Eva Baumkamp has produced an impressive study of ‘communication’ in the third century, while also endeavouring to locate its origin in earlier periods. She also argues that the precise character of the structure through which the exchange of information takes place informs the structure of the community, and hence assists in the development of one form of church order rather than another. Early Christian epistolography was comparable in some respects with its Jewish counterparts, since the latter was the means to secure a unity of practice and identity throughout the geographically separated communities of the Diaspora so that, for example, conformity with a common calendar for Passover celebrations and other feasts, and likewise biblical exegesis was achieved by means of the exchange of letters. And, in the case of Rabbinic Judaism there was a centre, in Jabne, for the world-wide network so that communities knew with whom they should communicate and indeed could receive recognition from the already acknowledged leaders of their communities who wrote the official letters. This situation was mirrored in the relations between Paul (and his communities) and Peter, James and John in Jerusalem. But what was to happen for early Christianity after the Fall of Jerusalem? There was no obvious centre or rather, if Rome's imperial position suggested that it should be the centre, there was no mechanism for establishing an authority structure within which letters could be written to and specific authority figures be acknowledged in diverse Christian communities throughout the world.

Baumkamp seeks to answer, for early Christianity, specific questions: how was the community with which information should be exchanged determined, and to which official person should information be sent? The addition of named officials in the incipit and conclusion of letters assisted this. But absent from her discussion is Hermas, Vision 2.4 and the identification of Clement of Rome, only bishop in later succession lists, with a person with a secretarial, ministerial function. I argued for this latter in my Augustinianum paper (1987) and had the satisfaction of Peter Lampe independently corroborating my conclusions in the same year. Baumkamp argues that the emergence of the office of bishop at the head of a local hierarchy was reinforced by epistolary exchange of information. The expansion of Christianity was accompanied by the emergence of bishops with supreme authority over their communities, a development that led to rivalry and competition between contenders for high office. In consequence this led to an interdiocesan network exchanging information and seeking support in resolving conflict which in turn reinforced common identities. The exchange of letters was central to this process. Most surviving early Christian letters are of course official letters: none that are unambiguously personal have survived.

How and why did an interdiocesan network that serviced conflict resolution arise? Why was not local contact between a bishop and his community sufficient? And how did that contact come to assume a written rather than an oral and even conversational form? Liturgy created the symbolism of the world-wide Christian Church, and Baumkamp's example here was the Quartodeciman dispute that sought uniform witness to a common identity. Unfortunately this may not provide the evidence for the existence of a world-wide network for which she is seeking. Perhaps there is too much reliance here on Eusebius' fourth-century account of international ecclesial intercommunication: Victor may simply have excommunicated Eastern congregations in Rome. Thus her argument must rest on how an increase in urban Christian numbers altered a situation in which face-to-face communication was possible with a bishop, as preacher and celebrant, who knew the local situation and could address it orally. Moreover individual mobility made possible by the Roman Empire fostered the exchange of information through letters, and salutations and farewells determined authority relationships: a bishop issuing a letter of commendation to an individual travelling to distant parts was thereby formalising his own position and authority.

The evidence is fragmentary up until the Decian persecution and the Cyprianic events that were its aftermath so it is on this that Baumkamp has to focus. Cyprian's flight means that only a written form of information exchange was possible between the bishop and his community. But there was a further system of ecclesial authority in Carthage, that of the confessors, who claimed the right to reconcile the lapsed without episcopal consent, a claim strengthened by his absence. At this point Cyprian used his social position and his epistolary contacts with other Christian communities, notably with Rome, to strengthen his own, weakened position at Carthage: this was seen in particular in his support for Cornelius against Novatian. This in turn led to an increase in status for him within his own community. Since there was a rival, international network of confessors alongside the episcopal network, Cyprian sought successfully for the support of the more rigorous group at Rome.

My reservations about Baukamp's description is exemplified in the way in which she regards Cyprian's flight as aiding and abetting the formation of an international network of confessors with an extra-hierarchical, ecclesial authority, as if such an authority structure in competition to that given by episcopal ordination, was not already in existence. Indeed her impressive thesis documents how Cyprian (and Dionysius of Alexandria for that matter) was able to overcome the rival exchange mechanism and establish his hierarchical replacement.