όυσίας and όμοούσιος 31 In general, Eusebius’s position on theological issues was quite successfully expressed by Professor V.V. Bolotov “The dogmatic position of Eusebius is defined as follows: Eusebius was neither Orthodox nor Arian, he was an Origenist” 32 Moreover, as shown in the same theological works, the philosophical foundations of Arianism, on the one hand, and Origenism and the religious ideas of Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other, were significantly different. Arius relied in his teaching on the philosophical system of Aristotle. The theology of Origen, with the predominance of allegorism in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, in a philosophical sense was adjacent to Plato and the Neoplatonists. Thus, philosophical the views of Eusebius and Arius come from completely different premises and “come closer together at the First Ecumenical Council and later only because of the fear of the conservative Origenists of the new (and in fact the well-forgotten old) that was proposed by the Council of Nicea” 33. As A. Yastrebov shows in his essay, the bulk of theologians of that time were followers of Origen. And although the latter’s triadology is generally quite vague, at the same time subordinationism clearly emerges in him - the doctrine of the hierarchy of the Persons of the Holy Trinity with a consistent lowering of the hypostases from the Father to the Holy Spirit. This view is often found in the first centuries of Christianity, and therefore the bishops, among whom was Eusebius of Caesarea, simply adhered to tradition. Origenism was a very influential movement in Egypt and the Middle East at the time, and many Church Fathers and teachers were staunch adherents of Origen. The behavior of Eusebius at the Council of Nicea is very indicative in this regard. When the discussion between the Orthodox and Arians began to take on a protracted character, Eusebius made a conciliatory proposal. He himself believed that theology in such matters could lead to undesirable consequences, believing that if a person cannot comprehend the image of the relationship between his own soul and body, then how can he try to understand the mystery of the relationship of the Son of God to the Father 34. Therefore, Eusebius proposed to accept the Creed, traditionally taught in Caesarea as a baptismal 35. He had, according to Eusebius, to satisfy both disputing parties. In general, it seems to us quite fair the conclusion made by A. Yastrebov in his essay: “Eusebius was not a malicious heretic. He did not rebel against the authority of the Ecumenical Council and in every possible way distanced himself from Arianism, understood as an innovation, but “Arianism” is ancient, that is, the “shortcomings” of the old theological system of Origen, which the Council of Nicaea was called upon to overcome, he stubbornly defended, drawing closer to the heretics in this sense” 36. Moreover, during the time of Eusebius, the Nicene Dogma was only proclaimed; commentaries and interpretations to it had not yet been compiled. While the theological language had not yet been compiled, there was a wide field for hesitation and various interpretations. Eusebius of Caesarea remained in this turbulent era; he did not live to see the final triumph of Orthodox triadology. After all, only then could one safely say whether Eusebius was an Arian or Orthodox. In any case, he was not a subtle dogmatist and adhered to traditional views on controversial issues, although it was he who did a lot for the development of the language and conceptual apparatus of Orthodox theology 37 . The fate of the works of Eusebius 38 is equally unusual. Eusebius of Caesarea is the founder of a special genre of church history and one of the founders of the Christian concept of world history. For the first time in Christian literature, he gave a consistent description of the entire past history of the church and proposed certain ways of interpreting it. His “Church History” was very popular in early Byzantium and medieval Europe. It was read, rewritten, continued, translated. In Byzantium in the 4th-7th centuries, the authority of Eusebius was indisputable. All subsequent early Byzantine church historians, in one way or another, started from the work of Eusebius Socrates Scholasticus, Ermius Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Evagrius Scholasticus, despite the fact that they were representatives of different currents of Christian thought, focused on different audiences and set themselves different tasks - all of them, each in their own way, sought to continue Eusebius. 39 In the West, the works of Eusebius were also known to all educated people and enjoyed great popularity. The main works of Eusebius were translated into Latin already at the end of IV - beginning of V. In about 381, Jerome of Stridon compiled a Latin translation of Eusebius’s “Chronicle” and continued it until 378, and Rufinus of Aquileia, around 400, translated his “Ecclesiastical History” and continued his presentation until 395. Thus, in the western part of the empire, which spoke Latin, the works Eusebius became known (in translation) and then received numerous new continuations. In the Greek original or Latin translations, they became the basis of the widely developed in the 15th-5th centuries. Christian historiography. The most typical type of historical writing in the early and classical Middle Ages became the chronicle. It is generally accepted that the basis for all Western histories of the “barbarian