Notre travail porte sur le traitement de la question du mal dans des récits français publiés entre 1945 et 1962, soit entre deux procès ayant interrogé la spécificité du mal et de la culpabilité, celui de Nuremberg d’une part, celui d’Eichmann d’autre part. Ces écrits sont des récits de l’après publiés par des écrivains qui ont participé à la guerre (comme Simon ou Camus) ou qui n’en ont reçu que des échos lointains (comme Butor ou Bataille). Le fil conducteur de notre analyse s’appuie sur l’essai de Paulhan, Les Fleurs de Tarbes ou la terreur dans les lettres, lequel nous a permis d’étudier le mal non seulement dans son versant historique au prisme de la terreur nazie et de ses conséquences, mais aussi dans son versant littéraire, entendant alors le terme de terreur dans le sens métaphorique que lui accordent Paulhan et Sade avant lui. La terreur est contrebalancée en permanence dans ces écrits et dans notre travail par son opposé, la rhétorique, et engendre la constitution d’une génération de romanciers « antimodernes » qui accèdent à une modernité esthétique sans renier la tradition romanesque du XIXe. L’approche du mal en termes de terreur et de rhétorique nous permet ainsi de concevoir la spécificité du traitement du mal chez Sartre, Bataille ou dans la littérature de témoignage, mais également de réinterroger sur nouveaux frais le statut du Nouveau Roman au prisme d’une historicité souvent déniée par la critique et de marquer l’oscillation de ce groupe de romanciers entre terreur et rhétorique. Cherchant l’hermétisme, l’exception, les nouveaux romanciers sont par ailleurs en quête d’une rhétorique fédératrice, capable de refonder une communauté brisée par la guerre. / Our work relates to the question of evil in French stories published between 1945 and 1962, therefore between two trials that have questioned the specificity of evil and guilt, namely the Nuremberg trial and the Eichmann trial. These stories, written after the war, were published by writers who either directly took part in the fight (like Simon or Camus), or simply had echos of it (like Butor or Bataille). The heart of our study is the essay of Jean Paulhan entitled Les Fleurs de Tarbes ou la terreur dans les lettres. This essay enabled us to analyse evil, not only in terms of History — by referring to the Nazi terror and its consequences — but also in literary and metaphorical terms, therefore considering the term ‘terror’ according to the definition of Paulhan and Sade. In both these stories and our work, terror is constantly offset by its opposite, rhetoric, which constitutes the basis for a generation of ‘anti-Modern’ writers who aim at esthetical modernity without denying the importance of the novelistic tradition of the 19th Century. The question of evil through the notions of terror and rhetoric leads us to specify the approach of evil in Sartre and Bataille’s novels, or in testimonies. These notions allow us to analyse the status of the Nouveau Roman from an historical perspective, often denied by critics, and to show the constant wavering of this group of writers between terror and rhetoric. The nouveaux romanciers are not only looking for exception, abstruseness, but they are also seeking a common rhetoric, capable of recreating a community otherwise broken by the war.

