untitled

NOTES TO PAGES 99–118

5. For a short introduction to these issues, see: ‘‘Dealings with the Gods,’’ in Giulia Sissa and
   Marcel Detienne,The Daily Life of the Greek Gods, trans. Janet Lloyd (Stanford: Stanford University
   Press, 2000), 166–207. (A more precise phrasing might be ‘‘Gods at the Heart of Politics.’’)


6. I must confess that I am writing a book entitledThe Gods of Politics in Early Greek Cities.I
   apologize for a few allusive mentions that may have slipped in.

M. B. Pranger, Politics and Finitude: The Temporal Status of Augustine’sCivitas
Permixta

1. A classic survey of this development—still—is: H.-X. Arquillie`re,Augustinisme politique:
   Essai sur la formation des the ́ories politiques du Moyen-Aˆge(Paris: Vrin, 1934).


2. Augustine’s famous phrase ‘‘da quod iubes, iube quod vis,’’ repeated three times in book
   10 of theConfessions(10.29, 31, 37). It also was the starting point of the Pelagian controversy.


3. Augustine,De civitate dei, ed. D. Dombart and A. Kalb, in Corpus christianorum, series
   Latina, vols. 47 and 48. I use the translation by Henry Bettenson,Concerning the City of God Against
   the Pagans(Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1972). I use the following abbreviations:CCfor
   the Latin text; Bettenson for the English translation.


4. Janet Coleman,A History of Political Thought: From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance
   (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 339.


5. R. A. Markus,Saeculum: History and Society in the in the Theology of St. Augustine(Cam-
   bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). For Augustine,saeculummeans the secular world and
   secular time. It is a neutral space between the two cities, comprising, for instance, political institu-
   tions. For a recent view contesting this neutral status as proposed by Markus, Ratzinger, and others,
   see Peter Burnell,The Augustinian Person(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,
   2005), 136–72.


6. Ernst H. Kantorowicz,The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology(1957;
   Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 292.


7. Henri de Lubac,Corpus Mysticum: L’Euchariste et l’Eglise au Moyen Aˆge: E ́tude historique
   (Paris: Aubier, 1949).


8. Kantorowicz,The King’s Two Bodies, 206.


9. Ibid., 279.
   10.De civitate dei1.35;CC34; Bettenson 46.


10. Ibid., 5:27;CC150; Bettenson 206.


11. Ibid.


12. Ibid., 5.18;CC154; Bettenson 211.


13. Ibid., 1.1;CC1.


14. See ibid., 14.28;CC451; Bettenson 592: ‘‘Fecerunt itaque civitates duas amores duo [We
    see that the two cities were created by two kinds of love].’’


15. Kantorowicz, following Henri de Lubac’sCorpus mysticum, summarizes this development:
    ‘‘the notion ofcorpus mysticum, designating originally the Sacrament of the Altar, served after the
    twelfth century to describe the body politic, orcorpus iuridicum, of the Church, which does not
    exclude the lingering on of some of the earlier connotations. Moreover, the classical christological
    distinction of the two Natures in Christ... has all but completely disappeared from the orbit of
    political discussions and theories. It has been replaced by the corporational, non-christological
    concept of the Two Bodies of Christ: one, a body natural, individual, and personal (corpus naturale,
    verum, personale); the other, a super-individual body politic and collective, thecorpus mysticum,

PAGE 711

711

.................16224$ NOTE 10-13-06 12:34:01 PS