Jeffery Aubin

Jeffery Aubin | : Les Diuinae institutiones de Lactance sont souvent citées lorsqu’il s’agit d’analyser le passage du mot religio de la langue latine à la pensée du christianisme. On ne doit toutefois pas lire ce texte du ive siècle de notre ère avec la conception moderne du mot religion. Les sociologues du xxe siècle ont élaboré des définitions de la religion à partir de l’opposition sacré/profane, mais cette dichotomie n’est toutefois pas une catégorie interprétative valide dans l’ouvrage de Lactance. Non seulement il oppose ces deux notions que très rarement, mais la conception de sacer et de profanus diffère des définitions qui se sont imposées depuis un siècle. L’utilisation de concepts modernes pour l’analyse des Diuinae institutiones constitue dès lors un frein à la compréhension des notions de religion, sacré et profane dans l’ouvrage de Lactance. | : The Diuinae institutiones of Lactantius are often referred to when analyzing the transition of the word religio from Latin to Christian thought. However, one should not read this fourth century A.D. text with the modern definition of religion in mind. Twentieth century sociologists put forth definitions of religion based on the sacred-profane opposition, but this dichotomy is not a valid category for the interpretation of religio in the book of Lactantius. Not only does he scarcely oppose these two terms, but also the very notion of sacer and profanus differ from the received definitions of the last century. Therefore, the use of modern concepts is a stumbling block for the understanding of the terms religion, sacred and profane in the Diuinae institutiones of Lactantius

The double etymology of religio found in Antiquity has generated much discussion. Between the proposition of Cicero and that of Lactantius, we find the ambivalent position of Augustine. The modern analysis of these passages, which is influenced by criteria of linguistics, was centered around the true origin of the word and its true meaning. However, Augustine is neither here nor there. This article uses a rhetorical analysis of these etymologies and considers them as proof in the argumentation. This approach allows identifying the reasons that urge Augustine to choose one or the other according to the addressee. When he addressed the non-Christians, Augustine chose the etymology of Cicero (relegere) and, when he dealt with the controversies with the Manicheans, he chose the etymology based on religare.

The atomistic theory, in the argument against astrology in Book VIII of the Recognitiones, corresponds very little to the thought of Epicurus, even though the writer of the novel claims to refute him. Scholars explain this discrepancy as a misunderstanding of Greek philosophy by the author of the Recognitiones. However, the theory refuted in Book VIII shares many similarities with the cosmology of the Syrian philosopher Bardaisan. The latter gives an important place to atoms and it is possible that the rejection of the Epicurean system is directed against astral determinism, accepted in part by Bardaisan. The discourse of Nicetas would attempt to overthrow the Bardaisanian idea that inequalities among men are the result of the power of the stars. While the Recognitiones are in agreement with the Syrian philosopher who thinks that the stars have no effect on the free will of man - reproducing his thought in Book IX - they are opposed to the idea that the inequalities among men are the result of astral fatalism. The synthesis of Epicurus and Bardaisan would aim at refuting all determinism, be it Epicurean or Bardaisanian.