This bachelor thesis engages in the question of silence in the writings of Fenno-Swedish modernists Mirjam Tuominen and Gunnar Björling, silence being understood as both a poetic theme and a question of literary form. Alongside this exposition runs a discussion about the possibilities and impossibilities of interpretation in the field of academic literary studies. This query is connected to the different ideological positions of the two writers, conjoined by ideas about anti-comprehensibility. Considering certain weaknesses of classical hermeneutics as well as the theory of deconstruction, especially in the case of reading poetry, this thesis tries to point out possible routs for a practice of a more dynamic interpretation, with special regard to understanding the trope of silence in the modernist poetry of Tuominen and Björling. The composition explicitly applies a ”method of wandering” inspired by Maurice Blanchot’s understanding of the priests of Dionysus in Hölderlin’s writings – maundering in the holy night – as a metaphor for a critique-in-the-creating. This complies to Theodor W. Adorno’s idea of the aporetic situation of the interpreter and the unsolvable conflict between scientific discourse and art understood as a medium of truth in a more radical sense. The study aspires to perform a dialogue between different faculties of interpretation, and to make this dialogue viewable, so that the question of understanding remains ambiguous in line with the poetics of Tuominen and Björling. The results that follow bare the mark of aporia, but points towards a possible reading of silence (in Björling’s and Tuominen’s writings) as connected to a certain kind of sensibility and confidence in the immanence of truth in existence.

The aim of this work is to introduce Gregory of Nyssa's doctrine of man as the image of God, based especially on his work Περ κατασκευ ς νθρώπουὶ ῆ ἀ (De hominis opificio). In his work Gregory created quite a systematic anthropological treatise based on Stoic sources, Biblical interpretations inspired by Philo of Alexandria and Origen, as well as on ancient medicine. In contrast to the ancient philosophical school views concerning human being, Gregory refuses the parallel of man as a small world and says that the dignity of man consists not in being similar to the created world, but to the Creator. There are many attributes that constitute human similarity to God, but especially due to the incomprehensibility man is the image of God. The incomprehensibility consists in human mind (νο ςῦ ) in which the human likeness to God can most apparently be recognized. It cannot be placed anywhere in the body and the connection between mind and body is, according to Gregory, unspeakable: the mind does not reside in any particular part of the body, but yet it acts in and is influenced by the whole body. The image of God is the whole mankind, from the first up to the last created human being. When the planned number of souls is completed, the time and everything that happens in time will come to an end. In the...

This thesis is a context-sensitive study of key epistemological commitments and concerns presented in Philo’s two series of exegetical writings. The major conclusion advanced in this thesis is that two theological epistemologies, distinct yet related, can be detected among these writings. The first epistemology is specific to the Allegorical Commentary. The second epistemology is specific to the ‘Exposition of the Law.’ The epistemology of the Allegorical Commentary reflects a threefold conviction: the sovereignty of God, the creaturely contingency of the human mind and its inescapable limitations. In conversation with key epistemological notions of his day, Philo develops this threefold conviction in exegetical discourses that are grounded in Pentateuchal texts portraying the God of Moses as both possessing epistemic authority and aiding the aspiring mind to gain purification and perfection in the knowledge of God. Guided by this threefold conviction, Philo enlists key metaphors of his day – initiation into divine mysteries and divine inspiration, among others –in order to capture something of the essence of Moses’ twofold way of ascending to the divine, an approach which requires at times the enhancement of human reason and at other times the eviction of human reason. The epistemology of the ‘Exposition’ reflects Philo’s understanding of the Pentateuch as a perfect whole partitioned into three distinct yet inseverable parts. Philo’s knowledge discourses in the ‘creation’ part of the ‘Exposition’ reflect two primary movements of thought. The first is heavily invested with a Platonic reading of Genesis 1.27 while the second invests Genesis 2.7 with a mixture of Platonic and Stoic notions of human transformation and well-being. Philo’s discourses in the ‘patriarchs’ segment reflect an interest in portraying the three great patriarchs as exemplars of the virtues of instruction (Abraham), nature (Isaac), and practice (Jacob) which featured prominently in Greek models of education. In the ‘Moses’ segment of the ‘Exposition,’ many of Philo’s discourses on knowledge are marked by an interest in presenting Moses as the ideal king, lawgiver, prophet and priest who surpasses Plato’s paradigm of the philosopher-king. In keeping with this view, Philo insists that the written laws of Moses represent the perfect counterpart to the unwritten law of nature. The life and laws of Moses serve as the paradigm for Philo to understand his own experiences of noetic ascent and exhort readers to cultivate similar aspirational notions and practices.