Cette thèse remet en question le soupçon pesant sur les catégories de « classique » et « classicisme ». Centrales dans les manuels, ces notions sont pourtant renvoyées par les spécialistes à de purs anachronismes, et jugées impertinentes pour caractériser le XVIIe siècle et sa littérature. Marqués par la rhétorique et la sociologie historique, les travaux actuels écartent l’opposition idéologique entre classicisme et modernité. Mais l’analyse de l’antagonisme chez Barthes, et l’étude des querelles impliquant les Classiques de 1898 à 1966, permettent de donner un contenu inattendu au classicisme, très éloigné de l’irénisme dont on l’a accusé.La notion, son antonyme et ses parasynonymes (antimodernisme et post-classicisme) circonscrivent d’abord, pour la littérature, différents « régimes d’historicité » dont débattent les polémistes. Le terme reste également associé à l’élaboration d’un « dispositif » utopique, où écrire, critiquer et enseigner iraient de pair : cette configuration, essentielle au XVIIe siècle, est sans cesse « remise sur le métier » dans les querelles postérieures entre Anciens et Modernes. De 1666 à 1694, semblent surgir en réalité la plupart des questions que les critiques continueront de poser à la littérature. C’est le cas, notamment, chez Barthes, Gide et Valéry, quand ils cherchent à en déterminer les fonctions et les prérogatives. Parce que le concept d’autonomie n’est pas pour eux détaché de toute exemplarité, il s’avère utile, bien qu’anachronique, pour lire les textes du XVIIe siècle. L’art de la « disponibilité », que Barthes reconnaissait chez Racine, serait alors l’autre nom de la littérarité, le nom d’une littérarité autre – non formaliste – que les Classiques auraient bel et bien inventée et qui autoriserait leur lecture « vivante, concernée ». / This dissertation interrogates the scepticism that falls on the categories of “classics” and “classicism”. Though they are considered key concepts in textbooks, these notions are viewed by many specialists as pure anachronisms, and declared irrelevant in defining the 17th century and its literature. Drawing influences from rhetoric and historical sociology, recent work dismisses the ideological divide between classicism and modernity, but an analysis of this opposition in Barthes’s corpus, supported by a study of the quarrels involving the Classics from 1898 to 1966, endows classicism with an unheralded substance, far from the irenicism for which it has been condemned. The notion of classicism, its antonym, and its parasynonyms (anti-modernism and post-classicism) first and foremost delineate, as far as literature is concerned, different regimes of historicity that are debated by the polemicists. The term ‘classicism’ is continuously associated with the establishment of a utopian apparatus within which writing, criticism and teaching go hand in hand. This blueprint was essential in the 17th century and is revisited again and again in the subsequent quarrels between Ancients and Moderns. In fact, most of the questions that critics continue to ask literature seem to arise between 1666 and 1694. Case in point, Barthes, Gide and Valéry all sought answers to these age-old questions in their attempts to determine both the functions and the prerogatives of literature. According to them, the concept of autonomy in literature cannot be separated from exemplarity. Thus, it proves useful, although anachronistic, in the reading of 17th-century texts. The art of “availability”, which Barthes recognized in the works of Racine, would then be the other name of literariness, a distinct – non formalist – literariness that the Classics have invented which allows their “vital, concerned” reading.

Diploma thesis "I become speech." Death and Return of the Author in the Perspective of Philosophy of Identity focuses on the question of inclusion of the author into the interpretation of literary text and aims to highlight the fruitfulness of such inclusion as well as some of its dangers. The thesis is divided into three parts. In the first part the author of the thesis presents a polemic account of some antiauthorial approaches, especially the "death of the author" as appearing in the texts of R. Barthes, M. Foucault and Jacques Derrida, along with a short mention of antiintentionalism of W. K Wimsatt and M. C. Beardsley and a theory of the model author by U. Eco. The common feature of the aforementioned antiauthorial theories is a reductive idea of the author and his relation to text - the problematic aspects of authorial interpretation, which their texts wish to make evident, is then only a consequence of the problematic underlying notion of the author-subject. The second part of the thesis intends to present an alternative theoretical understanding of the "real author" using the philosophy of identity od J. Butler and P. Bourdieu. These authors are proposing a theory of a person who is not understood as a "real thing" that would be available for a complete delimitation, description and...

