4 research outputs found
The Effect of Father’s Involvement in Parenting on Emotional Regulation in Catholic Adolescent at North Jakarta
No full textThis study examined the effect of father involvement in parenting on emotion regulation among Catholic adolescents in Region VIII of the Holy Cross Parish, North Jakarta. A quantitative causal-comparative design was employed. Participants were 30 adolescents selected through a total sampling. Data were collected using questionnaires measuring father involvement and adolescents’ emotion regulation. Data analysis was conducted using simple linear regression. Descriptive findings showed that father involvement was generally moderate to high, while adolescents demonstrated high levels of emotion regulation. However, regression analysis indicated no statistically significant effect of father involvement on emotion regulation (p = .910). The coefficient of determination was very small (R² = .001), indicating that father involvement explained a low proportion of variance in emotion regulation. These results suggest that adolescents’ emotion regulation may be more strongly influenced by other factors, including maternal caregiving, peer relationships, and the religious community environment. Despite the non-significant findings and the small sample size, this study highlights the importance of contextual and cultural considerations in examining parenting processes. It contributes to family and parenting psychology by emphasizing adolescent emotion regulation.
Keywords: adolescent, emotion regulation, father involvement, parentin
Why Marulić’s Repertorium Matters?
No full textEver since Ferdo Šišić reported in 1923 on the discovery of an unknown manuscript by Marko Marulić in the Biblioteca nazionale centrale in Rome (2651, ms. Ges. 522), his claim that this work was a “collection of quotations from various authors” has been left unchallenged and his conclusion that works of that kind are not worth publishing has remained without response. The lack of interest in the manuscript as a whole is best illustrated by the fact that for more than seventy years it has been quoted under the alternative and descriptive title: Multa et varia ex diversis auctoribus collecta quae maxime imitatione digna videbantur — and not under the name Repertorium given by the author, which was accidentally misplaced by several folios in the course of bind-ing.
As the original title suggests, the Repertorium is a reference work, a reminder which offers an assortment of thought by various authors, which the writer considered worth of special record. The companion is clearly laid out: at its base is a lexicon of over three hundred entries (in Marulić’s terminology: dictiones) set in alphabetical order, each one accompanied by relevant excerpts which the writer found in one or another of his forty sources (auctores). Given a different scope and basic themes of each source Marulić could not find in all of them quotational support for every single heading and therefore the number of entries is under twelve thousand, which would be the nominal product of the number of authors multiplied by the number of entries.
The importance of the Repertorium could be asserted from several points of view. Firstly, it is not a simple “collection of quotations”, since Marulić seldom quotes verbatim: on the contrary, he modifies the original text and tries to convey the essence of the information which he finds noteworthy. In other words, in the majority of cases he does not give integral quotations but rather their various adaptations, which regularly include condensation and lexical, syntactic or stylistic reshaping. Given that Marulić’s typical intervention amounts to the shortening of text, it is of interest to note that certain entries, namely from the Scriptures, are accompanied by commentary and some even merit an allegorical interpretation.
Secondly, the importance of the Repertorium lies also in the fact that its vast content embraces motifs and common places which appear in Marulić’s own texts. This makes the parallel study of the Repertorium and Marulić’s own literary texts a solid base for establishing a reliable chronology of his oeuvre.
In order to accomplish this task it is necessary to determine with certainty the date of the manuscript and to identify the editions which Marulić used to create his Repertorium. To date we have identified just over one half of the sources: Strabo: Treviso 1480 (HC *15089); Aemilius Probus (= Cornelius Nepos): Venice 1471 (HC *5733); Pseudo-Plinius De viris illustribus: Venice 1477 (HC *2136) or Florence 1478 (H 2137); Plutarch Apophthegmata: Venice 1471-2 (HC 13139); Quintilian Declamationes: Venice 1482 (HC 13658); Pomponius Mela: Venice 1477 (H 11015); Jerome Epistulae: Parma 1480 (HC *8557); Seneca De philosophia morali: Venice 1490 (HC *14593); Plato: Venice 1491 (HC *13063); Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Treviso 1480 (H *6239); Alexander of Aphrodisias Problemata: Venice 1488-9 (HC add. *658); Pseudo-Aristoteles Problemata: Venice 1488-9 (HC add. *658); Plutarch Problemata: Venice 1488-9 (HC add. *658); Aulus Gellius: Venice 1489 (H *7522); Plutarch Vitae: Venice 1491 (HCR 13129); Diogenes Laertius: Venice 1493 (H *6203); Curtius Rufus: Venice 1494 (HC *5885); Polybius: Venice 1498 (HC *13248); Valerius Maximus (= M. Sabellico): Venice 1498 (HC *14055); Pliny the Younger: Panegyricus: Venice, around 1500 (HR 13120); Jerome Commentaria: Venice 1497-8 (H 8581); Eusebius De praeparatione euangelica: Venice 1501; Basil the Great Opera: Rome 1515.
Regardless of possible minor corrections to the list, the following general conclusion can be drawn: Marulić began to compile his Repertorium in the early eighties and continued adding annotations throughout his life (last entries can be dated after 1515 with certainty). Clearly his work on the Repertorium spanned more than three decades — from the time of his first literary attempts to the time when his De institutione and Euangelistarium attained international recognition.
Insofar as we know the Repertorium is Marulić’s longest autograph. Given the time frame outlined above, this means that we are able to follow the development of his handwriting from the age of thirty to the age of nearly seventy. Therefore the Repertorium is also the most valuable witness to Marulić’s own orthographic practice, the only manuscript with reliable time parameters to monitor changes in his spelling. With this in mind we can conclude, for example, that his use of certain doublets is defined by pretty clear time limits: in the excerpts from Pliny the Elder to Cicero
(i.e. until early eighties) he uses spelling foelix, whereas later on he uses felix; until Jerome’s Commentaries (1497-8) he uses caritas, thereafter he uses charitas; for heretics he first used the form hÿretici, changing it in the eighties to heretici. Likewise, we can find proof in the Repertorium that from the very beginning Marulić used majuscular e caudata (E), which — due to intervention of the publishers — regularly disappeared without trace in the print. (The volumes of the Opera omnia published so far are no exception in this respect).
The hitherto identified editions also furnish us with a list of the most prominent humanists from whom Marulić may have learned the art of translation and whose style he may have imitated: Guarino da Verona and Gregorius Tifernas (Strabo), Francesco Filelfo (Plutarch), Giorgio Valla (Alexander of Aphrodisias), Lap/p/o Birago (Dionysius of Halicarnassus), Ambrogio Traversari (Diogenes Laertius), Niccolò Perotti (Polybius), Lorenzo Valla (Thucydides, Herodotus), Georgius Trapezuntius (Eusebius). Finally, the identification of these editions should facilitate the search — now practically abandoned — for the very books which once belonged to Marulić’s own library and which, given his known practice, could contain very interesting marginalia
Theological controversy in the seventh century concerning activities and wills in Christ
No full textThe primary purpose of the thesis is to fill the existing gaps in our understanding of various theological and political aspects of the controversy that took place in both Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire in the seventh century, the main theological point of which was wether Christ had one or two energeiai and wills. Before coming to any conclusions on this subject, I shall investigate the preliminary forms of Monenergism and Monothelitism i.e., belief in a single energeia and will of Christ, which were incorporated in the major Christological systems developed by Apollinarius of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Severus of Antioch (chapters 1-3).Against this background, it becomes obvious that the Chalcedonian Monenergism and later Monothelitism emerged from the movement of neo- Chalcedonianism. It was an attempt by the political and ecclesiastical authorities to achieve a theological compromise with various non-Chalcedonian groups, mainly Severian, but also 'Nestorian'. Their ultimate goal was to reconcile these groups with the Catholic Church of the Empire (chapter 4). However, this project of reconciliation on the basis of the single-energeia formula was contested by the representatives of the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition and consequently condemned at the Councils of Lateran (649) and Constantinople (680/681). Thus, the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition produced two self-sufficient and antagonistic doctrines. A major concern of the thesis is to expose and compare systematically their doctrinal content per se and in the wider context of the principles of neo-Chalcedonianism (chapter 5)
The time is now: the roles of apocalyptic thought in early Germanic literature
No full textThis study investigates the different purposes for which apocalyptic thought was employed in early Germanic texts. The main focus lies on Anglo-Saxon sources. Both prose texts and poetry are taken into consideration, and cross-references to tenth-century material from the Continent are made wherever appropriate. The first three chapters provide an investigation of the ways in which Church authorities used apocalyptic material for purposes of instilling an urge to repentance and/or conversion in their audiences. Chapter 1 discusses patristic and Anglo-Saxon responses to the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 and finds a significant difference in the way the material was discussed by learned monastics and by populist preachers. Chapter 2 traces the Antichrist motif in Continental and Anglo-Saxon sources, with special regard to regional preferences in the treatment of the material. Chapter 3 broadens the view to consider Anglo-Saxon preaching in general. It discusses the different use of apocalyptic material by AElfric, Wulfstan, and the Blickling homilists, before approaching the prose and poetry found in the Vercelli Book and manuscript Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 201.Chapter 4 discusses material in Old Norse since sources relating to late tenth- and early eleventh century Scandinavia offer a unique opportunity to hear the voices of the laity at whom apocalyptic material was directed. The chapter starts with an overview of the conversion of Norway and Iceland by King Óláfr Tryggvason and his missionaries before moving on to discuss skaldic verse from the conversion phase. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the curious mixture of pagan and Christian themes in the Eddie poem Vqluspá. Previous studies on the Judgement Day motif show either a regional focus (e.g. Anglo-Saxon England), limit themselves to a specific genre of texts (e.g. Old English poetry), or focus on the act of Judgement itself and/or discuss descriptions of the tortures of Hell or the joys of Paradise. In contrast to these, the present study's comparative and interdisciplinary approach provides a more detailed picture of early medieval ideas about the end of the world, and responses to them by the laity