era” and later times was the famous chronicle of Jerome, written in imitation of the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea 40. A number of Christian chroniclers of the late IV-VI centuries adjoin Eusebius-Jerome. Prosper of Aquitaine, Idatius, Cassiodorus, Rufinus, etc. Their “world chronicles” are, in essence, a reproduction of the “Chronicle” of Eusebius - Jerome up to 378, after which a list of emperors, consuls and other officials is placed, indicating the most important events that took place in a given year. 41 In the 6th century, Cassiodorus selected several “Christian historians”, familiarity with whose works he considered necessary for religious education and the basis of any education. Among them are Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Paulus Orosius and his own Historia tripartita 42. Thus, Eusebius and his works occupy a very honorable place in the history of Byzantine and Western European literature. The works of Eusebius formed the basis of European education, and his ideas for a long time determined the attitude of the Middle Ages to historical reality. However, despite the significance of the figure of Eusebius of Caesarea, his enormous historical and literary heritage, influence on the development of Byzantine and Christian culture in general, neither he nor his work was sufficiently reflected in fundamental studies of both the recent past and the most recent times. K. Krumbacher begins his “History of Byzantine Literature” only from the time of Justinian, from the 6th century, and thus misses the entire era of Eusebius 43. In G. Hunger's two-volume work on Byzantine literature, all the writers of early and late Byzantium are collected, but strangely there is not even a mention of Eusebius 44. X.-G. Beck, in his study of the church literature of Byzantium, mentions Eusebius only in passing, in passing 45. Thus, a paradoxical situation arises: everyone knows about him and recognizes his cardinal role in the formation of the foundations of Christian historicism, but they do not specifically consider him and seem to be afraid to approach the figure of the first Christian historian. It is difficult to say when the study of Eusebius’ legacy began. Even before the appearance of the first scientific editions of the works of early Byzantine church historians at the end of the 19th-20th centuries, which opened the era of modern research into the tradition of Eusebius, there were many works that, to one degree or another, related to the heritage of early church historians. At the same time, until now, the problem of Greek church historiography and the role of its founder - Eusebius of Caesarea - remains little studied. First of all, this applies to Russian historiography. Although the history of the Byzantine church, and accordingly Byzantine church literature, invariably remained in the field of view of Russian researchers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, their study had some peculiarities. Firstly, early church historians were of interest to researchers primarily as providers of factual material about the past of the Christian church Secondly, they sought to see the representatives of the Eusebian tradition as theologians rather than historians, and therefore attention was attracted not so much by their historical works as by theological, apologetic, exegetical and polemical. The problems of the historical concept, method and principles of depicting reality were almost completely ignored. Thirdly, the degree to which Eusebius’ legacy has been studied was probably reflected by the not entirely clear position of the Orthodox Church in relation to the “father of church history”; it is unclear whether to consider him as an Arian heretic or as one of the “fathers of the church.” This obviously explains the fact that in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, only three works specifically examine the works of Eusebius of Caesarea. The first in terms of publication time and significance is a monograph by a graduate of the Moscow Theological Seminary N. P. Rozanova 46, published in 1880. The author does not set his main task to clarify the content of Eusebius’s historical views; he first of all tries to determine the value of his work for reconstructing the initial history of Christianity and verify the accuracy of his data. At the same time, the author makes a number of interesting observations regarding his historical concept. A year later, an extensive article by M. D. Muretov about Eusebius 47 appeared, representing a detailed review of the study of Η. P. Rozanova. In 1903, the fundamental work of A.P. Lebedev “Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century” 48 was published. The main advantage of this book lies in its author’s desire for a conceptual analysis of the work of Eusebius, in an attempt to consider church historical works not only as a source of factual material but also as monuments of historical thought. He writes: “Everyone uses them as valuable material, but rarely does anyone undertake to study the works themselves as a specific phenomenon that has a place and significance among other literary works of Christian antiquity” 49. A.P. Lebedev is trying to answer a number of questions that will become key in Western Byzantine studies of the 20th century. He is one of the first to address the problem of the primacy of Eusebius as the “father” of church history and solves it in favor of the Bishop of Caesarea. He tries to clarify the main content of the historical