Augustinianum

The analysis of Letter XLV of Paulinus of Nola, addressed to Augustine, shows how the author rebuilds, at its deepest level, the conceptual nucleus of platonic reflection, founded on the notion of “harmony” – with clear mathematical-musical and political implications – which also determines the presence of the cursus of this subject in the letter’s prose. Contrasting this text with others by the Cimitilite ascetic, it is possible to point out a precise line of thought, intended to define an ideal model of society founded on the polysemic value of concinentia through a revival of the common themes that pertain specifically to neoplatonic philosophy.

Augustine is considered one of the originators of the metaphor of the book of nature, but what did he say about it? This article examines all the metaphors with which Augustine seems to refer to the visible world as a divine book. It is found that four of the often-cited passages have a different meaning, but two of them refer to sensible nature as a book. The article further explores how the idea of God’s two books – nature and Scripture – influences Augustine’s literal interpretation of Genesis and his trinitarian theology. Finally, it argues that the ultimate foundation for the Augustinian book of nature should be sought in his theology of the Word.

This article aims to explain and clarify the controversial textual issue over which manuscripts should be preferred in an edition of Sulpicius Severus’ Martinellus. In particular, Ruggiero examines the case of the Letters. Firstly, he shows that there is only one contaminated textual tradition, as proven by the numerous adiaphoristic variants. Secondly, he shows that the manuscripts from the French-German area are superior to those from the Italic peninsula and some insular areas, as they provide a much more elegant and correct text. This is consistent with our knowledge of Sulpicius Severus’ higher literary education. In publishing the Martinellus, it is therefore advisable to follow the variants of the French-German manuscripts, whereas the ones of the Italian manuscripts are to be taken into account only in the case of obvious errors. Consequently, Ruggiero maintains that the editions that predate Halm’s should be rated much more highly than they are.

The Funus acerbum is a rite typical of traditional Roman religion and therefore it should not be related to the Christian attitude in the face of the death of children. However, although Christians and Pagans had different ideas about the afterlife, they shared rules about respect for graves, a similar timing in the cult of the dead, and often also the same burial places. This article examines the Pagan sphere and the Christian sphere and highlights similarities and differences. Concerning more specifically Christians, it shows their wide range of attitudes towards infant death, also in relation to thorny question of the paedobaptism. In this sense, the influence of Augustine is reduced at both the theoretical level and, especially, at the level of burial practices.

The patristic period is of particular interest for the theme of “masculine” and “feminine” given the interconnection between the patristic exegesis of the two stories of creation (Gn 1:26-27 and 2:7) and the religious and social culture of the time. Late antiquity parameters of masculine and feminine, however although they are placed beyond the modern questions, cannot be considered completely extraneous from modernity for that path of history that connects human epochs beyond their own determined period. In this note we attempt to summarize the patristic approaches with an overall view, having both, a not too dispersive picture, and also to obtain some elements for further reflections, keeping in mind what Freud already observed «that the concepts “masculine” and “feminine”, whose content appears so devoid of ambiguity to common opinion, belong to the most confused concepts in science».

A critical review of the editio princeps of the Liber Timothei episcopi de Pascha recently published by Pierre Chambert-Protat and Camille Gerzaguet in the coll. Sources chrétiennes. The article questions the editors’ thesis, at length developed in the Introduction, that the text is only the Latin translation, also known by Gregorius of Elvira and St. Augustine, of a Greek treatise apparently due to one Timothy, bishop of Cybistra in Cappadocia during the first half of the IVth century (the translation would be a little later: the original and the version as well ought to be situated around the time of Nicaea, which applied to fixing the Easter date). It tries to show that this thesis, although not implausible, is not however as strong as its promoters imagine, and that several of their arguments are to be rejected or at least to be qualified. This discussion, which forms the main part of the article, is supplemented by two lists of proposed corrections: the first deals with the Latin text and the second, in an appendix, with its French translation.

The present article seeks to reconstruct the Christological meaning of the verbs “creating” and “begetting” in the Synodical letter of Ancyra (358). In order to assess the teaching of this document, the first part of the article provides an overview of the Christological use of “creating” and “begetting” from the beginning of the Arian crisis up to the eve of the synod of Ancyra. The second part studies the verbs “creating” and “begetting” in the Letter of Ancyra. The synodical document makes an original and significant theological effort, purifying and complementing both the notion of “creation” (Prv 8:22) and “generation” (Prv 8:25), in order to grasp the perfect notion of the eternal birth of the Son. This understanding is confirmed by Hilary of Poitiers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Fortunatian’s Christology and Trinitarian theology that can be deduced from his recently found work Commentarii in evangelia and, by doing so, to present a general re-evaluation of his role in the political-doctrinal clashes at the middle of the 4th century. By investigating Fortunatian’s (Trinitarian) theology in relation to the prior early Latin Trinitarian doctrine and to different heterodox traditions, and ascertaining his doctrinal standpoint in the Arian controversy of the middle of the 4th century, his doctrine reveals itself to be far more Catholic and “pro-Nicene” – though remaining deeply rooted in the Latin theological tradition – that it was regarded before.

The present study, after a quick codicological investigation of the two surviving manuscripts of the De trinitate by pseudo-Didymus, in which it is concluded that one is a copy of the other, focuses on the lexical analysis of the first book of the mutilated trinitarian treatise. By showing divergences from the authentic works of Didymus, alongside parallels with the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, of other late patristic authors, as well as with those of the Neoplatonic philosophers, in particular Proclus, the author concludes that the chronological position of De trinitate should not be before the end of the 5th century, and suggests a possible origin from an environment of Antiochene influence.

In De immortalitate animae Augustine is not satisfied with completing his proof of the immortality of the soul – which had been left open in the second book of the Soliloquies –; he also answers some possible objections, demonstrating that the rational soul cannot cease to exist, it cannot die, nor can it change into an irrational body or soul. Furthermore, remaining faithful to the programmatic declaration of never wanting to stray from the authority of Christ (Acad. 3, 20, 43), he specifies the ontological status of the soul by affirming that it is, in itself, mutable and therefore not of a divine nature, as Varro had argued. Nor is it a substance foreign to the body, as the Platonists claimed, because the soul has an appetitus ad corpus and, if it questions itself, it easily discovers that it desires nothing else «except to do something, to know with intelligence or with the senses, or only to live, as far as this is in its power» (nisi agendi aliquid, aut sciendi, aut sentiendi, aut tantummodo vivendi in quantum sua illi potestas est).