Der Beitrag beschreibt die Vorlesungen von Büchern und Autoren von Borges’ Vorliebe, mit denen er einen antikanonischen Korpus, einen Kanon der Leser, einen Kanon als Ergebnis des Wunsches des Lesens (A. López) im Gegensatz zum Konzept des Kanons von H. Bloom (The Western Canon 1994) aufbaut, und er zeigt, dass Bloom mehrere grundlegende Begriffe von Borges über Literatur und Kanon verwendet wie „Fremdheit“ (oder „spcriptible“ nach R. Barthes), „Bewusstsein“ oder „Transtextualität“, „Macht der Kontamination“, d.h. die Fähigkeit der Absorption der Literatur der Vergangenheit und die Verfügbarkeit dieser Literatur, um neu kodifiziert zu werden und auf diese Weise Teil des Kanons zu werden. Es geht um die Strahlkraft von Borges insofern, als Bloom ihn für den Autor hält, der „offenkundig die gesamte kanonische Tradition absorbiert und dann absichtlich reflektiert“. Borges ist der Meister der Absorption in der abendländischen Welt des 20. Jahrhunderts und wird als „der literarische Metaphysiker des Zeitalters“ bezeichnet. Jahrhunderts und wird als „literarischer Metaphysiker des Zeitalters“ bezeichnet. Der Essay zeigt, wie Bloom ein nomadisches Konzept des Kanons entwickelt, das über seine eigene Ideologie hinausgeht, und dass Borges im Zentrum seines Kanonsystems steht. / El trabajo describe las lecturas predilectas de Borges que forman un corpus anticanónico, un canon de lectores, un canon del „deseo” (A. López) por el contrario al concepto de canon de H. Bloom (The Western Canon 1994). Pretendemos demostrar que Bloom recurre a una serie de conceptos fundamentales de Borges sobre la literatura y canon, tales como „strangeness” (o „spcriptible” según R. Barthes) „awareness” o „transtextualidad” , „power of contamination”, esto es, la capacidad de absorción de la literatura del pasado, la disponibilidad de ésta de dejarse recodificar y pasar así a ser canon. Se trata de la fuerza de irradiación de Borges en cuanto éste, también según Bloom, es quien „overtly absorbs and then deliberately reflects the entire canonical tradition”. Borges es el maestro de la absorción y subversión de occidente en el siglo XX por excelencia definiéndolo como „the literary metaphysian of the age”. El trabajo muestra como Bloom al fin aboga por un canon abierto y como Borges se encuentra realmente en el centro de su concepto de canon. / The essay describes the lectures of books and authors of Borges’ predilection with which he builds an anticanonical corpus, a canon of readers, a canon as result of the of desire of readings (A. López) contrary to the concept of canon by H. Bloom (The Western Canon 1994), and it shows that Bloom uses several fundamental terms from Borges about literature and canon like „strangeness” (or „spcriptible” according to R. Barthes), „awareness” or „transtextuality”, „power of contamination”, that is, the capacity of absorption of the literature of the past and the disposability of this literature to be recodified and to form, in that way, part of the canon. It concerns the power of irradiation of Borges in so far as Bloom considers him to be the author who „overtly absorbs and then deliberately reflects the entire canonical tradition”. Borges is the master of absorption in the occidental world of the 20th century and is defined as „the literary metaphysian of the age”. The essay shows how Bloom is developing a nomadic concept of canon that goes beyond his own ideology and that Borges is situated in the centre of his canon system.

I den här uppsatsen undersöks den intertextualitetsteori som framkommer i Kallifatides 2000-talslitteratur, och hur den kan användas för att läsa de autofiktiva inslagen i romanerna. Uppsatsen kommer fram till att Kallifatides ansluter sig till en poststrukturalistisk syn på intertextualitet, där intertextualitet inte så mycket handlar om direkta referenser i ett verk till ett annat, utan utgör en del i den poststrukturalistiska insikten att allt är konstruktion. Genom att människans syn på världen anses sakna essens och istället konstrueras genom språket kan text med denna syn endast referera till andra språkliga konstruktioner, det vill säga, annan text. Livet är något som ”levs