Slavery, Redemption, and Manumission as Structural Metaphors in Augustine’s Theology

IF 0.9 2区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
Joshua Benjamins
{"title":"Slavery, Redemption, and Manumission as Structural Metaphors in Augustine’s Theology","authors":"Joshua Benjamins","doi":"10.1525/ca.2021.40.2.195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Across his corpus, Augustine strikingly and recurrently deploys the three cognate metaphors of slavery to sin, redemption from sin, and slavery to God. I argue that Augustine’s use of these theological metaphors is thoroughly contoured by the legal and social strictures governing slavery and freedom in the later Roman empire. To develop this argument, I pay close attention to the economic and legal connotations of some key terms in Augustine’s lexicon of salvation—like manumissio, redemptio, and libertas—and seek to tease out the social, legal, and economic logic they encapsulate. As I show, the concept of dominium underwrites Augustine’s description of the prelapsarian ordo naturalis as a chain of hierarchical relationships: between God and man, soul and body, male and female. The notion that human beings are enslaved to sin, subject to the condicio servitutis from birth, evokes the situation of laboring tenants (coloni) bound to the land through their origo. Moreover, the bishop of Hippo’s descriptions of captivity to the devil and liberation through the interpellation (interpellatio) of God the Redeemer are informed by the contemporary reality of barbarian captivity and liberales causae, so richly described in Augustine’s Letter 10*. Finally, Augustine’s characterization of Christian service in terms of a state of simultaneous freedom and servitude implicitly draws upon the legal norms governing the relationship of freed captives to their redeemers, as well as the obligations of obsequium and gratia which freedmen owed to their former masters.","PeriodicalId":45164,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2021.40.2.195","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Across his corpus, Augustine strikingly and recurrently deploys the three cognate metaphors of slavery to sin, redemption from sin, and slavery to God. I argue that Augustine’s use of these theological metaphors is thoroughly contoured by the legal and social strictures governing slavery and freedom in the later Roman empire. To develop this argument, I pay close attention to the economic and legal connotations of some key terms in Augustine’s lexicon of salvation—like manumissio, redemptio, and libertas—and seek to tease out the social, legal, and economic logic they encapsulate. As I show, the concept of dominium underwrites Augustine’s description of the prelapsarian ordo naturalis as a chain of hierarchical relationships: between God and man, soul and body, male and female. The notion that human beings are enslaved to sin, subject to the condicio servitutis from birth, evokes the situation of laboring tenants (coloni) bound to the land through their origo. Moreover, the bishop of Hippo’s descriptions of captivity to the devil and liberation through the interpellation (interpellatio) of God the Redeemer are informed by the contemporary reality of barbarian captivity and liberales causae, so richly described in Augustine’s Letter 10*. Finally, Augustine’s characterization of Christian service in terms of a state of simultaneous freedom and servitude implicitly draws upon the legal norms governing the relationship of freed captives to their redeemers, as well as the obligations of obsequium and gratia which freedmen owed to their former masters.
奥古斯丁神学中的结构隐喻:奴役、救赎与解放
在他的文集中,奥古斯丁引人注目地反复使用了三个同源的隐喻,对罪的奴役,对罪的救赎,对上帝的奴役。我认为,奥古斯丁对这些神学隐喻的使用,完全是由后来罗马帝国统治奴隶制和自由的法律和社会约束所塑造的。为了展开这一论点,我密切关注奥古斯丁关于救赎的词汇中一些关键术语的经济和法律内涵——比如“解放”、“救赎”和“自由”——并试图梳理出它们所包含的社会、法律和经济逻辑。正如我所展示的,主宰的概念支持了奥古斯丁对堕落前的ordo naturalis的描述,即一系列等级关系:上帝与人,灵魂与身体,男性与女性。人类被罪恶奴役的观念,从出生起就受制于奴役的条件,唤起了通过他们的起源而被束缚在土地上的劳动佃户(coloni)的情况。此外,河马主教对被魔鬼囚禁和通过对救赎主上帝的问询(interpellatio)而获得解放的描述,是由野蛮人被囚禁和自由原因的当代现实所告知的,奥古斯丁的书信10*中有丰富的描述。最后,奥古斯丁对基督教服务的描述是同时处于自由和奴役的状态,这隐含地借鉴了法律规范,规范了被释放的俘虏与救赎者之间的关系,以及被释放的人对前主人的敬礼和感激的义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信