Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:34:00.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The De Opificio Dei: The Workmanship of God and Lactantius*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Peter A. Roots
Peter A. Roots
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lactantius' treatise the de opificio dei has received little attention from classical scholars in modern times. There are two main reasons for this. First, Lactantius is regarded essentially as a Christian apologist and therefore of interest primarily to theologians and students of Christian history. Second, that work which has been done on the treatise has tended to the view that the opif.'s interest for scholars lies largely in the question of its written sources, its main such source, according to several commentators, being the Hermetic body of writings. Both of these reasons need re-examining. With regard to the first, it is unfortunate that the only surviving works of Lactantius are his specifically Christian treatises, written after the outbreak of persecution in A.D. 303. As such they represent only a portion of his work, being composed in the last two decades of a long life. The basis of his reputation as a rhetorician, a reputation which secured him his appointment as professor of Latin rhetoric at Nicomedia under Diocletian, must have been his earlier works, which pre-date his conversion in c. 300.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , December 1987 , pp. 466 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 S. Brandt, 1891: 270ff.; L. Rossetti, 1928: 195ff.; cf. M. Perrin, 1974; 48ff.

2 Lactantius lived probably from c. 250–325, see R. Pichon, 1901: 1–32; J. Stevenson, 1957: 66 Iff.

3 See Jerome, de viris ill. 80. Lactantius claims not to have spoken publicly so his reputation would be based on his written work.

4 Ibid.

5 Jerome, epist. 35, see J. Stevenson, 1957: 667–8.

6 See ed. S. Brandt, CSEL 27: 155ff.

7 Jerome, Chronicle, ad a. Abr. 2333. see J. Stevenson, 1957: 661f.

8 For the date of the opif. in relation to Lactantius'; life and extant works, see especially M. Perrin, 1974: 11–17. I would not wish to claim that the rhetorical element of Lactantius' writings has been completely ignored by modern scholars. Pichon, 1901, devotes a chapter to the topic.

9 S. Brandt, 1891, see especially p. 292

10 Cf. L. Rossetti, 1928, E. von Ivanka, 1950, M. Perrin, 1974 and 1981.

11 M. Perrin, 1981: 292 (my translation).

12 It is my view that the structure of the inst. reflects four major themes: (i) the steps to eternal life; (ii) Lactantius' view of man's religious history; (iii) the duality of truth and error; (iv) the relationship between religio, sapienlia and iustitia.

13 R. Pichon, 1901: 271–2, 279–80.

14 M. Perrin, 1974: 32.

15 Ibid. pp. 25, 32–7.

16 See also opif. 6.15.

17 A point recognised by Perrin, 1974: 35 in relation to opif. 3, 4, and 6, but not by Pichon, 1901: 268–9.

18 For ch. 18 see pp. 473–4 and 482 below.

19 ‘Haec ad te, Demetriane, interim paucis et obscurius fortasse quam decuit pro rerum ac temporis necessitate peroraui’ (opif. 20.1).

20 See J. Stevenson, 1957: 662; Lactantius, de mort. pers. 13.1.

21 Cf. especially inst. 2.1.2–3; and also 4.1.Iff.

22 Cf. M. Perrin, 1974: 28, 35, 42, 57 which goes some way towards this view. Cf. also R. Pichon, especially pp. 246–66.

23 Cf. ND 1.17 for the question of the gods being ‘perobscura’.

24 Cf. S. Brandt, 1891: 276ff.; M. Perrin, 1974: 55ff.; 375ff.

25 See opif. 6.15; 20.1ff. re his intention to give a more complete refutation in the institutes

26 opif. 2.10f.; 4.12ff.; 6.1ff.; cf. especially inst. 3.17.8ff.

27 Cf. M. Perrin, 1974: 313–5; cf. also acad. 2.30.

28 In wishing to allow Lactantius some originality in his work I do not reject the likelihood of his views' being substantially influenced by current ideas.

29 Note the Platonist-inspired passage in Tusc. 1 following that which Lactantius has used as the basis for his views on the senses (Tusc. 1.46–7).

30 Cf. S. Brandt, 1891: 258f.; V. Loi, 1970: 163ff.; M. Perrin, 1974: 327–9.

31 Against Perrin, 1974: 371ff., who suggests the use of a ‘deficient’ source.

32 At opif. 2.6 Lactantius has already summarised his view of man's distinctive nature as being encapsulated by ‘ratio’, ‘sensus’ and ‘eloquens’. He further links the power of speech to the anima at 11.9ff. in his discussion on the windpipe

33 ‘sed ut exposita rei difficultate intellegas quanta sit diuinorum operum magnitudo’ (16.2, cf. 16.11; ‘admirandum’– 16.8 (x2), and 16.9).

34 For an exhaustive discussion of Lactantius’ use of these terms see M. Perrin, 1981: 231–6.

35 Cf. F. A. Schob's and R. M. Ogjlvie's identification of the second Epicurean poet referred to in opif. 18.2 as Varro of Atax, in R. M. Ogilvie, 1975: 41 If.

36 This completes chapter 9's refutation of the Academics on false presentations in relation to acad. 2.88.

37 M. Perrin, 1974: 37.

38 S. Brandt, 1891: 225ff.

39 Ibid. 272f.

40 Ibid. 285.

41 L. Rossetti, 1928, esp. 195ff.

42 E. von Ivanka, 1950: 178–92.

43 Ibid. 190–1.

44 M. Perrin, 1974: 46–50.

45 Ibid. 55–7.

46 Ibid. 55. In his later work, however, Perrin writes that the polemic against the Stoics regarding the soul may be based on a Platonic ‘oral source’ such as lectures similar to Apuleius' de dogm. Plat. (Perrin, 1981: 286f., cf. 254–9).

47 M. Perrin, 1974: 51

48 R. Pichon, 1901: 69–70 explains Lactantius' use of the double concept as being a response to his Roman readers' love of engineering and artistic excellence.

49 See especially M. Perrin, 1974: 54

50 S. Brandt, 1891: 256–60.

51 M. Perrin, 1974: 46f.

52 Ibid. 259.

53 J. Stevenson, 1961: 502