No description available.

Le but de la thèse consiste dans la tentative de brosser un tableau du parcours occidental d’Aelius Aristide, orateur grec vécu au IIème siècle de notre ère, au moyen d’un examen des traductions latines de ses discours réalisées entre le XVème et la première moitié du XVIème siècle. Nous nous proposons de montrer que la réception d’Aristide en Occident au cours de l’humanisme a toujours été liée à des clairs intérêts littéraires, mais aussi à des raisons socio-culturelles et historiques. Pour cela, nous analysons les traductions latines de quatre discours d’Aristide : le Dionysos (or. 41), traduit par Cencio de’ Rustici en 1416 ; la Monodie pour Smyrne (or. 18), par Niccolò Perotti (1471) ; le discours Aux Rhodiens, sur la concorde (or. 24), par Carlo Valgulio ; le Discours d’ambassade à Achille (or. 16), par Joachim Camerarius (1535). Nous donnons une édition critique des deux premières traductions (Dionysos et Monodie) fondée sur les manuscrits latins et une édition moderne des deux dernières (Aux Rhodiens et Discours d’ambassade) ; nous proposons aussi l’identification du modèle grec utilisé par l’humaniste ou, au moins, l’identikit du texte grec originel lu par l’humaniste pour sa traduction. / The purpose of the thesis is to outline the western route of Aelius Aristides, Greek orator lived in II century AD, through an overview of the Latin translations of some of his speeches produced between the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century by humanists from Italy and Northern Europe. We aim to show that Aristides’ reception in Western Europe during Humanism has always been related to clear literary interests, but also to socio-cultural and historical reasons. For this purpose, we analyze the Latin translations of four Aristides’ speeches : the Dionysos (or. 41), translated by Cencio de’ Rustici in 1416 ; the Monody for Smyrna (or. 18), by Niccolò Perotti (1471) ; the speech To the Rhodians, on concord (or. 24), by Carlo Valgulio (1497) ; the Embassy speech to Achille (or. 16), by Joachim Camerarius (1535). We give a critical edition of the first two translations (Dionysos and Monody) based on the Latin manuscripts and a modern publication of the last two (To the Rhodians and Embassy) ; we also propose the identification of the Greek model or, at least, we offer an identikit of the original Greek text read by the humanist for his translation.

Divine healing has been often seen in opposition to human healing. The two spheres, have been considered as separate, both in space and in terms of elements involved. Asclepian sanctuaries have been mostly presented as domains of exclusively divine intervention, without any involvement of the human factor, possibly with the sole exception of dream interpretation. However, the written testimonies of temple cures, both those in the form of cure inscriptions dedicated in sanctuaries and the literary accounts of the incubation experience, give us reasons to suppose that the practical side of the functioning of the asklepieia could have assumed the involvement of human medicine, with the extent of this involvement differing in various epochs. Regardless of physicians' participation or its lack in the procedure, the methods applied in sanctuary healing appear to have evolved in parallel to the developments in medicine and their popular perception. Archaeological finds as well as the image of Asclepius as the god of medicine itself seem to confirm this. Nevertheless, by no means should these connections between the two spheres be treated as transforming the space of religious meaning into hospitals functioning under the auspices of a powerful god. Although acknowledging them does entail inclusion of human medicine within the space dedicated to Asclepius, it does not thereby deny the procedure of incubation its religious and metaphysical dimension. On the contrary, it shows that to the Greek mind divine and human healing were not mutually exclusive, but overlapped and coincided with each other, proving that the Greek sense of rationality was quite different from the modern and could comprise far more than what we call today "scientific thinking".

La présente thèse propose une recherche sur la tradition textuelle et l’édition critique du discours Εἰς Ῥώμην (En l’honneur de Rome) d’Aelius Aristide (IIe siècle apr. J.-C.). Le discours, prononcé à Rome en 144 apr. J.-C., est un éloge de l’Empire romain. La première édition critique du discours fut publiée par B. Keil en 1898 ; au cours du XXe siècle deux philologues ont préparé des éditions comportant un texte critique, en s’appuyant sur l’apparat de Keil. La thèse est organisée en une introduction générale et deux parties, suivies par la bibliographie et quatre annexes. La première partie est consacrée à la recherche sur la tradition textuelle du discours, et est structurée en six chapitres. La deuxième partie consiste dans l’édition critique du discours En l’honneur de Rome, avec apparat critique et des témoignages de la tradition indirecte. Le texte grec est suivi par un apparat complémentaire donnant les leçons des manuscrits mineurs et des notes critiques. / The purpose of the present thesis is to perform a research on the textual tradition and the critical edition of Aelius Aristides’ speech Εἰς Ῥώμην (To Rome) (2nd century CE). Delivered in Rome in 144 CE, this speech is a praise of the Roman Empire. The first critical edition of the speech was published by B. Keil in 1898; in the 20th century, two philologists prepared editions with critical text, based on the apparatus of Keil. The thesis consists of a general introduction and two parts, followed by the bibliography, and four appendices. The first part explains the research on the textual tradition of the speech, and is structured in six chapters. The second part consists of the critical edition of the speech To Rome, with critical apparatus and the testimonies of the indirect tradition. The Greek text is followed by a complementary apparatus offering the variant readings of the minor manuscripts and some critical notes.