Thesis advisor: Robert C. Bartlett / This study examines Dante Alighieri's presentation of the relation between Church and State and of their foundations in either the Christian faith or philosophic reason. It seeks to demonstrate how Dante's unmodern acceptance of a teleological understanding of the world and man’s place in it allows him to distinguish the two while also showing how both work together even as they understand differently the role that reason should play in human life. It is because of this distinction that Dante's Monarchia shares in the political principle of “separation” that underlies the secular regimes of the West, thereby making his work immediately accessible to modern-day readers. It is because of the way reason and faith also work together in his political treatise, however, that Dante does not endorse, as readers today would, the further separation of his State from Society. This is because for Dante the very ideas of Church and State not only presuppose the existence of the highest goods of man -namely, that terrestrial good that pertains to man insofar as he is a natural being, and that spiritual good that pertains to man insofar as he is a creature capable of being transfigured by the divine grace of God. They also are intended to embody and publicly promote these two goods. Thus for Dante the Church is meant to help man attain his immortal end, which consists in the supernatural act of seeing God "face to face," while the State is meant to help man attain his mortal end, which consists in grasping philosophic truths. And so it is for these teleological and illiberal reasons that Dante's work remains as inaccessible as it does familiar to readers today. Yet it is by virtue of his refusal to forge our distinctively modern course, and so because of his acceptance of an "outdated" Aristotelian principle of teleology, that Dante's philosophic politics establishes a clearer demarcation between Church and State or reason and faith than modern political philosophies do. His Monarchia is therefore an invaluable guide for all those who wish to acquire a better understanding of the nature and limit of each. This latter claim can prove to be true, however, only if the end of his treatise is understood in light of what many scholars have either ignored or denied in their reading of the Monarchia, and that is Dante’s "Latin Averroism." / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2015. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

La question d’un monde créé sans commencement ou, comme on le dit souvent, le problème de « l’éternité du monde », a été l’occasion d’une vive controverse entre les penseurs latins du XIIIe siècle, dont saint Thomas d’Aquin. Nonobstant sa foi avérée en une création avec un commencement, Thomas, théologien et philosophe catholique, s’est interrogé tout au long de sa carrière : « Aurait-il été possible que Dieu créât un monde sans commencement ? » Cette persévérance est suffisamment paradoxale pour attirer l’attention, d’autant que Thomas, en sa réponse, s’opposait à la grande majorité de ses contemporains.Après une courte partie introductive qui brosse à grands traits et sans prétention le contexte historique, sont donc présentés les onze textes thomasiens traitant de la durée du monde, et spécialement de la possibilité d’un monde créé sans commencement, en leur langue latine ainsi qu’en une traduction française originale. Puis sont analysés les arguments présentés par Thomas, et les questions qu’ils peuvent soulever. Si les rapports entre la philosophie et la foi, comme entre la philosophie et la science, entrent en ligne de compte, les notions de causalité naturelle et de causalité volontaire, de fini et d’infini, de création divine et d’action humaine, de temps et d’éternité, de démonstration rationnelle et d’argument de convenance, constituent le cœur de cette élucidation philosophique.Au terme de la démarche, il apparaît que, pour saint Thomas d’Aquin, si le monde, en fait, a été créé avec un commencement (c’est pour lui une certitude de foi), en droit il aurait pu être créé sans aucun commencement (et c’est pour lui une affirmation légitime de la raison). / The question of a world created without beginning or, as is often said, the problem of « the eternity of the world », was the occasion of a controversy between the latin thinkers of the thirteenth century, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Despite his unquestionable faith in a creation with a beginning, Thomas, catholic theologian and philosopher, wondered throughout his life : « Would it have been possible that God created a world without beginning ? » This perseverance is paradoxical enough to attract attention, especially as Thomas, in his reply, was opposed to the vast majority of his contemporaries.After a short and unpretentious introduction that describes historical context, eleven thomasians texts dealing with the duration of the world are presented, and especially the possibility of a world created without beginning, in the original latin and in a new french translation. Then the arguments given by Thomas are analyzed, as well as the issues they may raise. If the relationship between philosophy and faith, and between philosophy and science, are taken into account, the concepts of natural causality and voluntary causality, finite and infinite, divine creation and human action, time and eternity, rational demonstration and argument of convenience, are the heart of this philosophical elucidation.At the end of the process, it appears that, for Aquinas, if the world, in fact, was created with a beginning (this is for him a certainty of faith), nevertheless it could have been created without a beginning (and this is for him a legitimate statement of reason).

La thèse porte sur la réflexion de Ratzinger sur la "raison". La critique de la raison moderne, ainsi que l'éléboration d'un modèle alternatif de raison, permet de cerner les enjeux de la théologie de Ratzinger et de saisir le fil conducteur de ses nombreuses batailles. / Doctorat en Philosophie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

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.