Reviewed by:

• Episcopal Networks in Late Antiquity: Connection and Communication Across Boundaries ed. by Carmen Angela Cvetković and Peter Gemeinhardt
• Victoria Leonard

This collection of essays on late antique episcopal networks demonstrates the growing impetus to apply modern theoretical tools such as Social Network Analysis (SNA) developed in other fields of research to new disciplines, particularly historical studies. Because letter writing makes evident relational ties through reciprocal exchange, SNA is considered to be particularly applicable to epistolography, and letters form the evidence-base for much of the analysis here. Given the explosion of critical interest in late ancient letter collections over previous decades, this publication is particularly welcome. It is also warmly appreciated for the excellent gender balance the volume achieves, a bias that is continually perpetuated in manels, manferences, and all-male edited volumes elsewhere in historical studies.

The focus of the volume is inclusive, encompassing the full variety of relational ties to and from bishops. It demonstrates the continual sway of Peter Brown over late antique studies by taking his observations about the interconnectivity of late ancient Christianity in the Mediterranean as a jumping-off point. The introduction expounds rather than problematizes Brown’s hierarchical model of the stable and easily transferable paradigm of Christian institutions constituted by the bishop, clergy, people, and a place of worship. The volume emphasizes that the structural framework of late ancient Christianity was closely connected, generating “a web of Christian belief and practice that spread over much of the later Roman Empire” (1). The theory that local and trans-regional networks of interaction contributed to the expansion of Christianity in a period of political fragmentation is a statement rather than a hypothesis to be proven, and formulates the conceptual foundation of the volume.

The introduction asks stimulating and pertinent questions about episcopal networks (3) and sets out the purpose of the volume (15) as investigating how episcopal networks are distinct from other types of networks, and exploring how Christian ideals of doctrinal normativity, ecclesiastical unity and spiritual perfection shaped interpersonal relations that led to conflict or cooperation. The volume claims to present new insights into the characteristic traits of episcopal [End Page 163] networks, compared to other late antique modes of inter-connectivity in different contexts.

The volume features fourteen chapters divided into two parts: “The Ties that Bind” and “Episcopal Networks in Context.” All contributions are in English, and the volume includes a diverse geographical spread of authors mainly from the continent of Europe. Menze’s chapter on episcopal nepotism in the later Roman empire opens the volume by investigating the practice of appointing family members to episcopal office, paying particular attention to the episcopal succession in Alexandria (373–451). Menze concludes that the dominance of familial dynasties within sees in the later Roman empire was uncommon and unproblematic. Bodin offers a new approach to Ambrose of Milan’s kinship, seeking to build on Neil McLynn’s argument that Ambrose was related to Symmachus. Bodin’s argument rests on linguistic interpretation of familial terminology (55–57), and then expands on Tim Barnes’s theory of where the genealogical synchronization occurs, going so far as to claim that Ambrose and Symmachus could have played together as young children. Bodin’s conclusions are tentative, emphasizing the lack of firm evidence but advancing an argument that Symmachus and Ambrose were blood relations nonetheless.

In her chapter “Influential Friends? Augustine’s Episcopal Networks,” Gillian Clark argues that methodological difficulties (what is a network, who is a friend?) prevent the clear delineation of Augustine’s networks. She wrestles with the obstacles of categorization and representation in the application of network analysis, and is not optimistic when asking if there is sufficient evidence to resolve these issues satisfactorily. Clark understands that network analysis cannot supply historians with answers to new questions because of the lack of big data, and that network theory can only re-describe and re-represent existing information. Although there are more positive examples of the quantitative application of...

审核人：

• 上古晚期的主教网络：跨越边界的连接和通讯ed。卡门·安吉拉·克维特科维奇（Carmen AngelaCvetković）和彼得·格梅因哈特（Peter Gemeinhardt）
• 维多利亚·伦纳德

这本关于晚期古董主教网络的论文集证明了将现代理论工具（例如在其他研究领域中开发的社会网络分析（SNA））应用于新学科（尤其是历史研究）的推动力。由于信函的写作通过相互交流建立了明显的关系，因此SNA被认为特别适用于书信学，而信函构成了这里许多分析的证据基础。鉴于在过去的几十年中，对晚期古代信件的收藏激增了人们的兴趣，本出版物尤其受欢迎。音量达到了极佳的性别平衡，这一点也受到了热烈的赞赏，这种偏见在历史研究中的其他地方一直存在于手风琴，演奏会和全男性编辑的音量中。

该卷的重点是包容性的，包括与主教之间的各种关系。它以彼得·布朗对地中海晚期古代基督教的相互影响为出发点，证明了彼得·布朗在后期古董研究中的持续影响。引言阐述而不是质疑布朗由主教，神职人员，人民和礼拜场所组成的基督教机构的稳定且易于转移的范式的等级模型。该书强调，晚期古代基督教的结构框架是紧密相连的，产生了“基督教信仰和实践的网络，遍及后来的罗马帝国的大部分地区”（1）。

引言提出了有关主教网络的刺激性和相关问题（3），并提出了本卷的目的（15），以调查主教网络与其他类型的网络有何不同，并探讨基督教的教义规范性，教会统一性和精神性理想完美塑造了导致冲突或合作的人际关系。该书声称对主教[End Page 163]网络的特征提供了新的见解，与之不同的是，在不同背景下，其他较晚的相互联系的老式模式也是如此。

该卷共十四章，分为两个部分：“绑定的关系”和“上下文中的主网络”。所有文章均以英文撰写，并且其中包括主要来自欧洲大陆的作者的不同地理分布。门泽在后罗马帝国中有关主教裙带关系的章节通过调查任命家庭成员担任主教办公室的做法，特别是亚历山大（公元373-451年）的主教继承问题，开启了这一卷的篇章。Menze得出结论，在后来的罗马帝国中，家族王朝在宫廷中的统治地位并不常见且没有问题。博丁（Bodin）提供了一种新的方法来研究米兰的安布罗斯（Ambrose）亲戚关系，力求以尼尔·麦克林（Neil McLynn）的观点为基础，即安布罗斯（Ambrose）与Symmachus有关。博丁的论点基于对家庭用语的语言解释（55-57），然后扩展了蒂姆·巴恩斯（Tim Barnes）关于谱系同步发生的位置的理论，甚至声称安布罗斯（Ambrose）和Symmachus（小马克斯）可能在小时候就玩过。博丁的结论是试探性的，强调缺乏确凿的证据，但提出了一个论点，即Symmachus和Ambrose仍然是血缘关系。

在她的“有影响力的朋友？”一章中 奥古斯丁的主教网络，”吉莲·克拉克（Gillian Clark）辩称，方法论上的困难（什么是网络，谁是朋友？）妨碍了对奥古斯丁网络的清晰描述。她在网络分析的应用中遇到了分类和表示的障碍，并且在询问是否有足够的证据令人满意地解决这些问题时并不乐观。Clark知道，由于缺乏大数据，网络分析无法为历史学家提供新问题的答案，并且网络理论只能重新描述和重新表达现有信息。尽管有更多积极的例子定量地应用...