关于古罗马异教的辩驳——奥古斯丁与孟德斯鸠之争

An Debate on Rome Paganism——Augustine and Montesquieu

思想史上的大问题总会引发不同时代的思想者的探究。生活年代相距甚远的奥古斯丁和孟德斯鸠关于罗马异教就有一场辩驳。问题的焦点表面上是异教与基督教谁应对古罗马的衰败负责,实则是宗教与城邦的关系。奥古斯丁主张借用古希腊哲学中的理性因素把罗马与其本土宗教分离开来。沿此思路发展的基督教在后世造成神权对人的压抑、信仰与城邦的冲突。孟德斯鸠一方面接续理性传统,另一方面借罗马异教猛烈地抨击基督教。作为启蒙运动的先驱,他埋下了城邦去除宗教、信仰缺失的隐患。这场关于罗马异教的争论实际上有三方,古典宗教学者瓦罗隐在背后,其观点与奥古斯丁、孟德斯鸠都不同。

An important issue in the history of ideas has often been researched by thinkers in different ages. Augustine and Montesquieu have a gap of 1300 years, but they are disputing about paganism in ancient Rome. Their focus seems to be who is responsible for Rome＇s ruin, but actually the relation of religion and polls. Augustine argues that Rome shall be cut off with it＇s own religion by the logos in Athens＂ philosophy, resulting in Christianity＇s oppression upon man and the conflict between religion and polis. Following the tradition of logos, Montesquieu attacks Christianity with the mask of Roman paganism. As the forerunner in Enlightenment, Montesquieu hides a danger for human beings to live in a city without religion. There are actually three sides in the argument with the classic scholar Varro standing in a different position from Augustine and Montesquieu.