{"title":"“仿佛奥古斯丁说过”:中世纪关于预定论辩论中的文本解释与奥古斯丁的歧义","authors":"J. Smith","doi":"10.21971/P7H300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In ninth century Francia, a rebellious monk named Gottschalk of Orbais (808-868) ardently defended his theory of divine predestination, much to the vexation of the Frankish Church, whose leaders eventually denounced him as heretical and imprisoned him for the remainder of his life. In an effort to disprove Gottschalk, his perhaps most prominent opponent, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims (806-882), frequently cited elements of ecclesiastical tradition in an attempt to show that western Catholic orthodoxy opposed the theory of predestination that Gottschalk espoused. While most scholars have analyzed Hincmar’s writings by focusing on his citation of the patristic church father Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), such an approach ignores the problematic nature of Augustine’s stance on predestination, which was largely ambiguous, hence the ability of both Gottschalk and Hincmar to reference his writings as proof of their argument. While Augustine at times limited his stance to merely suggesting that God had bestowed eternal life on some individuals, at other times he was more explicit, defining predestination in terms of a twofold decree of salvation for some and damnation for others. Such ambiguity created a nebulous definition of predestination by the time of the ninth century controversy and allowed Gottschalk to weaken Hincmar’s arguments by likewise citing Augustine to support his own assertions. This in turn forced Hincmar to extend his arsenal of ecclesiastical tradition beyond citation of Augustine in order to refute Gottschalk. This paper reevaluates a sample of Hincmar’s writings in the 840s and 850s to argue that he sought to make explicit what Augustine had left unclear regarding predestination by appealing to common standards of orthodoxy in the forms of additional patristic authors, conciliar judgments, and \nliturgical practices. This analysis reveals both the prominence of ambiguity in ninth-century predestination thought as well as the role of ecclesiastical tradition in forming medieval views on orthodoxy, however fluid such a label remained.","PeriodicalId":93671,"journal":{"name":"Past imperfect (Edmonton, Alta.)","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“As If Augustine Had Said”: Textual Interpretation and Augustinian Ambiguity in a Medieval Debate on Predestination\",\"authors\":\"J. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.21971/P7H300\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In ninth century Francia, a rebellious monk named Gottschalk of Orbais (808-868) ardently defended his theory of divine predestination, much to the vexation of the Frankish Church, whose leaders eventually denounced him as heretical and imprisoned him for the remainder of his life. In an effort to disprove Gottschalk, his perhaps most prominent opponent, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims (806-882), frequently cited elements of ecclesiastical tradition in an attempt to show that western Catholic orthodoxy opposed the theory of predestination that Gottschalk espoused. While most scholars have analyzed Hincmar’s writings by focusing on his citation of the patristic church father Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), such an approach ignores the problematic nature of Augustine’s stance on predestination, which was largely ambiguous, hence the ability of both Gottschalk and Hincmar to reference his writings as proof of their argument. While Augustine at times limited his stance to merely suggesting that God had bestowed eternal life on some individuals, at other times he was more explicit, defining predestination in terms of a twofold decree of salvation for some and damnation for others. Such ambiguity created a nebulous definition of predestination by the time of the ninth century controversy and allowed Gottschalk to weaken Hincmar’s arguments by likewise citing Augustine to support his own assertions. This in turn forced Hincmar to extend his arsenal of ecclesiastical tradition beyond citation of Augustine in order to refute Gottschalk. This paper reevaluates a sample of Hincmar’s writings in the 840s and 850s to argue that he sought to make explicit what Augustine had left unclear regarding predestination by appealing to common standards of orthodoxy in the forms of additional patristic authors, conciliar judgments, and \\nliturgical practices. This analysis reveals both the prominence of ambiguity in ninth-century predestination thought as well as the role of ecclesiastical tradition in forming medieval views on orthodoxy, however fluid such a label remained.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Past imperfect (Edmonton, Alta.)\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Past imperfect (Edmonton, Alta.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21971/P7H300\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Past imperfect (Edmonton, Alta.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21971/P7H300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在九世纪的弗朗西亚,一个名叫Gottschalk of Orbais(808-868)的反叛修士热情地为他的神性宿命论辩护,这让法兰克教会非常恼火,其领导人最终谴责他是异教徒,并将他监禁终身。为了反驳戈特沙尔克,他可能是最突出的对手,兰斯大主教辛马尔(806-882),经常引用教会传统的元素,试图表明西方天主教正统反对戈特沙尔克所支持的宿命论。虽然大多数学者分析辛格玛的著作时,都把重点放在他引用教父圣奥古斯丁(354-430)的话上,但这种方法忽略了奥古斯丁对宿命论立场的问题本质,这在很大程度上是模棱两可的,因此戈特沙尔克和辛格玛都能引用他的著作作为他们论点的证据。虽然奥古斯丁有时限制了他的立场,只是暗示上帝赋予了一些人永生,但在其他时候,他更明确地将宿命论定义为双重法令,即对一些人的救赎和对另一些人的诅咒。这种模糊性使得预定论的定义在9世纪的争论中变得模糊,使得戈特沙尔克通过引用奥古斯丁来支持自己的主张,从而削弱了欣马尔的论点。这反过来又迫使辛马尔将他的教会传统的武器库扩展到引用奥古斯丁之外,以反驳戈特沙尔克。本文重新评估了欣玛尔在840年代和850年代的作品样本,认为他试图通过诉诸于其他教父作者、大公审判和礼仪实践形式的共同正统标准,来明确奥古斯丁对预定论的不清楚。这一分析既揭示了九世纪宿命论思想中模棱两可的突出特点,也揭示了教会传统在形成中世纪正统观点方面的作用,尽管这种标签仍然是不稳定的。
“As If Augustine Had Said”: Textual Interpretation and Augustinian Ambiguity in a Medieval Debate on Predestination
In ninth century Francia, a rebellious monk named Gottschalk of Orbais (808-868) ardently defended his theory of divine predestination, much to the vexation of the Frankish Church, whose leaders eventually denounced him as heretical and imprisoned him for the remainder of his life. In an effort to disprove Gottschalk, his perhaps most prominent opponent, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims (806-882), frequently cited elements of ecclesiastical tradition in an attempt to show that western Catholic orthodoxy opposed the theory of predestination that Gottschalk espoused. While most scholars have analyzed Hincmar’s writings by focusing on his citation of the patristic church father Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), such an approach ignores the problematic nature of Augustine’s stance on predestination, which was largely ambiguous, hence the ability of both Gottschalk and Hincmar to reference his writings as proof of their argument. While Augustine at times limited his stance to merely suggesting that God had bestowed eternal life on some individuals, at other times he was more explicit, defining predestination in terms of a twofold decree of salvation for some and damnation for others. Such ambiguity created a nebulous definition of predestination by the time of the ninth century controversy and allowed Gottschalk to weaken Hincmar’s arguments by likewise citing Augustine to support his own assertions. This in turn forced Hincmar to extend his arsenal of ecclesiastical tradition beyond citation of Augustine in order to refute Gottschalk. This paper reevaluates a sample of Hincmar’s writings in the 840s and 850s to argue that he sought to make explicit what Augustine had left unclear regarding predestination by appealing to common standards of orthodoxy in the forms of additional patristic authors, conciliar judgments, and
liturgical practices. This analysis reveals both the prominence of ambiguity in ninth-century predestination thought as well as the role of ecclesiastical tradition in forming medieval views on orthodoxy, however fluid such a label remained.