This study presents the evidence, derived from letters and theological works, for theories of Christian friendship as they were developed by the leading fourth-century Church Fathers, both in East and West. The author attempts to find out how consistent and positive is the picture of friendship between Christians at the time, and considers friendship in the context of the relation between pagan theory and Christian ideas. All of the writers considered had a profound influence on later ages as well as on their own period.
Plenty of potential to be an interesting book but turned out somewhat disappointing, rather academic and repetitive. The book is structured as short biographies of Christian thinkers in the 4th C, using their letters as texts, sandwiched between an introduction which includes a discussion of classical Greek theories on friendship, as well as a conclusion. I think the author asked the wrong question. The question she appears to answer is: what did 4th C Christians think about friendship? Which produces a long list of: generally, they built of Aristotle and Cicero's definitions of friendship, except that the thought-life centred around the Christian God rather than 'philosophy'. There is some, very little, discussion of what various thinkers felt about the hermit versus the monastic lifestyle -- both dedicated to God but one solitary and the other in community - but even this gets dreary and uninteresting after a few repeats. The question I think she could have asked is: how did Christian thought change the way people approached friendship? And perhaps using where the Bible or other early Christian writings do discuss friendship to examine how friendship, as practised, evolved over the 4 centuries since Christ. The other interesting question might have been: how did Christian friendship as practised in the 4th C differ from how it is practised today? How has the last millenia of history changed the way Christians relate to each other as friends as individuals, and also as groups of friends in community? That I think could be an altogether more lively book.