views of Eusebius and notes the importance for his concept of the historical development of the activities of God and Satan. He is the first to conceptually contrast the main (books 1-VII) and the final parts of the “Church History” (books V40;III-X). However, the very nature of the work and the wide coverage of Byzantine and Western church historical works from the 4th to the 20th centuries did not imply a detailed consideration of the views of the founder of the church historiographic tradition. During the Soviet period, church historiography almost completely dropped from the list of topics worthy of attention. Until the end of the 60s, early Byzantine church historians were remembered extremely rarely, only when the question arose about the practical use of their works as historical sources. Since the late 60s. There has been some revival of interest in early church historiography, but within a very limited framework. Several review articles by Z. V. Udaltsova 50 appear, and S. S. Averintsev 2 shows some interest. But it is significant that in the fundamental work on the history of world historical thought by M. A. Barga 51 and in the first systematic review of early Christian philosophy by G. G. Mayorov 52 Eusebius is given space only in footnotes. In recent years, the issue of the legacy of early Byzantine church historians has become more popular. In the 90s, the main works of early Byzantine historians were republished, starting with the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea. However, early church historical concepts still remain poorly researched. Perhaps the only work that poses this problem and examines some of its aspects is the monograph by I.V. Krivushin “Early Byzantine Church Historiography” 53. At the same time, the early Byzantine followers of Eusebius - Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Evagrius - appear in it as such original authors who critically used the methods of interpretation and models for describing history created by the founder of the genre, that we have to talk, rather, not about the evolution of one historical concept, but about the presence of five completely different conceptual works by Socrates. Sozomen, Theodorit and Evagrius, according to I.V. Krivushin. they have gone so far from the model created by Eusebius that the first “Ecclesiastical History” turns out to be not the beginning of a new genre and direction in historical thought, but. in fact, a “dead-end branch” in the development of historiography. Foreign historical science presents a completely different picture. The number of Western researchers who have spoken out about various aspects of early Byzantine church historiography and the historical concept of its founder is extremely large. However, despite the impressive volume of historiographical literature that in one way or another related to the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, researchers have not carried out a detailed analysis of the textual material. In the scientific literature, either general reviews of the development of historical thought in Byzantium prevail (K. Krumbacher 54, G. Hunger 55, X-G Beck 56, A. Harnack 57, A. Dempf 58, G. Barnes 59, R. Milburn 60, A. Momigliano 61, F. Winckelmann 62, A. Karposilos 63, etc.), or articles addressing individual issues of a private nature (G. Drake 64, R. M. Grant 65, R. Marcus*, T. D. Barnes 66, J-M Sanster 67, T. Christensen 68, B. Warmington 69, etc.) The main discussions in the latest historical literature 70 related to the legacy of Eusebius of Caesarea are grouped around several problems. Thus, the problem of the priority of Eusebius as the first church historian is very actively discussed. Scientific discussion on this issue began in the 19th century, when F. X. Baur drew attention to the testimony of Sozomen and Jerome, who called Clement of Rome, Egesippus, Julius Africanus and Hippolytus of Rome the predecessors of the Bishop of Caesarea 71. As a result of his research, he came to the conclusion that the other two representatives of early Christian literature, such as Luke and Hegesippus, also deserve the title of church historians. At the end of the 19th century, these considerations aroused criticism from another German researcher, F. Overbeck 72 . He showed perfectly that the named “predecessors” of Eusebius should rather be classified as apologists (Egesippus) or chroniclers (Africanus and Hippolytus), and Luke’s “Acts of the Apostles” can only be called real history with a great stretch. In the 20th century, Overbeck's position, with the exception of its particular aspects, was accepted by the overwhelming majority of researchers 73 . Another hotly debated problem in modern Byzantine studies is the identification of the intellectual prerequisites for early church history writing and the question of the continuity or fundamental difference of the new genre from the classical examples of Greco-Roman historiography. The study of this problem gave rise to two extreme points of view in science. Some scholars emphasize the novelty of the genre invented by Eusebius with all its features and even talk about the “revolutionary revolution” carried out by the Bishop of Caesarea in the field of historical writing. The most obvious is the methodological novelty of Eusebius's work, expressed in the author's extensive and accurate citation of documents and writings of predecessors, refusal to use oral tradition and inclusion of fictitious speeches in the historical narrative 74. Others, apparently in response to the too categorical statements of the former, strive to find out the origins of Eusebius’s “discovery” and come to the conclusion that “many ideas and concepts of ancient historiography, somewhat revised, confidently entered the conceptual toolkit of church historians and occupied an important place in it” 75 . G. Chesnut, in particular, finds in Eusebius “slightly Christianized,” but generally ancient concepts of fate and chance, an understanding of divine retribution, etc. 76 . G. Trompf sees the commonality of ancient historical thought and the concept of Eusebius in the fact that, in his opinion, the idea of ​​historical repetition is of paramount importance in both cases 77 . As a result, the works of early Byzantine church historians turn out to be, in fact, only a repetition or, at best, a continuation of ancient traditions. In our opinion, both designated positions of researchers suffer from some one-sidedness. Of course, when creating his “History,” Eusebius relied on the traditions of ancient historiography. Many ideas characteristic of Greco-Roman historical thought were an integral part of his own ideas. However, the worldview of the Bishop of Caesarea, a Christian, at the same time differed significantly from the view of the world, man, and history that was characteristic of ancient authors. In order to objectively assess the place and role of Eusebius in the development of historical ideas, it is necessary to show what exactly he took from ancient traditions, what he abandoned, what changes in the system of worldview are already evident in his work, what is new. It is important not only to find elements that bring his concept closer to ancient or medieval ideas, but also to find out how these heterogeneous and contradictory elements are combined within the framework of a single teaching, what exactly and how changes in the consciousness of a person of that time. And the work of Eusebius of Caesarea gives the researcher such an opportunity - an extremely rare one - to find himself in a laboratory of thought hidden from view, where previous ancient ideas are combined with ancient Jewish and Christian ones, traditional concepts are rethought, and on the basis of this something fundamentally new is created. The problem of how the first church historians understood the subject of their research is extremely complex and controversial. It includes two main aspects. The first is associated with the understanding of Eusebius and his followers of the very term “church” (έκκλησία). It was certainly accepted that the object of Eusebius’s description was the church and its history, but practically no attempt was made to find out what meaning he put into this key concept. In the work of Eusebius, the church was identified with the “Christian people,” leaving many ambiguities as to whether it should be understood as a specific Christian community, the Christian church as the totality of all believers (on a global scale), or as Christianity in general. In the scientific literature, this question was first specifically raised in 1960 by Harald Zimmermann. He tried to trace the evolution of this key term using the material of church historians IV40;-V40; centuries and came to the conclusion that the concept of “church” gradually narrows from Eusebius to Theodorit: the Christian people (in Eusebius) - the Christian church (in Socrates) - the Orthodox Church (in Sozomen) - the militant Orthodox Church (in Theodorit) 78. Zimmerman’s conclusions have not received wide circulation in modern Byzantine studies, however, under his undoubted influence in science, the opinion that in early Byzantine church historiography existed a variety of points of view on the object of their research is increasingly being established. The term “church” itself in the 4th-5th centuries had not yet received its canonical completeness and unambiguity. The second aspect of this problem is related to determining the place of non-church, secular subjects in church history writing. Traditionally, scholars have denied all early church historians an interest in secular material. The generally accepted point of view is that the exclusion of secular material from the narrative has become a principle of church historiography since the beginning of the 4th century. However, recently the point of view has become very widespread, according to which only Eusebius, unlike his followers and successors, carefully excluded secular information from his narrative 79 . However, it is extremely rare in foreign historiography to raise the question of the motives for such selectivity. In modern science, there are discussions about the historical concept of Eusebius himself and his successors. As a rule, researchers start “from the known” and try to find out the place and role in the ideas of the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​any ancient concept of historical development or, on the contrary, they reduce everything to the theory of providentialism; they usually consider Eusebius’ “History” as a history of the confrontation between supernatural forces - God and the devil. However, Eusebius’ ideas about God himself, his ways of influencing human history, and the “effectiveness” of his activities extremely rarely become the subject of special consideration by researchers 80 . The question of what place Eusebius assigns to man in the historical process has also not been subjected to detailed study. It is usually believed that in the understanding of the Christian bishop, people act only