mellan två citattecken”. Parallellt tycks dock Kallifatides intertextualitet inneha en mindre språkburen dimension som går tillbaka på en mer konkret historieskatt, och ett arv av kollektiva erfarenheter. Överlag ansluter sig Kallifatides trots allt till kända intertextualitetsteoretikers, såsom Kristeva och Barthes, syn att språket bär på en inneboende intertextualitet. I uppsatsen finner jag emellertid att Kallifatides skiljer sig från nämnda teoretiker i sin inställning till detta beroende. Där Kristeva och Barthes ser en förlorad individuell frihet och agens, ser Kallifatides en vunnen samhörighet och gemenskap. Insikten om synen på intertextualitet i Kallifatides litteratur används sedan i en läsning av de autofiktiva inslagen i verken. Där finner jag att man med en medvetenhet om nämnda intertextualitetsdiskussion kan läsa de autofiktiva inslagen som en sorts praktisk tillämpning av tankarna kring beroendet av myt och fiktion. Sammanblandandet av verken och det litterära arvet, med författarens liv, blir en exemplifiering av idén att livet levs inom redan uppdragna narrativa strukturer. Genom att blanda dåtid och nutid, fiktion och verklighet, exemplifierar Kallifatides att ”det är detaljerna som skiljer oss” från historien och myten, och ”ibland inte ens de”. Individen och författaren lever på så vis texter som redan är skrivna. Vidare menar jag i uppsatsen att de autofiktiva inslagen på detta vis upprättar en sorts ”oklar linje” mellan författare och verk och författare och myt, där synen på förhållandena mellan verk och litterärt arv, och författaren, inte ses uteslutande som enkelriktat kausala. Författarens relation till verket blir alltså inte likriktad: istället för att författaren allena formar verket, formar verket också författaren. Även om skrivandet visserligen anses sprunget ur erfarenhet, ger det på samma gång struktur och form till erfarenheten. Fiktionen är på så vis en del av konstruktionen av oss som individer. Relationen mellan författaren och myten är mer kausalt riktad, det är arvet som påverkar författaren. Den oklara linjen handlar här mer om en oklarhet kring var författarens liv börjar och var myten slutar. Sammantaget läses autofiktiva inslagen som en praktisk tillämpning av de teoretiska resonemangen. Funktionen blir att illustrera tidlösheten hos det litterära arvets narrativa strukturer, och att peka på författarens dubbelriktade förhållande till sin fiktion.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Edison Silvestre Petenussi Silva.pdf: 3671113 bytes, checksum: 0213ca62fbae90f771744562024b91bb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-04-30 / This present work has as objective a discussion about the statute of photographic image, its uses and characteristics from an analysis of the work of plastic artist Rosângela Rennó and from the approach of two philosophers, Walter Benjamin and Roland Barthes. It was presented a brief historic of the birth of photography and after, an introduction of the ideas of Walter Benjamin, specially his considerations about the work of art and its technical reproduction. Subsequently, it was introduced the considerations about photography developed by French philosopher Roland Barthes in his famous book Camera Lucida . It was examined the work of plastic artist Rosângela Rennó in the light of these philosopher s works. The analysis is about a specific work, Bibliotheca a compiled images redeemed by artist and reused as support for the development of her artistic universe. The issue of photography as a possibility of memory rescue, the massification of photographic images and the appropriation of existing images resignified in the art guided this dissertation / O presente trabalho possui como objetivo a discussão sobre o estatuto da imagem fotográfica, seus usos e características a partir da análise da obra da artista plástica Rosângela Rennó e das abordagens de dois pensadores, Walter Benjamin e Roland Barthes. Tratamos inicialmente de um breve histórico do nascimento da fotografia e posteriormente uma introdução ao pensamento de Walter Benjamin, especialmente suas considerações acerca da obra de arte e sua técnica de