No description available.

Deux questions largement discutées par les médiévistes concernant Boèce de Dacie consistent à savoir quels sont les enjeux de la censure dont ce philosophe fut l'une des principales cibles lors de la condamnation promulguée à Paris en 1277 par l'évêque Étienne Tempier et s'il a effectivement défendu, dans son De aeternitate mundi, une doctrine qualifiée par ces mêmes historiens de « double vérité ». Si cette expression n'a pas été forgée par Étienne Tempier lui-même, on retrouve néanmoins, dans le prologue de la condamnation de 1277, une formulation qui traduit l'esprit de cette expression en affirmant que certains enseignants disaient qu'une même chose est vraie selon la philosophie, mais fausse selon la foi catholique, de sorte que nous sommes en présence de deux vérités contraires. Malgré le consensus établi chez les historiens du XXe siècle voulant que Boèce de Dacie n'ait jamais défendu une telle doctrine, nous pensons que cette question reste d’actualité dans la mesure où le texte lui-même ne semble pas totalement clair en affirmant que si la foi dit vrai absolument, le philosophe dit également vrai, mais de manière relative à ses principes. Or, une telle conception ne va pas sans problème au regard de l’interprétation des principes régissant l’épistémologie de Boèce. Notre recherche a donc pour unique question d'éclaircir et d'élucider cette mise en accusation de « double vérité » au vu de ses différents textes ainsi que les différentes interprétations que son modèle a reçu. / There are two questions widely discussed by the medievalists about Boethius of Dacia. The first consist in knowing what are the stakes of the censorship of which this philosopher was one of the main targets during the condemnation promulgated in Paris in 1277 by the bishop Etienne Tempier. The second ask if Boethius actually uphold, in his De aeternitate mundi, a doctrine qualified by these same historians as ‘‘double truth’’. If this expression was not coined by Etienne Tempier himself, we nevertheless find, in the prologue to the condemnation of 1277, a formulation which translates the spirit of this expression by affirming that certain teachers said that the same thing is true according to philosophy, but false according to the Catholic faith, so that we are in the presence of two contradictory truths. Despite the consensus, established among historians of the twentieth-century, that Boethius of Dacia never defended such a doctrine, we believe that this question remains topical insofar as the text itself does not seem completely clear when it states that if faith absolutely says the truth, the philosopher also says the truth, but in a manner relative to his principles. However, such a conception is not without problems in regard to the interpretation of the principles governing the epistemology of Boethius. The sole question of our research is therefore to clarify and elucidate this indictment of ‘‘double truth’’ in view of its different texts as well as the different interpretations that his model received.

Univerzita Karlova v Praze Filozofická fakulta Ústav řeckých a latinských studií Latinská medievistika a neolatinská studia Abstract Francis of Meyronnesʼ Tractatus de passione Domini: Critical edition and analysis Školitel: doc. Mgr. Lucie Doležalová, M.A., Ph.D. 2015 Riccardo Burgazzi Abstract Francis of Meyronnes (1288 - 1328) was a theologian and a sermonist, disciple of John Duns Scotus. He studied at the University of Paris and taught in several provincial studia in France and in Italy. He became master of theology in 1323 and he was named Provincial Minister of Provence in 1324; later, he moved to Avignon, where he worked as a preacher and a counselor. Francis of Meyronnes wrote an impressive number of works that can be classified as philosophical, political, and devotional. Meyronnes' Tractatus de Passione Domini, the subject of this dissertation, could be dated between 1318 and 1320, when Francis was Baccalarius Biblicus in Paris. It was probably written for his brothers in order to provide them with a biblical commentary which could have been an instrument for helping them in the composition of their own sermons and works. As Tobias Kemper claims, the authors from the Late Middle Ages used to tell the Passion mainly in two ways: in form of "meditations" or in form of "narrative representations"....