as actors acting out a play written long ago, the author and director of which is God. However, a specific analysis of human actions and actions described by Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History”, the motives and results of human activity casts doubt on the validity of the generally accepted interpretation. Eusebius’s understanding of time and space, the basic categories of human consciousness, which largely determine a person’s ideas about history, has been studied rather poorly. We can say that this problem has only just been posed. There are general works on the perception of time in antiquity or the Middle Ages, in Christian thinking, but as for the ideas of Eusebius, researchers, as a rule, only state that he broke with the ancient theory of historical cyclicity. The discussion often comes down to solving the more general problem of contrasting ancient cyclism and Old Testament linearity. The problem of Eusebius’ understanding of historical time, the nature and direction of its movement is still far from being resolved. It is possible to find elements of both these and other representations. To resolve controversial issues, in our opinion, it is necessary to use new approaches and non-standard techniques that allow us to look at this problem differently. Another problem concerns the method of early Byzantine church historiography. It was first raised at the beginning of the last century, 1 but since then it has not been subjected to exhaustive analysis and has not received final resolution. Researchers, as a rule, declare the novelty of the “Eusebius method”, but do not consider the content of this new method in detail. In foreign historiography there are a number of articles touching on certain aspects of the problem, but there is not a single monograph specifically devoted to this issue. In general, despite the vastness of literature, one way or another relating to early Byzantine church historiography and the legacy of Eusebius of Caesarea, a number of problems and issues have still been studied rather poorly or have not been raised at all in historical literature. The question of the role of the first church historian in the formation of a new (in comparison with antiquity) type of historicism in historical science has practically not been studied. In this work, the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea are considered as a starting point in the process of formation of the early medieval type of historicism. Accordingly, the researcher is tasked with identifying basic ideas about time and space, i.e. the coordinate system in which history unfolds, as well as changes in the temporal and spatial orientation of people on the threshold of the Middle Ages, reconstruction of the idea of ​​historical causality and the main “driving forces” of history, the direction of its development, its purpose and meaning, a systematic analysis of the historical concept of Eusebius of Caesarea in the totality of its various aspects. To reconstruct the system of historical ideas of the Bishop of Caesarea, it is also important to clarify the understanding of the Christian historian of the main subject of his work, the main core of the historical process, to determine the degree of importance for the early Byzantine historian of certain events, as well as to determine the methodology of writing history and the principles of working with historical sources. However, to identify the characteristics of the historical consciousness of the transitional era, it is important not only to identify the specifics of the perception and explanation of history by a person of the early Middle Ages, not only to fix certain changes and “advancements” in a person’s worldview, but also to determine the mechanisms by which this gigantic transformation of ideological categories is carried out at the turn of two eras and the formation of a new system of historical ideas occurs. It is Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” that can provide very interesting and important information about the formation of early medieval historicism, although this work has certain specifics. First of all, this is the first work written in a new genre, the first “Church History”, and in essence it is the first attempt to describe the history of all mankind from a Christian point of view. On the one hand, it differs significantly from ancient stories and is opposed to them, on the other, it could not help but rely on ancient concepts and ideas. However, the work of Eusebius is not only characterized by a certain duality, a combination of elements of previous and new ideas, but also reflects the complex process of transformation of ancient categories of consciousness and the formation of a new attitude to the world and man, to time and space, to the historical process as a whole, as well as the formation of a new view of history as a science. This is not a set of random concepts, concepts and categories, but a complete work, holistic and unified in conceptual terms. Secondly, this is a fairly voluminous written source, containing not only a dry listing of events, but also significant author’s remarks and reasoning that allow us to draw some conclusions about the author’s worldview. At the same time, this is not a narrowly specialized theological treatise, but an essay written in simple, living language, aimed at the general reader, understandable and accessible to ordinary people. “Addressing the flock, church authors, consciously or unwittingly, used that fund