Morwenna Ludlow: Eunomius’ literary style and use of rhetoric

To date, most scholarly work on Eunomius has focussed on his theology and philosophy of God, especially in relation to doctrine of the Trinity as taught by his challengers Basil and Gregory of Nyssa (Barnes, 2001; Vaggione, 2000; see especially Karfíková et al., 2007; DelCogliano, 2010; Leemans and Cassin, 2014; Brugarolas, 2018; Radde-Gallwitz, 2009, 2018). Studies of his use of language have tended to focus on the accusations laid against him, rather than analysing his own texts (Cassin, 2008, 2012; Ludlow, 2014); some studies have taken a step back to set these accusations in their socio-historical context (Vaggione, 1993; Lim, 1995). In this paper, I will ask two questions. First, to what extent is it possible to attain a plausible assessment of Eunomius’ use of rhetoric and literary style, given the state of the sources? Secondly, if a plausible assessment is possible, how might one characterise Eunomius’ writing? In answering these questions, I will draw on recent rich developments in the study of the so-called ‘second sophistic’ and its influence, and critiques of the concept of ‘Asianism’ as constructed both in antiquity and by modern scholars (e.g. Wisse, 1995; Jonge, 2008; Kim, 2017; Richter and Johnson, 2017; Whitmarsh, 2005, 2001). I will endeavour to avoid reducing ‘rhetoric’ to either argument or the use of rhetorical figures or tropes; in matters of style I will attend to e.g. vocabulary, mood/tone, syntax and rhythm.