Dans la floraison d’écrits monastiques produits au IVe siècle, les Ascetica attribués à Basile de Césarée ont tenu une place particulière, qui est bien connue. Pourtant, la formation du corpus asceticum, le processus d’éditions multiples dont il a été l’objet, mais aussi les options doctrinales qu’il diffuse n’ont pas été éclaircis de façon satisfaisante. Sur la base d’éléments textuels jusqu’ici négligés, le présent travail se propose de réécrire l’histoire du texte et d’interroger la paternité basilienne de la collection. Il existe, en effet, depuis le Ve siècle au moins et jusqu’à l’époque moderne, un courant minoritaire qui doute de l’opportunité d’attribuer le « livre ascétique » au grand Basile et préfère lui donner pour auteur un autre évêque du IVe siècle, Eustathe de Sébaste, moins estimé de la tradition ecclésiastique. Si le doute sur la paternité basilienne des Ascetica est permis, alors il convient de réévaluer la place de Basile de Césarée dans l’histoire littéraire du mouvement monastique. C’est ce que nous nous proposons de faire dans cet ouvrage, en relisant de près des pièces littéraires qui, jusqu’à présent, n’étaient présentées que comme des « annexes » au dossier des Ascetica. / The Ascetica transmitted under the name of Basil of Caesarea have a special importance among the numerous monastic writings which emerged in the 4th century. If this point is very well-known, the gathering of the corpus asceticum, the multiple antique editions of the collection, and the doctrinal options which are found in this sum have not been really enlightened. On the basis of neglected textual and paleographic evidence, the present work aims at rewriting the history of the text and questioning the basilian paternity of the collection. From the 5th century to the Modern Times, some readers refused the attribution of the Ascetica to Basil the Great and preferred to ascribe them to another (but problematic) bishop of the 4th century: Eustathius of Sebasteia. If there are good reasons to reject the basilian paternity of the collection, it is necessary to reevaluate the role played by Basil of Caesarea in the literary history of the monastic movement. In the present volume, I try to re-read some literary texts which, until now, were just regarded as appendices to the dossier of the Ascetica.

This thesis is about ‘military manuals’ produced in the first few centuries of the Roman imperial period. It argues that these texts merit far more attention and appreciation than they have received in the scholarship so far. I will explore areas such as the way in which their authors order and rank Greek and Roman knowledge, engage with ideas about knowledge and power, help construct identity and discuss ethics and behavior. In the first chapter I will determine whether the authors operate within a specific ‘genre’, or ‘genres’, of military writing. Then I will explore how the texts relate to other traditions of technical texts, questions of audience, and finally the issue of their practicality. The second chapter will examine how authors tackle the issue of ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ knowledge, categorize, rank and use it for self-promotion. We will see how Roman knowledge is both subverted but also praised, and how Greek knowledge is at the same time placed above Roman knowledge and integrated into a narrative of continuity with it. The third chapter will focus on the use of Greek knowledge in the construction of Roman identity. I will explore how ‘manuals’ play a part in the identity of the Roman Empire, fitting into a picture of unity in diversity, and show how they contribute to Hadrian’s self-presentation. The fourth chapter will examine the ethical component in manuals. I will determine whether there was an ethical code of conduct in battle in the Classical world and whether it was different from general ethical norms. Then, we will examine whether our texts engage in any way with this ‘code’ and whether their individual approaches have anything in common or are fundamentally different.

On conserve un nombre inhabituellement élevé de manuscrits ayant appartenu à la bibliothèque du chapitre cathédral de Lyon au IXe siècle, dont bon nombre ont été personnellement utilisés ou produits par le principal acteur de la vie intellectuelle lyonnaise de l’époque, le diacre Florus (floruit v. 825–855). Comme on connaît par ailleurs plusieurs grandes compilations rassemblées également par lui, Florus représente pour nous une double occasion particulièrement rare d’étudier la bibliothèque d’une école cathédrale carolingienne et les méthodes de travail d’un intellectuel de ce temps. Les comparaisons et les nombreux recoupements que permet cette situation étayent et alimentent notre connaissance des livres qu’on utilisait et qui circulaient à l’époque, mais aussi des hommes qui les lisaient et les échangeaient, et des conditions dans lesquelles le travail de Florus a pu passer dans la tradition manuscrite des Pères (première partie). Ces analyses nous peignent Florus un homme de son temps, formé dans un certain milieu à de certaines méthodes, mais que son expérience et ses goûts poussèrent à faire évoluer, tout au long de sa carrière, ses propres méthodes au service de ses propres projets (seconde partie). Un travail d’historiographie est aussi proposé, qui n’avait pas encore été entrepris, et qui fait apparaître les voies de la redécouverte de Florus au cours du XVIIe siècle, puis au XXe. La place de Florus et de sa bibliothèque d’usage, dans l’histoire intellectuelle et dans l’histoire de la transmission des textes antiques, en ressort mieux circonscrite et qualifiée plus précisément, en même temps que se dévoile le cours de sa propre évolution intellectuelle. / An unusual amount of manuscripts that belonged to the Cathedral library of Lyons in the IXth century has been preserved, among which a number were firsthand used or produced by its prominent intellectual figure, the deacon Florus (floruit ca. 825—855). As we also know several large compilations that were gathered by the very same, Florus represents a rare double opportunity to investigate both a Carolingian cathedral library and the work methods of a Carolingian scholar. Numerous comparisons and crosscheckings can strengthen and supply informations regarding the books that were used and circulated at the time, but also regarding the men that read and circulated them, and clarify how Florus’s work on the Fathers has spread in the manuscript tradition (first part). Such analyses depict Florus as a man of his time, who was educated in a certain environment and to use certain methods; but who was then driven, all along his career, by his own experience and taste, to evolve his own methods in the pursuing of his own projects (second part). A historiography study is also held, which was never undertaken before, and reveals the how and why of Florus’s rediscovery in the XVIIth century, and then again in the XXth. Florus’s part and his work library’s, in the intellectual history and in the history of ancient texts transmission, is thus better circumscribed and more precisely described, as is unvailed the course of his own intellectual evolution.