of ideas about man and the world, about the forces governing it, which was the content of its consciousness” 81 . Thus, this work obviously reflects the consciousness and worldview of not only Eusebius himself, but also his contemporaries, his readers. However, the interpretation of this source poses a number of problems for the researcher. In this essay, naturally, there is no direct answer to the question of how the author perceives time, space, history, etc. These are generally accepted ideas that did not need to be explained to the reader. Moreover, many of these ideas were often not realized. Therefore, the reconstruction of such unspoken and sometimes unconscious ideas causes certain difficulties and requires careful reading into the text. In addition, the emphasized traditionalism of the works of ancient and early medieval authors leads to numerous layers of various concepts (older and newer) on top of each other and makes it difficult to identify the ideas of the author himself. This feature of the text material makes it necessary to use the narratological method. The name of the method is not entirely clear I.V. Krivushin tried to formulate the essence of this method as “an expansion of research tools through the techniques of narrative analysis, designed to reveal the interpretation of history and its constituent events hidden in the text itself” 82 . Perhaps it can be more simply defined as “reading into the text.” This method was developed and introduced into the practice of historical research by A.P. Lebedev at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1917, traditions were interrupted and this method has not yet become widespread, but its use can be quite effective. The essence of this method is to find out to what extent this or that position declared by the author is confirmed by the historical material he provides and how wide is the scope of influence of this view on the general nature of the narrative. Perhaps the use of this method will allow us to obtain some new results that clarify modern ideas about the perception of the world and history by people of the early Middle Ages. Secondly, even a fairly thorough analysis of the content of the text (especially in the translated version), attempts to find out which concept the author resorts to more often, do not always allow us to draw objective conclusions. The Greek language of Eusebius's work in itself forced the author to use the same words and concepts as the ancient authors. Therefore, a more productive, and in some cases the only method that allows us to identify the peculiarities of the worldview of people who lived more than one and a half thousand years ago, is the study of the language of the works itself - a method that considers changes in vocabulary, acquisitions and transformations in the meaning of words and reveals the connection of these changes with the general context. The very set of terms and categories, the system of concepts with which this or that author operates, contain certain information about the specifics of his ideas. The writings of Eusebius of Caesarea and other early Byzantine church historians can provide very interesting information in this regard, since the language itself (Greek) remains the same, but the meaning of the words used in antiquity now changes. These changes in vocabulary probably reflect a certain evolution in ideas about the world and history. To clarify the content and specificity of early medieval ideas, it is important to establish how often and with what categories the author operates, how the understanding of traditional Greek concepts changes during the transition to the early Middle Ages, and what meaning the Christian bishop now puts into them. Thus, the use of the linguistic-statistical method can provide some new data on the nature of the early medieval worldview and the evolution of ideas during the transition from the ancient era to the early Middle Ages. Overall, we have before us a very important and at the same time extremely complex source. The works of Eusebius of Caesarea contain elements of ancient culture, ancient traditions and features of a new medieval attitude to the world based on the Christian faith; thereby they separate and at the same time connect two eras. The study of this complex and contradictory material makes it possible to identify the mechanism of formation of new mental structures, to show what and how changes in the transitional era, how the foundations of a new understanding of the world and history are laid, i.e. to show the beginning of the formation of early medieval (early Byzantine) historicism. Philosophical Dictionary. Ed. I. T. Frolova M, 1987 C 177 Barg M.A. Epochs and ideas of the formation of historicism M, 1987 Collingwood RJ Idea of history Autobiography M, 1980 This point of view has become quite widespread even in popular literature See, for example, Balla About Time and the Other The Middle Ages in European historical well-being // Knowledge is power, No. 1, 2001 C 55 The legitimacy of using the term “historicism” in relation to an earlier time is recognized by many researchers of history and culture antiquity and the Middle Ages Losev A.F. Ancient philosophy of history - St. Petersburg Aletheia, 2001 Gurevich A. Ya. The problem of mentalities in modern historiography / / General history of discussion, new approaches Issue 1 M, 1989 P 85 Bibikov M.V. Byzantine historical prose M, 1996 P 146 Aka Historical Literature of Byzantium St. Petersburg, 1998 From 13 Aka Byzantine C 