medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
The de Lubac is available in 102 libraries according to WorldCat.
At 11:27 PM 2/14/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>i've had a chance to check out these refs. for which i thank you.
>At 08:19 PM 1/29/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>>Four suggestions on this question.
>>1. Read Henri de Lubac, "Political Augustinism?" in _Theological
>>Fragments_ (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989), 235-286 for critique of
>does anyone have a copy of this. i've yet to read a good critique of
>arquillere. mostly historians ignore him.
>>2. Check out the new collection in the Cambridge Texts in the History of
>>Political Thought, _Augustine, Political Writings_, eds E.M. Atkins and
>>R. J. Dodaro. Rounds up other than the 'usual suspects' in considering
>>Augustine's political thought.
>are there any texts in there you have in mind?
>>3. Read Michael J. Hollerich, "John Milbank, Augustine, and the
>>'Secular,'" Augustinian Studies 30:2 (1999) for much needed assessment
>>and critique of Markus on the 'secular.'
>this is a very strange text to send me to. milbank is a theologian with a
>very contentious and rather triumphalist agenda into which he enrolls
>augustine. the critique is based largely on markus' last chapter which
>is, imo, the weakest and the least historical/most theological. the
>dismissal of [markus'] augustine as having a "modern-style shrewdness for
>dealing with abuse of power" in favor of [milbank's] augustine "asserting
>the absolute priority of peace over violence and antagonism of every kind"
>(tell that to the donatists, julian of eclenum, and anyone else who got in
>augustine's cross hairs), does not strike me as a "much needed critique of
>markus" as much as a rereading of augustine to make a theological
>point. when i read a line like "the heavenly city is jerusalem, the
>"vision of peace," which comes down to earth to restore the peace which
>god had intended in the beginning, before the onset of pride and
>domination" (p.319) and "the peace of the city of god was to e realized in
>practixxe, and realized in all spheres of life... and the life of the
>polis," (p. 322) it calls to mind arquillere's critique (whatever de lubac
>has to say about it).
>the main thrust of hollerich/milbank's argument is against markus is aimed
>at the effort to put augustine to work as a proto-liberal establishing the
>division btwn church and state (and there is a way in which one can read
>the federalists as augustinian). the real problem with his work, from the
>perspective of an historian is that it's really an effort to find a
>consistent theological position in augustine. thus he explains better
>than markus (at least in hollerich's opinion) why and how augustine can
>argue for ecclesiastical coercion, but it's all in terms of a "coherent"
>theology with no attention to the historical issues that drove augustine
>to take the various and (at impt levels) contradictory positions that he
>took (this is also the weakness of markus' chap. 6). for milbank to argue
>that markus "relies on arbitrary and imaginary oppositions" like
>"historical and eschatological" (322) is either dismissive rhetoric or the
>work of someone who, unlike markus, has no clue to the kinds of
>eschatological debates augustine was immersed in and drove his
>audiences. there is, in hollerich's acct of milbank so trace of the kind
>of awareness so pervasive in markus of augustine's impossible dilemma with
>the imperial millennialism of his day (xn empire = city of god on
>earth). given that hollerich is a eusebian scholar, the absence of this
>dimension is all the more notable and regrettable.
>>4. maybe read Augustine, City of God XV.4.
>this text wd be exhibit A for my case. nothing in there suggests anything
>possible beyond the dreary round of zero-sum games of libido dominandi in
>the earthly city whose genealogy in cain and abel / romulus and remus he
>spells out in the next chapter. what did you have in mind when you
>suggested this passage as an antidote to my claims of a profound
>augustinian pessimism about the nature of the saeculum that will endure
>until the end of time?
>>I hope that helps.
>helps me get a sense of what others are thinking and arguing, but i
>haven't seen anything to change my reading of augustine. (actually
>hollerich admits (326) that markus got augustine right about his
>disenchantment with the xn legitimation of the roman empire (and, by
>extension, any other govt), which is the point we're discussing, no?
Thomas M. Izbicki
Collection Development Coordinator
Johns Hopkins University
3400 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site: