Reading John of Ephesus via Procopius of Caesarea?: Revisiting the Comparison of Their Accounts of the Justinianic Plague

The purpose of this article is to revisit the comparison between the accounts of the Justinianic plague of 541–750 CE, the first recorded pandemic of bubonic plague, by John of Ephesus and Procopius of Caesarea, as done by the scholar of Byzantine history, Anthony Kaldellis, in a 2007 publication. I...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Autres titres:Magic and Mischief: Texts and Practices in Philosophy, Theology, and the Sciences
Auteur principal: De Wet, Chris L. 1982- (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Brill 2023
Dans: Religion & theology
Année: 2023, Volume: 30, Numéro: 3/4, Pages: 359-379
Sujets non-standardisés:B John of Ephesus
B Justinianic plague
B Discourse
B bubonic plague
B ancient pandemics
B Anthony Kaldellis
B Procopius of Caesarea
Accès en ligne: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Résumé:The purpose of this article is to revisit the comparison between the accounts of the Justinianic plague of 541–750 CE, the first recorded pandemic of bubonic plague, by John of Ephesus and Procopius of Caesarea, as done by the scholar of Byzantine history, Anthony Kaldellis, in a 2007 publication. In the article, I critique some of Kaldellis’s main points of comparison, and then by approaching plague as a discourse (in the Foucaultian sense), I attempt to provide a more nuanced reading and comparison of the individual accounts, and of ancient plague discourse more generally.
ISSN:1574-3012
Contient:Enthalten in: Religion & theology
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/15743012-bja10062