reprodução. Posteriormente a isso introduzimos as considerações sobre fotografia elaboradas pelo pensador francês Roland Barthes em seu célebre livro A Câmara Clara . Examinamos a obra da artista plástica Rosângela Rennó sob a luz das teorias dos pensadores em questão. A análise destina-se a uma obra específica, a Bibliotheca , um compilado de imagens resgatadas pela artista e reutilizadas como suporte para o desenvolvimento do seu universo artístico. A questão da fotografia como possibilidade de resgate da memória, a massificação das imagens fotográficas e a apropriação de imagens existentes ressignificadas na arte pautam a presente dissertação

國立政治大學研究所碩士論文提要 研究所別： 英國語文研究所 論文名稱： 閱讀溫特森«銘刻在身»的爽 指導教授： 劉建基教授 研究生： 張惠慈 論文提要內容： （共一冊，約 31500 字，分五章） 本研究關於溫特森的《銘刻在身》旨在探究在閱讀此文本過程中，不同程度及不同形式的爽(jouissance)。此研究將著重於三方面：其一，追求愛情的爽；其二，在幻想中永恆的爽；其三，閱讀文本《銘刻於身》的爽。本論文將分五個章節。 我在第一章的前半部簡介溫特森及她的小說，在後半部，描繪拉岡心理學中三個限界（幻真界[the real]，想像界[the imaginary]，及象徵界[the symbolic]），及此三界與爽的交互作用。這三個限界及爽，將是本研究的理論基石。 第二章的討論旨在解釋，為何敘述者著迷於不斷陷入愛情，及為何露伊絲在小說結尾莫名其妙的消失了。乍看之下，敘述者對露伊絲的愛相當矛盾：敘述者對露伊絲宣稱其無窮的愛，卻又刻意地悄悄的遠離了她。然而事實上，敘述者的矛盾行為堪稱合理：因為愛與失去是共生的。在浪漫愛情故事裡，一段介於愛的主體(the loving subject)及被愛客體(the loved object)之間的距離是必要的。表面上，愛的主體（敘述者）的追求過程裡看來痛苦，而實際上他正無意識的，享受著對被愛客體無限的追求時的爽。在這迷戀他者的過程中，主體實際上是自我迷戀(narcissism)，而在這自我迷戀的過程中，主體將其自我理想(an ego-ideal)投射在被愛客體上，並美化被愛客體成為一理想的自我(an ideal ego)。 在第三章，我將對敘述者迷戀愛情的現象做更深入的探討：到底敘述者打算由露伊絲的完美形象中挖掘什麼，以及為何敘述者得與一個理想戀人，住在一個理想愛情的幻象之中？我發掘出其中最主要的原因來自於，主體懼怕被去勢及懼怕象徵界中的無能（例如婚姻、老去、死亡）。主體具有一個原生的欲望：期待完滿及永恆（此欲望是期待回歸幻象界以及獲得爽），然而在現實世界（象徵界）的短缺及壓迫之下，回歸的可能被榨乾。幻象(fantasy)於是成為主體（敘述者）的護欄，它一方面讓主體相信自己是全能，另一方面它掩蔽事實，讓主體忘卻自身的不完整和無能為力。 在第四章，我跳出單單在文本內容中的討論，進而探討文本與讀者之間的關係；本討論的立論基礎為羅蘭巴特的書寫式文本(writerly text)。在文本╱讀者及露伊絲╱敘述者之間，有一類似的有趣現象：文本之於讀者正如同露伊絲之於敘述者。在這兩個情況當中同時都有一被動的客體(the desired or probed object)勾引探索中的主體(the probing subject)，然後再由主體的追求中脫逃而去。閱讀《銘刻於身》，表面上痛苦萬分，而實際上卻令人陶醉：因為閱讀的爽正源自於，作者刻意設計的不確定因素(uncertain elements)。這些不確定因素，一方面玩弄讀者，一方面也在文本上形成一未填滿的空間，其特徵就是不斷的衍生(endless generation)－－讀者可以參與創造各式各類的可能性，而意義的系統將不斷延伸。一個單一的文本，在此不斷延伸的系統下，便成了多重文本，而閱讀此類書寫式文本之樂趣，就在於讀者不得不參與創造意義的過程。 最後我在第五章的結論部份，總結了愛與閱讀的爽具有相同的條件與模式：在追求的主體（讀者與愛的主體）與被追求的客體（文本及被愛客體）之間，空間與距離是不可避免的要素，因為隱藏在人體內的爽本身就是一個矛盾體。 Chapter One Introduction Chapter Two The Jouissance of Pursuing Love Chapter Three The Jouissance of Being Immortal in Fantasy Chapter Four The Bliss of Reading Written on the Body: A Writerly Text with Jouissance Chapter Five Coda / Abstract In this study of Jeanette Winterson’s Written on the Body I would like to explore jouissance in different forms and levels in the process of reading this novel. The emphasis will be laid upon three aspects: first, the jouissance of pursuing love; secondly, the jouissance of being immortal in fantasy; and thirdly, the jouissance of reading this novel. The thesis is divided into five parts. In the first chapter, the beginning section is devoted to a general introduction of Jeanette Winterson and her novels; in the ensuing section, I will picture the interrelationships between the three registers—the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic—and jouissance in Lacanian psychoanalysis, which will be adopted as the interpretative model to account for the theme of jouissance in the whole thesis. In the second chapter, I will stress on the narrator’s exalted love toward Louise and the construction of his/her ego. On the surface, it is odd that the narrator’s sublime love for Louise contradicts his/her decision—to leave Louise; however this paradox is reasonable, because love and loss is in fact symbiosis. A distance between the loving subject and the loved object is necessary in the case of romantic love; though painful, the loving subject enjoys itself in the act of endless pursuit for the loved object, which is actually an ideal ego of the subject’s self. The paradox of love in company with suffering explains the narrator’s addiction in love and the disappearance of Louise. In the third chapter, my interest is getting deeper: what does the narrator want to grub out of the ideal image of Louise, and why does the narrator have to live in the fantasy of ideal love and to be with an ideal lover? The principal cause that I will explore is the fear of being castrated and of the