Social Networks and the Origenist Controversy: The Case of Anastasius I of Rome, Jerome, and Paulinus of Nola

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY
Geoffrey D. Dunn
{"title":"Social Networks and the Origenist Controversy: The Case of Anastasius I of Rome, Jerome, and Paulinus of Nola","authors":"Geoffrey D. Dunn","doi":"10.1353/earl.2024.a923169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abstract:</p><p>Attention to the complexities of social networks at the time of the first Origenist controversy at the end of the fourth century reveals that while both Jerome and Anastasius I, bishop of Rome, were anti-Origenist, they had differing attitudes towards Paulinus of Nola. Jerome was suspicious of him because of Origenist associates, while Anastasius seems to have held him in high regard. It is argued here that it is too simplistic to divide participants in this controversy into pro- and anti-Origenist camps and to expect that those within each camp all shared the same outlook and evaluation of others. Personal attitudes towards others usually are shaped by more than one issue, and different issues hold different significance for different people. In the case of Anastasius, it would appear that he was unaware of potential Origenist sympathies held by Paulinus, did not place the same importance on his network of contacts as Jerome did, and/or was more influenced by his social standing as a member of the elite than by suspicion about possible Origenist affinity.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":44662,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2024.a923169","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:

Attention to the complexities of social networks at the time of the first Origenist controversy at the end of the fourth century reveals that while both Jerome and Anastasius I, bishop of Rome, were anti-Origenist, they had differing attitudes towards Paulinus of Nola. Jerome was suspicious of him because of Origenist associates, while Anastasius seems to have held him in high regard. It is argued here that it is too simplistic to divide participants in this controversy into pro- and anti-Origenist camps and to expect that those within each camp all shared the same outlook and evaluation of others. Personal attitudes towards others usually are shaped by more than one issue, and different issues hold different significance for different people. In the case of Anastasius, it would appear that he was unaware of potential Origenist sympathies held by Paulinus, did not place the same importance on his network of contacts as Jerome did, and/or was more influenced by his social standing as a member of the elite than by suspicion about possible Origenist affinity.

社交网络与奥利派之争:罗马的阿纳斯塔修斯一世、杰罗姆和诺拉的保利努斯的案例
摘要:对四世纪末第一次奥利派争论时期社会网络复杂性的关注表明,虽然杰罗姆和罗马主教阿纳斯塔修斯一世都反对奥利派,但他们对诺拉的保利努斯的态度却不尽相同。杰罗姆因为与奥利派有联系而对他产生怀疑,而阿纳斯塔修斯似乎对他很器重。本文认为,将这场争论的参与者分为支持和反对奥利金派的阵营,并期望每个阵营中的人都有相同的观点和对他人的评价过于简单化。个人对他人的态度通常不止受一个问题的影响,不同的问题对不同的人具有不同的意义。就阿纳斯塔修斯而言,他似乎没有意识到保利努斯可能同情奥利金派,没有像杰罗姆那样重视自己的关系网,以及/或更多地受到自己作为精英分子的社会地位的影响,而不是对可能的奥利金派亲信的怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The official publication of the North American Patristics Society (NAPS), the Journal of Early Christian Studies focuses on the study of Christianity in the context of late ancient societies and religions from c.e. 100-700. Incorporating The Second Century (an earlier publication), the Journal publishes the best of traditional patristics scholarship while showcasing articles that call attention to newer themes and methodologies than those appearing in other patristics journals. An extensive book review section is featured in every issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信