146–147 Sevcenko Ihor Was Originality one of the important concerns of Byzantine literati? Does originality belong to the spirit of Byzantine literature? // XX Congrès International des Etudes Byzantines College de France – Sorbonne Pre-actes T 1 Pans, 2001 P 57 For a review of available works, see Ukolova V.I. Ancient heritage and culture of the early Middle Ages M Nauka, 1989 From 14 onwards Barg M.A. Epochs and ideas of Mayorov G. G. Formation of medieval philosophy Latin patristics M, 1979 Ukolova V. I. Antique Tyulenev V.M. Lactantius Christian historian at the crossroads of eras St. Petersburg "Aletheia", 2000 C 5 Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine church historiography. St. Petersburg: “Aletheia”, 1998. See, for example: “Eusebius, rather, completes the line of early Christian historical thought than creates a new path in historiography” (Ibid. p. 225). For more information about the biography of Eusebius, see: Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries. 2nd edition / Ed. M. A. Morozova. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2000. pp. 26–33. Krivushin I.V. The birth of church historiography: Eusebius of Caesarea Ivanovo, 1995. Aka. Early Zantian S 8–11 Udaltsova Z.V. Development of historical thought // Culture of Byzantium IV-first half of the 7th century M, 1984 P 182–191 Barnes T D Constantine and Eusebius Cambridge (Mass), 1981 P 93–149 Chesnut G F The First Christian Histories Eusebius. Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagnus Paris, 1977 Grant R M Eusebius as Church Historian Oxford, 1980 P 164–165 Schwartz E Griechische Geschichtsschreiber Leipzig, 1957 S 495–598 WallaceHadrill D S Eusebius of Caesarea London, 1960 Rozanov Η P Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea Palestine M, 1880 P.3. Yastrebov A. Eusebius of Caesarea Historical essay // Theological collection Issue III M, 1999 P 137–138 For more details, see Place E Des Introduction generale // La preparation evangelique (Sources chrétiennes No. 206) Paris, 1977 P 16 Winkelmann F Die Kirchengeschichtswerke im ostromischen Reich // BS Vol 37 1976 S 183–184 Yastrebov A. Decree op. C 138 Blessed Jerome Works Kyiv, 1897 T 2 S 373 Quoted. by Yastrebov A. Eusebius of Caesarea C 148 Church history of Ermiya Sozomen of Salamis St. Petersburg, 1851 Evagrius Scholastic Church history Per I. V. Krivushina St. Petersburg, 1999 P 92 However, A Yastrebov believes that in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea no influence of the Antiochian school is visible (Yastrebov A Decree op. C 139) In the documents cited by the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils”, the signature of Eusebius is sixth (out of thirty) after the signatures of the most influential bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc. (See Acts of the Ecumenical Councils Vol. I St. Petersburg, 1996 P 77–78) Very indicative in this regard is the opinion presented in the encyclopedic dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: “As an admirer of Origen, he was naturally drawn towards subordinationism and Arianism, but when at the council of 325 it came to voting on the emperor’s formula ομοουσιος, he could not resist the temptation to please the crowned “bishop external" (See Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary of Biography M, 1994 Vol. 5 C 39) A number of researchers express certain doubts about Eusebius’s belonging to the Arian heresy Chesnut G F The First Christian Histories P 159 Dempf A Eusebios als Historiker // Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische class München, 1964 Heft 11 S 12–13 Winkelmann F Kirchengeschichtswerke S 8 St. Athanasius the Great Defensive word against the Arians // St. Athanasius the Great Works M.1994 Vol. 1 S 384 Yastrebov A. Decree op. C 146–147 Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church M, 1994 (Reprint reproduction of the 1907 edition) T 1 C 141 Yastrebov A. Decree op. C 143–144 Eusebius De theologia ecclesiastica 1.12 // Cited. according to the publication of Yastrebov A. Decree op. C 146 Eusebius owns a huge number of works of various subjects and nature: “Chronicle”, “Preparation for the Gospel”, “Proof of the Gospel”, “History of the Palestinian Martyrs”, “Onomastics”, “Life of Constantine”, “Eulogy to Constantine”, letters, etc. But the main creation of Eusebius was his “Ecclesiastical History.” Only those works of Eusebius that were included in the famous Patrology of Min, make up 5 huge volumes in it. Main editions of Eusebius’s works Eusebu Caesariensis Opera / Ed G Dindorf Lipsiae, 1890 Vol 4 Εύσεβίου του Παμφίλου Ἐκκλησιαστικής ιστορίας βιβλία δέκα // Patrologia Cursus Completus Series Graeca / Rec J-P Migne Parisius 1857 T XX Col 1–906 Eusebius Pamphili Praeparatio Evangelica PG T XXI Col 21–408 Eusebius Pamphili Demonstratio Evangelica T XXII Col 14–792 Eusebius Pamphili Ελλήνων τε καί βαρβάρων (Chronicorum libri duo) // PG T XIX Col 99–600 Eusebius Werke / Hrsg von E Schwartz Leipzig, 1903–1909 Eusebius Werke / Hrsg von J C Hinnchs Leipzig, 1906–1956 Eusebius Kirchengeschichte / Hrsg von E Schwartz Berlin, 1952 Eusebius’History of the Church from Christ to Constantine / Rev by A Louth Harmondsworth, 1989 Eusebius Pamphilius The Ecclesiastical History In two volumes / Trad G A Williamson London, 1980 In this work, “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius is quoted from the publication Eusebius The Ecclesiastical History With an English translation by K Lake, J E L Oulton, H J Lowlor Vol 1–2 Cambridge (Mass), 1975 Only four works of Eusebius of Caesarea “Ecclesiastical History” have been translated into Russian, “Eulogy to Constantine”, “Life of Constantine”, “On the Palestinian Martyrs” See Russian editions Eusebius Pamphilus Church History M 1993 Eusebius Pamphilus Works V2t M, 1848–1849 Eusebius Pamphilus Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine 2nd edition M group “Jlabarum”, 1998 C 1–214 Eusebius Pamphilus’ word to Basileus Constantine on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of his reign // Ibid. C 215–268 Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine church historiography pp. 224–228 Dobiash Rozhdestvenskaya O. A. Culture of the Western European Middle Ages M “Science”, 1987 P 79 Vainshtein O. L. Western European medieval historiography M – L, “Science”, 1964 P 42 For more information about this, see Gene B. History and historical culture of the medieval West / Translation from French. E. V. Baevskoy, E. M. Beregovskoy M Languages of Slavic culture, 2002 P 33–34 Krumbacher K. Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des ostromischen Reiches München, 1897 Hunger H. Geschichte der Textuberlieferung der Antiken und Mittelalterlichen Literatur Zurich 1961 Idem Die Hochsprachlische profane Literatur der Byzantiner Bd 1–2 München, 1978 Beck H-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur in Byzantinischen Reich München, 1977 Rozanov N. P. Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea Palestine M, 1880 Muretov M.D. Eusebius Pamphilus (Objections to N. Rozanov’s book “Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine”) // Orthodox Review 1881 Vol. 3 December Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century St. Petersburg, 1903 Udaltsova Z. V. Development of historical thought // Culture of Byzantium IV - first half of the 7th century M, 1984 Aka Church historians of early Byzantium // VV 1982 T 43 S 3–21 Aka Evolution of the concept of historical time in the works of early Byzantine authors // From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium Prague, 1985 P 199–202 Barg M. A. Epochs and ideas M, 1987 Mayorov G. G. Formation Krivushin I. V. Early Byzantine Harnak A. Gescmchte der altchristlischen Literatur bis Eusebius Leipzig, 1958 Bd II T II Dempf A. Geistesgeschichte der altchristlischen Kultur Stuttgart 1964 Barnes H. E. An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World New York, 1965 Milburn R. L. P. Early Christian Interpretations of History London, 1954 Momighano A. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Berkeley, 1990 Idem Studies in Historiography London, 1966 Winkelmann F. Die Kirchengeschichtswerke im ostromischen Reich // BS Vol 37 1976 P 1–10, 172–190 Καρπόζηλος Ἀπόστολος Βυζαντινοί ιστορικοί και χρονογράφοι Τόμος A ' (4 ος – 7 ος αι) Εκδόσεις Κανάκη Αθήνα, 1997 Drake N.A. In Praise of Constantine a Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’Tncenmal Oration//Univ of California Press Vol 15 1976 Grant R. M. Papias in Eusebius’ Church History // Mélanges d’Histoire des Religions offers a Henri-Charles Puech Pans, 1974 Barnes T. D. The Editions of Eusebuis’ Ecclesiastical History // GRBS, Vol 21 1980 idem Two Speaches by Eusebius // Early Christianity and the Roman Empire London, 1984 Sansterre J-M Éusebe de Cesarée et la naissance de la théorie cesaripapiste // Byz Vol 42 1972 P 131–195,532–593 Christensen T. The So-called Appendix to Eusebius' Histona Ecclesiastica VIII // Classica et Medievaha Vol 34 1983 P 177–209 Warmington V. H. The Sources of Some Constantiman Documents m Eusebius’ Church History and Life of Constantine // StP 18/1 1985 P 93–98 A good overview of modern foreign historiography on early Byzantine historiography is given in the preface to his work by I. V. Krivushin (See Krivushin I V Early Byzantine S 37–53) Baur F. Ch Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung Tubingen, 1852 Overbeck F. Uber die Anfänge der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung Basel, 1892 S 25 Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur Freiburg, 1913 Bd 1 S 449 Momighano A. The Classical Foundations P 138–139 Winkelmann F Kirchengeschichtswerke S 1 Zimmermann N Ecclesia als Object der Historiographie Wien, 1960 S 12–15 Chesnut Gl. F. The First Christian Histories Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagnus Paris, 1977 P 254 Judge E. A. Christian Innovation and its Contemporary Observers // History and Historians P 15 Warmington V. H. Op cit Momighano A. Studies in Historiography London, 1966 P 145 TimpeD Was ist Kirchengeschichte? Zum Gattungscharakter der Historia Ecclesiastica des Eusebius // Festschrift R. Werner zu seinem 65 Geburtstag Konstanz, 1989 S 186–189 History and H''storians in Late Antiquity Ed by W. Croce and A. Emmeth Sydney, 1983 P 6–7 Chesnut G. F. The First Christian Histories Trompf G. W. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought From Antiquity to the Reformation Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1979 P 204–231 Zimmermann N. Op cit S 39–40 Momighano A. Classical Foundations P 141–142 Winkelmann F Kirchengeschichtswerke S 9 Zimmermann H. Op cit S 33 Chesnut Gl. F. The Fust Christian Histories Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution in Eusebius of Caesarea // History and Historians Krivushin I. V. The Birth of Church Historiography Aka Early Byzantine Gurevich A. Ya. Culture and society of medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries M, 1989 P 6 Krivushin I. V. Early Byzantine S 54