impotency of the symbolic. The subject has an essential desire to be integral and immortal (which is the concept of the real and is allied to jouissance), but there are forces from the reality (or the symbolic) to drain this desire. Therefore, fantasy becomes a protective talisman for the narrator (as well as for every subject) to forget its fragmentation and inability. In the fourth chapter, the interrelation between the text and the reader is the dominant consideration, and Roland Barthes’ theory of writerly text that engenders bliss (jouissance) will be the critical base. There is an interesting formula between the text/the reader and Louise/the narrator. The text for the reader is similar to Louise for the narrator: in both situations, the desired one seduces and slides from the probing other. Reading Written on the Body on the surface is painful and irritating; in a sense, the act of reading is ecstatic. The origin of the bliss of reading is the uncertain elements intentionally created by the author. The unfilled space in the text that entertains readers is characterized by its feature of endless generation—various possibilities are created, and the network of meanings extends. Therefore, to conclude the whole scheme of love and reading in the fifth chapter, I will point out that a space or a distance between the pursuing subject (the reader or the loving subject) and the pursued object (the text of the loved object) is inevitable because jouissance inherent in the human body is in its essence paradoxical.

This thesis is about covers of books and DVD movies. I have tried to find out if the visual communication of the covers differs between the book and movie with the same story. Do they appeal to different target groups? I have also been trying to find out what designers can do to increase the visibility of covers among others. Are there certain rules to follow for making a cover visible? To reach a conclusion I have been studying components in advertising pictures, since covers work as a kind of advertiser for the product. I have also been studying visual communication and how designers use advertising pictures to communicate with the observer. Semiotics, advertising and comparisons between the covers have been my method for analyze. I have come to the colclusion that covers of books and DVD movies do communicate in different ways and partly to different target groups. There are certain rules to follow if you want to increase the visibility of a picture among others. The results indicate that the book covers have an older target group than the DVD covers.

<h1>Abstract</h1> <p>Axel Adolf Laurell (1800–1852), theoretical philosopher by training, was Professor of Dogmatics at the University of Helsinki 1836–1852. In the history of Finnish theology, he has been rather ignored. The aim of this doctoral thesis has been two-fold: to analyze both Laurell and the later theological tradition that ignored him.</p> <p>Laurell was one of the intellectually oriented theologians in Finland representing the view that university theology was a field of rational study, not a way of practicing religion. His qualifying thesis, already approved of by the official opponent, was rejected by the Faculty of Theology and by the Lutheran archbishop E. G. Melartin. However, Laurell gained the support of the Academic Senate and was appointed professor by Nikolai I.</p> <p>Archive material depicting Laurell´s lectures on theology shows that he lectured, among other things, on the German controversy between rationalism and supranaturalism. He seems to have supported the idea of mediation between these two, an approach typical of to the school of <i>Vermitttlungstheologie</i>. Laurell began his career as a Hegelian, rejected Hegelianism in the 1840s and became interested in the questions of empirical study. Laurell was one of the Finnish academics who adopted ideas both from Herder and Hegel.</p> <p>Laurell, during his formative years a member of the Saturday Society, a circle of reform-minded young intellectuals, was the most notable Finnish representative of pedagogics during his time. He was one of the founders of Helsingfors Lyceum in 1831 and the first headmaster of this school with its new, modern-type curriculum. According to him, “state” and “church” should not interfere in the matters of education.