The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the 'Arian Controversy'. By DAVID M. GWYNN.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
David Gwynn defines the focus of his study as ‘the origins and evolution of Athanasius’ presentation of those whom he regarded as “heretics” as a single “Arian party”’, and his two main conclusions are, first, that ‘the “Eusebians” who play so prominent a role in modern scholarly accounts of the “Arian Controversy” were in fact neither a “party” nor “Arian”’, and, second, that ‘Athanasius’ image of a fourth-century church polarized between his own “orthodoxy” and the “Arianism” of the “Eusebians” is a polemical construct’ which seriously distorts historical reality (p. vii). His book has three parts: a survey of the date and context of Athanasius’ polemical writings (pp. 13–48); an analysis of the Epistula Encyclica of 339, which presents Athanasius’ first detailed construction of ‘the Eusebians’ as a party of heretics (pp. 51–100); and an enquiry into who precisely these ‘Eusebians’ were and how Athanasius represents their actions and beliefs (pp. 101–244), followed by a brief summing up (pp. 245–9). It may be noted at the outset that Gwynn enhances his apparent originality by sometimes putting the term ‘Eusebians’ into the mouths of writers who have not in fact used it, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury (p. 8).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".