Boniface I, Augustine, and the Translation of Honorius to Caesarea Mauretaniae

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY
Geoffrey D. Dunn
{"title":"Boniface I, Augustine, and the Translation of Honorius to Caesarea Mauretaniae","authors":"Geoffrey D. Dunn","doi":"10.5840/augstudies202051115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Augustine’s Epistulae 23A*, 23*, and 22*, written in late 419 and early 420, present his involvement in the dispute concerning the translation of Honorius to Caesarea Mauretaniae (modern Cherchell), a city Augustine had visited in September 418 while fulfilling a commission from Zosimus of Rome. The translation of bishops from one church to another had been condemned by the 325 Council of Nicaea. The three letters are difficult to interpret because the information to his three correspondents (Possidius of Calama, Renatus, a monk of Caesarea Mauretaniae, and Alypius of Thagaste, who was in Italy at the time) seems to differ. A careful reading reveals that not only did Augustine’s knowledge of the situation change over time, but that the stress he placed on differing elements of that situation also changed depending upon the correspondent. The letters also disclose the involvement of Boniface I of Rome, Zosimus’ successor, and the complex relationship of the African churches with the bishop of Rome, especially in the matter of judicial appeal. What is suggested here is that Augustine, without saying so, seemed to be aware of the criteria Boniface had employed in another translation controversy, which was the approved translation of Perigenes as bishop of Corinth, and that, if applied to Honorius, this would lead the Roman bishop to reach a very different conclusion.","PeriodicalId":43369,"journal":{"name":"Augustinian Studies","volume":"51 1","pages":"23-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augustinian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/augstudies202051115","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Augustine’s Epistulae 23A*, 23*, and 22*, written in late 419 and early 420, present his involvement in the dispute concerning the translation of Honorius to Caesarea Mauretaniae (modern Cherchell), a city Augustine had visited in September 418 while fulfilling a commission from Zosimus of Rome. The translation of bishops from one church to another had been condemned by the 325 Council of Nicaea. The three letters are difficult to interpret because the information to his three correspondents (Possidius of Calama, Renatus, a monk of Caesarea Mauretaniae, and Alypius of Thagaste, who was in Italy at the time) seems to differ. A careful reading reveals that not only did Augustine’s knowledge of the situation change over time, but that the stress he placed on differing elements of that situation also changed depending upon the correspondent. The letters also disclose the involvement of Boniface I of Rome, Zosimus’ successor, and the complex relationship of the African churches with the bishop of Rome, especially in the matter of judicial appeal. What is suggested here is that Augustine, without saying so, seemed to be aware of the criteria Boniface had employed in another translation controversy, which was the approved translation of Perigenes as bishop of Corinth, and that, if applied to Honorius, this would lead the Roman bishop to reach a very different conclusion.
博尼法斯一世,奥古斯丁,以及对凯撒利亚·毛利塔尼的翻译
奥古斯丁的书信23A*, 23*和22*,写于419年末和420年初,表明他参与了关于将《霍诺里乌斯》翻译为凯撒利亚·毛利塔尼亚(现在的切尔切尔)的争论,这是奥古斯丁在418年9月履行罗马Zosimus的委托时访问过的一个城市。325年尼西亚大公会议谴责将主教从一个教会调任到另一个教会。这三封信很难解释,因为他的三个通讯员(卡拉马的Possidius, Caesarea Mauretaniae的僧侣Renatus和当时在意大利的Thagaste的Alypius)的信息似乎不同。仔细阅读就会发现,不仅奥古斯丁对形势的认识随着时间的推移而改变,而且他对形势的不同要素的强调也随着通信人的不同而改变。这些信件还披露了佐西摩斯的继任者罗马的博尼法斯一世的参与,以及非洲教会与罗马主教的复杂关系,特别是在司法上诉问题上。这里暗示的是,奥古斯丁,虽然没有明说,但他似乎知道博尼法斯在另一个翻译争议中使用的标准,也就是佩里涅斯被认可为科林斯主教的翻译,如果适用于霍诺里乌斯,这将导致罗马主教得出一个非常不同的结论。
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
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