Cette thèse de doctorat étudie la manière dont Aristote, Platon et Isocrate font du recours à la notion d’empeiria et de la promotion d’une certaine conception de l’expérience, le moyen de se défendre contre l’accusation d’inexpérience qui les vise et de polémiquer entre eux sur la question de l’excellence, dans les domaines théorique, technique et pratique. Cet examen permet d’éclairer sous un jour nouveau la question de l’empirisme antique, en considérant, d’une part, la critique que Platon et Aristote adressent à une certaine conception empirico-sophistique des savoirs et de la pratique, en reconsidérant de l’autre, le supposé empirisme d’Aristote. Si la notion d’empirisme n’a pas d’équivalent en grec, Platon fait de la notion d’empeiria, désignant une forme de pratique non-technique ignorant les causes, un instrument polémique permettant de souligner le défaut de technicité des différentes techniques, que les sophistes se font forts de transmettre. En mettant l’accent sur « l’expérience de la vérité », Platon remet en question l’empirisme de ceux qui ignorent la valeur théorique et pratique de la connaissance des réalités intelligibles. Aristote poursuit la réflexion, en reconsidérant le rôle positif, cognitif et pratique, de l’empeiria comme connaissance acquise à partir de la sensation. Aristote poursuit la critique d’un certain empirisme, dont se rendent coupables tous ceux qui échouent à s’élever à la connaissance de l’universel, tout en déplorant le défaut d’empeiria de ceux dont le savoir est purement théorique. Si comme Platon, Aristote n’est pas un empiriste, parce qu’il refuse de faire de la sensation le principe de la connaissance et le critère du vrai, son rationalisme diffère de celui de Platon, par le rôle reconnue à la sensation et l’expérience dans les domaines théorique, technique et pratique. Cette étude entend révéler l’urgence de distinctions en philosophie de la connaissance dans le cadre des études anciennes, comme la distinction entre le rationalisme logique de Platon et le rationalisme empirique d’Aristote, par exemple, permettant de mesurer l’originalité des doctrines antiques sur des problèmes aussi fondamentaux que l’origine et le principe de la connaissance et de l’action bonne. / This dissertation investigates how Aristotle, Plato and Isocrates use the notion of empeiria and promote a certain conception of experience, in order to defend themselves from the charge of inexperience made against them, and also in order to debate about the question of excellence in the theoretical, technical and practical fields. This study sheds some new lights on ancient empiricism, by investigating, on one hand, Plato’s and Aristotle’s criticism against an empiricist sophistic approach of knowledge and action, and, on the other hand, the so-called Aristotelian empiricism. Although the concept of ‘empiricism’ has no equivalent in Greek, Plato uses the notion of empeiria to designate a non-technical form of action, in order to underlie a lack of technicality and to question the value of what some sophists claim to teach under the name of technai. While insisting on a philosophical kind of experience of truth, Plato criticizes what appears to be the empiricism of those who ignore the theoretical and practical value of the knowledge of intelligible realities. Aristotle goes beyond this stance by re-evaluating positively the role of empeiria, both in its cognitive and practical aspects, as a specific kind of knowledge, derived from sense-perception. He still criticizes the empiricism of those who fail to reach a certain kind of knowledge, namely the knowledge of universals, but also adds a criticism against those who lack the knowledge of particulars acquired through sense-perception and experience.If Aristotle is no more an empiricist than Plato, since he does not recognize sense-perception as the principle of knowledge and as the criterion of the truth, his rationalism is quite different from Plato’s, because of the important role he gives to sense-perception and experience in all areas. This study intends to break through in the direction of some distinctions in ancient philosophy, such as the distinction between Plato’s logical rationalism and Aristotle’s empirical rationalism, which would enable us to re-evaluate the originality of the Ancients on some fundamental issues like the problem of the origin and principle of knowledge and of good action.