</p> <p>Taking into account Mythologies by Roland Barthes and some international discussions on nationalistic myths, I have delineated the previously unrecognized myth of Genuine Finnish theology. Influential Finnish revivalist theologians adopted the biblical theology of Johann Tobias Beck during the latter part of the 19^th century. From this standpoint they and notably history professor Ernst Gustaf Palmén, invented a religious-nationalistic interpretation of the 19^th-century Finnish history. Scientifically significant theologians had been Beckians or revival movement sympathizers while Laurell, among other actual forerunners of rational research, were marginalized and forgotten.</p> / <h1>Tiivistelmä</h1> <p>Väitöskirjani tarkastelee Lauantaiseuran jäsenen ja Helsingin yliopiston dogmatiikan ruotsinkielisen professorin Axel Adolf Laurellin (1800–1852) näkemyksiä ja toimintaa 1830-luvulta 1850-luvun alkuun sekä autonomian kaudesta kertovaa suomalaisen teologian oppitraditiota. Laurell on yksi tämän oppitradition vähättelemistä 1800-luvun teologeista. Teologinen tiedekunta sekä luterilaisen kirkon arkkipiispa E. G. Melartin yrittivät 1830-luvulla torjua Laurellin professorinvirasta hylkäämällä hänen väitöskirjansa, jonka vastaväittäjä oli jo hyväksynyt. Hänellä oli kuitenkin yliopiston professorikunnan enemmistön tuki, ja Nikolai I nimitti hänet dogmatiikan professoriksi.</p> <p>Teologian oppitraditiota, historiallisista lähteistä piittaamatonta keksittyä historiaa, kutsutaan tässä tutkimuksessa Oikean teologian myytiksi. Se on hahmoteltu soveltaen Roland Barthesin ja eräiden nationalismitutkijoiden myyttitulkintoja. Myytti on arvioinut aiempien tutkijoiden tieteellistä merkittävyyttä sen perusteella miten he suhtautuivat herännäisyyteen ja olivatko he suomenkielisiä. Myytin keskeinen muotoilija oli historian professori Ernst Gustaf Palmén ja sen syntyedellytyksenä olivat suomalaisen yliopistoherännäisyyden muuttuminen beckiläiseksi raamattufundamentalismiksi 1850-luvulta alkaen sekä lähdetutkimuksen laiminlyöminen. Aiempien tutkijoiden tulkintaa autonomian kauden teologiasta toistettiin sittemmin vuosikymmenestä toiseen tarkistamatta heidän tulkintojensa paikkansapitävyyttä alkuperäislähteistä.</p> <p>Laurellin luennoista säilynyttä käsikirjoitusaineistoa on käytetty selvittämään mitä hän opetti Helsingin yliopiston teologian opiskelijoille. Yksi luentojen keskeinen aihe oli saksalaisen rationalismi-supranaturalismi -kiistan käsittely. Luennot viittaavat siihen, että Laurell edusti välitysteologiseksi kutsuttua koulukuntaa, joka nimensä mukaisesti pyrki edustamaan välittävää kantaa näiden kahden välillä.</p> <p>Laurell oli aikansa merkittävin suomalainen pedagogi, Helsingfors Lyceumin johtaja ja yksi sen perustaja, koulutukseltaan teoreettisen filosofian dosentti ja aikansa maltillinen, kristillisestä luomisuskosta kiinnipitänyt rationalisti, joka hegeliläisyydestä luovuttuaan kiinnostui empiirisestä tutkimuksesta. Laurellin ajattelussa näkyy monelle muullekin 1800-luvun alkupuolen toimijalle tyypillinen hegeliläisten ja herderiläisten vaikutteiden rinnakkaisuus. Teologina Laurell edusti näkemystä, jonka mukaan yliopistoteologia on uskonnon tarkastelua, ei yliopistossa tapahtuvaa uskonnonharjoitusta.</p>

Abstract Axel Adolf Laurell (1800–1852), theoretical philosopher by training, was Professor of Dogmatics at the University of Helsinki 1836–1852. In the history of Finnish theology, he has been rather ignored. The aim of this doctoral thesis has been two-fold: to analyze both Laurell and the later theological tradition that ignored him. Laurell was one of the intellectually oriented theologians in Finland representing the view that university theology was a field of rational study, not a way of practicing religion. His qualifying thesis, already approved of by the official opponent, was rejected by the Faculty of Theology and by the Lutheran archbishop E. G. Melartin. However, Laurell gained the support of the Academic Senate and was