D. DeVore 1 Multiple Temporalities and Narrative Modulation in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History David DeVore Cal Poly Pomona
[email protected] Introduction To the modern discourse of history, periodization is integral. Europeans and descendants of European colonists divide the past into “ancient,” “medieval,” and “modern” periods. In the United States we divide our past by centuries (eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth). In much historical discourse the past is divided by the ruling regime or individual (“Han China,” “Victorian England”). For more socially and economically minded historians the past divides into economic system (“feudal period,” “industrial age”).1 In literary and artistic history periodization typically reflects artistic movements (“the Renaissance,” “the Romantic age”).2 We tend to talk, moreover, as if such periodic divisions constitute sharp social, cultural, political, and/or economic breaks. As Michel de Certeau has written, “Each ‘new’ time [period] provides the place for a discourse considering whatever preceded it to be ‘dead,’ but welcoming a ‘past’ that had already been specified by former ruptures. Breakage is therefore the postulate of interpretation (which is constructed as of the present time) and its object….”3 Likewise, Kathleen Davis has asserted that traditional period breaks between medieval and modern “exercise exclusionary force, and require alignment with historically particular cultural, economic, and institutional forms” and “impose homogeneities.”4 These divisions, moreover, structure our institutions: the desired period of study (“medieval historian,” “postcolonial literature”) typically defines positions advertised in the humanities (at least, positions that are still around).5 The discourse and discipline of early Christianity have long been no different. Until recently, most histories of Christianity had divided the first few hundred years of Christianity into periods, naming these periods after the chief characters of Christian events each duration of time.