11640 KB0 KB198620252024Maver, Alešštevilka:46str. 25-37ISSN:0351-2789DOI:10.34291/AES2024/MaverCOBISSID_HOST:229310723URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-ZO8B3N1KslTeološka fakulteta Univerze v LjubljaniActa ecclesiastica Sloveniaebattle of Mursabitka pri MursiChristian Latinhistoriography of the late antiquityConstantinian dynastyConstantius IIKonstancij IIKonstantinova dinastijakrščansko latinsko zgodovinopisje pozne antikeOrosiusOrozijPodoba Konstancija II. v latinski krščanski historiografiji 4. in 5. stoletja|Emperor Constantius II’s twenty-four-year long reign is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable of Late Antiquity. At the same time, it cannot be denied that, at least in the general perception of Roman history, Constantius has been greatly overshadowed by his father, Constantine the Great, and later by Theodosius the Great, and even by his relative and immediate successor, Julian the Apostate. In Jerome’s Chronicle, the already reserved attitude of the native of Stridonae towards the whole of Constantine’s dynasty is decisive. Constantius could not have done particularly well. Jerome’s and Augustine’s acquaintance, the Hispanic priest Orosius, also took on a largely negative image of the same dynasty. However, for him Constantius II was much more of an example of a bad ruler. He attributed to him the role of destroyer of the unity of the Christian Church, for which he was to be punished with a »perpetual« civil war during his leadership of the empire. Even for the slightly older Sulpicius Severus, Constantius was above all a key promoter of the establishment of an unorthodox form of Christianity, although he believed that at least the initial impetus for his actions came from the Arian bishops. Rufinus was much more lenient towards the most tenacious of Constantine’s sons. This is closely related to the much greater affection of the church historian of Concordia for the emperor’s father Constantine. However, the very basic nature of his supplement to Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, with Athanasius as the central character of the first book, made it impossible for him to portray Constantius as anything other than a victim of bad influencesCesar Konstancij II. je s svojo štiriindvajsetletno vladavino nedvomno ena najopaznejših osebnosti pozne antike. Hkrati ni mogoče zanikati, da sta ga vsaj v splošnem dojemanju rimske zgodovine močno zasenčila njegov oče Konstantin Veliki in pozneje Teodozij Veliki, pa celo sorodnik in neposredni naslednik Julijan Odpadnik. V Hieronimovi Kroniki je odločilen že zadržan piščev odnos do Konstan tinove dinastije v celoti. Konstancij se torej nikakor ni mogel odrezati posebej dobro. Tudi Hieronimov in Avguštinov znanec, duhovnik iz Hispanije Orozij, je prevzel večinoma negativno podobo iste dinastije. Vendar je zanj Konstancij II. v veliko večji meri zgled slabega vladarja. Pripisal mu je vlogo uničevalca enotnosti krščanske Cerkve, zaradi katere naj bi bil v času svojega krmarjenja imperija kaznovan z »večno« državljansko vojno. Tudi za nekoliko starejšega Sulpicija Severa je bil Konstancij predvsem ključen pospeševalec uveljavitve nepravoverne oblike krščanstva, čeprav naj bi po njegovem mnenju vsaj začetna spodbuda za njegove ukrepe prihajala od arijanskih škofov. Rufin je bil do najbolj trdoživega Konstantinovega sina še veliko prizanesljivejši. To je tesno povezano z veliko večjo naklonjenostjo cerkvenega zgodovinarja iz Konkordije cesarjevemu očetu Konstantinu. Vendar že zaradi temeljne usmeritve svojega dodatka k Evzebijevi Cerkveni zgodovini z Atanazijem kot osrednjim likom prve knjige Konstancija ni mogel upodobiti drugače kot žrtve slabih vplivovTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaUniverza v Ljubljani, Teološka fakulteta