appointed professor by Nikolai I. Archive material depicting Laurell´s lectures on theology shows that he lectured, among other things, on the German controversy between rationalism and supranaturalism. He seems to have supported the idea of mediation between these two, an approach typical of to the school of Vermitttlungstheologie. Laurell began his career as a Hegelian, rejected Hegelianism in the 1840s and became interested in the questions of empirical study. Laurell was one of the Finnish academics who adopted ideas both from Herder and Hegel. Laurell, during his formative years a member of the Saturday Society, a circle of reform-minded young intellectuals, was the most notable Finnish representative of pedagogics during his time. He was one of the founders of Helsingfors Lyceum in 1831 and the first headmaster of this school with its new, modern-type curriculum. According to him, “state” and “church” should not interfere in the matters of education. Taking into account Mythologies by Roland Barthes and some international discussions on nationalistic myths, I have delineated the previously unrecognized myth of Genuine Finnish theology. Influential Finnish revivalist theologians adopted the biblical theology of Johann Tobias Beck during the latter part of the 19th century. From this standpoint they and notably history professor Ernst Gustaf Palmén, invented a religious-nationalistic interpretation of the 19th-century Finnish history. Scientifically significant theologians had been Beckians or revival movement sympathizers while Laurell, among other actual forerunners of rational research, were marginalized and forgotten. / Tiivistelmä Väitöskirjani tarkastelee Lauantaiseuran jäsenen ja Helsingin yliopiston dogmatiikan ruotsinkielisen professorin Axel Adolf Laurellin (1800–1852) näkemyksiä ja toimintaa 1830-luvulta 1850-luvun alkuun sekä autonomian kaudesta kertovaa suomalaisen teologian oppitraditiota. Laurell on yksi tämän oppitradition vähättelemistä 1800-luvun teologeista. Teologinen tiedekunta sekä luterilaisen kirkon arkkipiispa E. G. Melartin yrittivät 1830-luvulla torjua Laurellin professorinvirasta hylkäämällä hänen väitöskirjansa, jonka vastaväittäjä oli jo hyväksynyt. Hänellä oli kuitenkin yliopiston professorikunnan enemmistön tuki, ja Nikolai I nimitti hänet dogmatiikan professoriksi. Teologian oppitraditiota, historiallisista lähteistä piittaamatonta keksittyä historiaa, kutsutaan tässä tutkimuksessa Oikean teologian myytiksi. Se on hahmoteltu soveltaen Roland Barthesin ja eräiden nationalismitutkijoiden myyttitulkintoja. Myytti on arvioinut aiempien tutkijoiden tieteellistä merkittävyyttä sen perusteella miten he suhtautuivat herännäisyyteen ja olivatko he suomenkielisiä. Myytin keskeinen muotoilija oli historian professori Ernst Gustaf Palmén ja sen syntyedellytyksenä olivat suomalaisen yliopistoherännäisyyden muuttuminen beckiläiseksi raamattufundamentalismiksi 1850-luvulta alkaen sekä lähdetutkimuksen laiminlyöminen. Aiempien tutkijoiden tulkintaa autonomian kauden teologiasta toistettiin sittemmin vuosikymmenestä toiseen tarkistamatta heidän tulkintojensa paikkansapitävyyttä alkuperäislähteistä. Laurellin luennoista säilynyttä käsikirjoitusaineistoa on käytetty selvittämään mitä hän opetti Helsingin yliopiston teologian opiskelijoille. Yksi luentojen keskeinen aihe oli saksalaisen rationalismi-supranaturalismi -kiistan käsittely. Luennot viittaavat siihen, että Laurell edusti välitysteologiseksi kutsuttua koulukuntaa, joka nimensä mukaisesti pyrki edustamaan välittävää kantaa näiden kahden välillä. Laurell oli aikansa merkittävin suomalainen pedagogi, Helsingfors Lyceumin johtaja ja yksi sen perustaja, koulutukseltaan teoreettisen filosofian dosentti ja aikansa maltillinen, kristillisestä luomisuskosta kiinnipitänyt rationalisti, joka hegeliläisyydestä luovuttuaan kiinnostui empiirisestä tutkimuksesta. Laurellin ajattelussa näkyy monelle muullekin 1800-luvun alkupuolen toimijalle tyypillinen hegeliläisten ja herderiläisten vaikutteiden rinnakkaisuus. Teologina Laurell edusti näkemystä, jonka mukaan yliopistoteologia on uskonnon tarkastelua, ei yliopistossa tapahtuvaa uskonnonharjoitusta.