Advanced search
1 file | 3.54 MB Add to list

L''Histoire ecclésiastique' de Socrate de Constantinople: banque de données et autorité historiographiques pour la création d'oeuvres originales au VIe s. (Théodore le Lecteur, Cassiodore, la première version arménienne)

(2016)
Author
Promoter
(UGent) , (UGent) and (UGent)
Organization
Project
Living texts. Historiography and literature in the early Byzantine Period
Abstract
The core research question of this thesis is a double one: how and why did these late-antique authors use the Church History of Socrates of Constantinople? In order to answer these questions, I examine the role of Socrates’ work in each of the three historiographical texts under examination in view of the function that each of these new texts fulfilled in their own context. Notwithstanding the differences between a “compilation” and a “translation”, or the clear differences between the HT of Cassiodorus and Theodore, each of our three witnesses has deconstructed the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, divided it up in separate notices and pieces, then re-arranged the material to reconstruct it according to his own methodological and historiographical criteria. Socrates is above all a source of information for church history, used by all three witnesses with the aim of creating their own, original narrative of the same events. The validity of their narrative does not derive from a respect for the historiographical significance of the work of Socrates but on the authority evoked by his very name.
Keywords
Socrates of Constantinople, Ecclesiastical history, Theodorus Lector, Cassiodorus, Socrates scholasticus, Armenian version of Socrates'Ecclesiastical history, Translation, Compilation, Late Antique historiography

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 3.54 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Delacenserie, Emerance. “L"Histoire Ecclésiastique’ De Socrate De Constantinople: Banque De Données Et Autorité Historiographiques Pour La Création D'oeuvres Originales Au VIe S. (Théodore Le Lecteur, Cassiodore, La Première Version Arménienne).” 2016 : n. pag. Print.
APA
Delacenserie, E. (2016). L"Histoire ecclésiastique’ de Socrate de Constantinople: banque de données et autorité historiographiques pour la création d'oeuvres originales au VIe s. (Théodore le Lecteur, Cassiodore, la première version arménienne). Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, Gent.
Chicago author-date
Delacenserie, Emerance. 2016. “L"Histoire Ecclésiastique’ De Socrate De Constantinople: Banque De Données Et Autorité Historiographiques Pour La Création D'oeuvres Originales Au VIe S. (Théodore Le Lecteur, Cassiodore, La Première Version Arménienne)”. Gent: Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Delacenserie, Emerance. 2016. “L"Histoire Ecclésiastique’ De Socrate De Constantinople: Banque De Données Et Autorité Historiographiques Pour La Création D'oeuvres Originales Au VIe S. (Théodore Le Lecteur, Cassiodore, La Première Version Arménienne)”. Gent: Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte.
Vancouver
1.
Delacenserie E. L"Histoire ecclésiastique’ de Socrate de Constantinople: banque de données et autorité historiographiques pour la création d'oeuvres originales au VIe s. (Théodore le Lecteur, Cassiodore, la première version arménienne). [Gent]: Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte; 2016.
IEEE
[1]
E. Delacenserie, “L"Histoire ecclésiastique’ de Socrate de Constantinople: banque de données et autorité historiographiques pour la création d’oeuvres originales au VIe s. (Théodore le Lecteur, Cassiodore, la première version arménienne),” Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, Gent, 2016.
@phdthesis{8066980,
  abstract     = {The core research question of this thesis is a double one: how and why did these late-antique authors use the Church History of Socrates of Constantinople? In order to answer these questions, I examine the role of Socrates’ work in each of the three historiographical texts under examination in view of the function that each of these new texts fulfilled in their own context. 
Notwithstanding the differences between a “compilation” and a “translation”, or the clear differences between the HT of Cassiodorus and Theodore, each of our three witnesses has deconstructed the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, divided it up in separate notices and pieces, then re-arranged the material to reconstruct it according to his own methodological and historiographical criteria. Socrates is above all a source of information for church history, used by all three witnesses with the aim of creating their own, original narrative of the same events. The validity of their narrative does not derive from a respect for the historiographical significance of the work of Socrates but on the authority evoked by his very name.},
  author       = {Delacenserie, Emerance},
  keywords     = {Socrates of Constantinople,Ecclesiastical history,Theodorus Lector,Cassiodorus,Socrates scholasticus,Armenian version of Socrates'Ecclesiastical history,Translation,Compilation,Late Antique historiography},
  language     = {fre},
  pages        = {439},
  publisher    = {Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte},
  school       = {Ghent University},
  title        = {L''Histoire ecclésiastique' de Socrate de Constantinople: banque de données et autorité historiographiques pour la création d'oeuvres originales au VIe s. (Théodore le Lecteur, Cassiodore, la première version arménienne)},
  year         = {2016},
}