La confrontation du théâtre et de la liturgie est un lieu commun de la pensée. Il est un motif rhétorique récurrent chez les pères de l’Église pour définir a contrario et par surenchère le bon ethos du chrétien à l’Église. Ce tour de pensée ecclésiastique, typique de la synthèse augustinienne de la rhétorique antique et du christianisme, n’est pas seulement un héritage livresque au XVIIe siècle. Il est particulièrement pertinent à la vue des enjeux auxquels est confrontée l’Église catholique : elle doit répondre aux accusations protestantes, qui traitaient la messe de farce ; le théâtre renouvelé de l’antique se rétablit grâce au soutien du pouvoir, se sédentarise et devient un divertissement régulier. Cette banalité nouvelle fait de la Comédie, aux yeux des augustiniens, le lieu d’une « représentation vive » et continuelle des passions du monde, particulièrement de l’amour et de l’honneur : le théâtre apparaît comme une liturgie inversée. Là où les pratiques de piété sont censées amoindrir les passions et nourrir la foi, le théâtre excite les passions et étouffe l’esprit de prière. La querelle de la moralité au théâtre montre non seulement une concurrence morale, mais aussi psychique et affective. Les deux représentations prétendent susciter la présence d’esprit et « toucher » le cœur, voire lui « imprimer des mouvements ». La messe est qualifiée de « représentation vive du sacrifice de la croix », pendant laquelle le fidèle doit se remémorer vivement le sacrifice christique et sa signification grâce à une lecture allégorique, et se l’appliquer à lui-même. Par la considération et l’accomplissement de cérémonies, par la vocalisation des psaumes, le fidèle est invité à produire des « actes » du cœur pour s’unir à Jésus-Christ. Ce rapport au texte comme trace à suivre, et ce rapport au corps et à la voix comme media pour s’auto-exciter, expliquent pourquoi les comédiens professionnels sont condamnés par les dévots : ils excitent en eux les passions contraires à l’Esprit saint, ils rappellent des sentiments qu’un pénitent ne pourrait pas se remémorer sans « horreur ». La « représentation » est alors conçue comme un effort de remémoration.Le rétablissement du théâtre à l’antique nécessitait un discours pour en éclairer les visées et en légitimer l’existence dans une société chrétienne et monarchique. Traduire la mimesis aristotélicienne par « représentation » plutôt que par « imitation » rendait le théâtre beaucoup plus proche de la liturgie et lui ajoutait les connotations de vue, de présence et de mémoire. Le débat entre plaire et instruire est un débat entre théâtre-divertissement et théâtre-cérémonie. Incomber au théâtre la fonction d’instruire, c’était le rapprocher d’une prédication et de la messe, car instruire, signifiait instruire chrétiennement. L’échec de sanctification du théâtre des années 1640 fit conclure à une incompatibilité du théâtre avec la folie et la modestie chrétienne, mais la possibilité d’une instruction civique par le théâtre émerge à la fin du siècle. Le théâtre participe de la construction d’une morale laïque. / The confrontation between liturgy and theater is a topos of the discourses which reveal deeply-rooted issues of representation in the seventeenth century. This commonplace had been a recurrent rhetorical device in the patristic sermons, where it emphasized the differences between Christianity and paganism. It is vigorously reactivated in seventeenth-century France as the Catholic Church faces its Calvinist critics, who accuse mass of being a comedy. Profane theater becomes a regular and professional kind of entertainment in the city and at the court, thanks to the protection of the royal power. This is why it is seen by Augustinians as a recurrent “lively representation” of the values of the world, such as love and honor, which are contradictory to the celestial Christian spirit. Treatises against Comedy written by Christian zealots reveal not only a moral, but also an emotional and psychological competition between liturgical practices and theater. Both “representations” try to force the presence of the mind and to touch, or even to print, the heart. The mass is then qualified as the “lively representation” of the Passion of the Christ, during which Catholic prayers must commemorate the mystery of divine sacrifice. By considering and acting out ceremonies, by vocalizing prayers, the believer is invited to produce certain acts of the heart and to unite with Christ, applying the Christ’s sacrifice to himself. Thus, the believer can be assimilated to an existential comedian on the divine stage : he actively involves his sensibility in the imitation of the great Christian model, by entering into the spirit of the psalms. This relationship to the text as a vestige to follow, this use of the voice and the body as mediums to excite devotion, explain the condemnation of the professional comedian by the Christian zealots (dévots). Indeed, the comedian is seen as someone who excites his own passions, playing a dangerous game with his heart and reminding himself of former worldly passions which can only lessen his faith.The reestablishment of theater questions the legitimacy, the definition and the goals of this art in a Christian society. Translating mimesis by “representation” and not “imitation” brought the theater closer to the liturgy. The discourses on theater in the 1620s and 1630s show that the authors tended to see a memorial, reiterative and visual dimension in theater that was not present in Aristotle. The debates finally conclude on the definition of theater as an honest form of entertainment rather than as a living form of instruction, namely because the latter was the responsibility of predication and mass. Saint Thomas could justify theater as a way of merely releasing the mind without interesting the heart or touching the soul ; at that time, indeed, instruction meant Christian instruction. In the 1640s, to please the devout Spanish queen Anne of Austria, several playwrights did attempt to call back the theater to its former institutional position by assimilating it with religious ceremony and creating sanctified tragedies. But this attempt failed for both poetic and political reasons. The disposition of the spectators in the city was not to be instructed. The theater was finally recognized as incompatible with Christian folly and modesty, but slowly participated in the formation of a secular morality in a new civic sphere.