Sara Parvis: Gelasius of Caesarea and Early Nicene Historiography

The recent edition by Wallraff, Stutz, and Marinides of the extant fragments of Gelasius of Caesarea’s continuation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History invites us to look again at early post-Nicene historiography. Gelasius wrote on the encouragement of his uncle, Cyril of Jerusalem, who, as he lay dying in 387, adjured his nephew in writing to produce the work. It is likely that a defense of Cyril’s memory in the face of attacks from Jerome and others was one of Gelasius’ principal aims in writing the work. Cyril’s career before 381 needed considerable defending: he had been a fellow-traveller first of Gelasius' predecessor Acacius of Caesarea and then of the Pneumatomachians, had been a consistent opponent of Athanasius, and had even (according to Jerome) repudiated his own priestly ordination by the Nicene confessor Maximus of Jerusalem.We can identify a number of passages in the fifth-century historians which probably derive directly or indirectly from Gelasius’ defence of his uncle. But more broadly, Gelasius’ strategy for dealing with the events of the post-Nicene years in general offers an explanation for the historiographical ‘fog of war’ to be found in subsequent accounts of this period. Gelasius throws a haze of piety, miracle, and anecdote over everything after Nicaea, blurring the sharp lines both of Athanasius’ own writings, and of those of Sabinus of Heraclea. The ‘fog of war’ of the immediately post-Nicene period, in other words, issued from a smoke-machine operated by the nephew of Cyril of Jerusalem.