Before 1891, it was commonly accepted that the most important source for the rule of the Four Hundred in Athens in 411 BCE was Thucydides' description. The situation changed thanks to the publication of the Aristotelian treatise On the Athenian Constitution, whose version of events differed markedly from Thucydides' one. There followed many attempts at determining which of the two versions was most reliable, or at combining the two versions. These controversies are the focal point of this thesis, but its ambitions are not limited to them: its ambition is also to reconstruct the chronology of the rule of the Four Hundred as precisely as is possible in context of the Peloponnesian war; and to formulate the limitations that are imposed on us by the character of sources at our disposal. Continuity of the coup with earlier developments and its impact on subsequent events are dealt with more briefly.

214 Abstract Conceptualization of Mores in Seventeenth-Century French Tragedy This thesis is devoted to the study of interpretations of how tragic characters should be portrayed ("mores", "ethos", "mœurs") in French seventeenth-century theories on Tragedy. The theoretical writings of Jean Chapelain, La Mesnardière, Pierre Corneille, d'Aubignac, René Le Bossu, Rapin, Saint-Évremond, Jean Racine and André Dacier are examined in detail. Their findings are compared with the Latin and Italian commentaries on how the Aristotelian notion "character" ("éthé", "éthos") ought to be perceived and understood and what its impact is on dramatic action. The main focus is paid to the detailed analysis of very divergent and often incompatible interpretations of the four Aristotelian conditions outlined briefly in Chapter XV of Poetics and on how the French theorists and dramatists responded to Aristotle's requirements. The first condition requires dramatic character to be "good of its kind" ("chrestos", "ethos" "chreston", "ethe chresta"). The detailed study of contemporary criticism draws us to a conclusion that there are schematically two approaches on how the French theorists conceptualized this very elusive criterion. Whereas Chapelain in his Préface à l'Adone explicitely rejects the moral meaning of "chrestos" and thus...

La théorie classique du contrat et ses corollaires, l’autonomie de la volonté des parties et le principe de la stabilité des contrats, ont longtemps régné en droit des obligations. Depuis l’introduction du Code civil du Québec, la notion de bonne foi a été l’objet de plusieurs textes de doctrine et de plusieurs décisions judiciaires phares. La notion est considérée comme l’outil de prédilection des juristes pour assurer une meilleure justice contractuelle, parfois pour développer des théories allant à l’encontre du principe de la stabilité des contrats. Or, le récent arrêt Churchill Falls nous enseigne que la bonne foi a ses propres contours et ne peut donc pas être utilisée en dehors des limites qui lui sont intrinsèques. Dans ce travail, la notion de bonne foi est revisitée conjointement avec la notion d’équité afin de présenter leurs paramètres fondamentaux initiaux, leurs mutations et leurs portées actuelles en droit civil québécois. Bien que ces deux outils contribuent à assurer une meilleure justice commutative dans les échanges, la bonne foi a ce l’équité n’a pas : une synchronicité avec les principes de stabilité des contrats et d’autonomie de la volonté. Cette constatation peut expliquer la mise au placard de l’équité à titre d’outil de justice dans le régime général des obligations. Ainsi, en filigrane, il appert que la stabilité des contrats demeure une valeur prédominante du législateur malgré les allures d’une nouvelle moralité du droit des obligations. / The classical theory of contract and its corollaries, the autonomy of the parties' will and the principle of the stability of contracts, have ruled the law of obligations for long. Since the introduction of the Civil Code of Québec, the notion of good faith has been the subject of several doctrinal texts and landmark judicial decisions. The notion is considered as the preferred tool of jurists to ensure a better contractual justice, sometimes to develop theories that run counter to the principle of the stability of contracts. However, the Supreme Court in its judgment Churchill Falls decision teaches us that good faith has its own contours and therefore cannot be used outside its intrinsic limits. In this paper, the notion of good faith is revisited in conjunction with the notion of equity to present their initial fundamental parameters, their mutations, and their current scope in Quebec civil law. Although both tools contribute to ensuring better commutative justice in exchanges, good faith has what equity does not: synchronicity with the principles of stability of contracts and autonomy of the will. This observation may explain the shelving of equity as a tool of justice in the general regime of obligations. Thus, it appears that the stability of contracts remains a predominant value of the legislator despite the appearance of a new morality in the law of obligations.