Le but de cette thèse est de reconstruire l’ensemble des questionnements théoriques qui sont présupposés par les auteurs qui participent de la réception des Seconds Analytiques au XIIIème siècle. Étant donné que la doctrine contenue dans cet ouvrage d’Aristote est difficile à interpréter de manière systématique, il est inévitable que sa réception progressive ait été guidée par des questionnements métaphysiques et gnoséologiques plus ou moins partagés par les auteurs mentionnés. Ma recherche est une tentative pour retracer ces questionnements, le but étant de proposer une reconstruction systématique de l’ensemble de la théorie contenue dans les commentaires des Seconds Analytiques de la période mentionnée. Cette reconstruction systématique offre une vision unifiée de l’ensemble des thèmes traités grâce à l’identification d’une question générale qui déterminerait l’orientation des questions spécifiques. L’auteur sur lequel la plupart des analyses sont concentrées est Thomas d’Aquin, mais le but étant de comprendre les questions qui guident la tradition des commentaires du XIIIème, Robert Grosseteste et Albert le Grand ont une place spéciale dans cette recherche. La thèse proposée est que la question précise qui est censée être répondue par ces commentaires est celle de savoir quelles doivent être les caractéristiques d’une connaissance parfaite. Par conséquent, les doctrines développées dans ces commentaires ne chercheraient pas à proposer une méthode de connaissance certaine de la réalité. Les propriétés d’une démonstration concernant sa forme et le contenu des propositions qui la composent se limiteraient à décrire un idéal de connaissance parfaite. / The aim of this thesis is to reconstruct the set of theoretical questionings supposed by the authors who participate in Posterior Analytics’ reception during the 13th century. Considering that the doctrine contained in this Aristotle’s work is difficult to interpret in a systematical approach is inevitable that its progressive reception would have been guided by metaphysics and epistemological questionings, partially shared by these authors. The present research is an attempt to track down these questionings, with the objective of proposing a systematic reconstruction of the theory contained in the commentaries of the Posterior Analytics during that period. This systematic reconstruction offers a unified vision of the aspects assessed in this investigation. This due to the identification of a general question which would determine the orientation of specific ones. Thomas Aquinas is the author about whom most of the analyses are focused. But always considering the aim of comprehending questions which guide all this tradition of comments, two other comments have been studied: Robert Grosseteste and Alberto the Great. The thesis proposed is that the Posterior Analytics’ reception during the 13th century, reflects an attempt to answer the following question: which characteristics must a perfect knowledge possess? In accordance with this thesis, the doctrines developed in commentaries regarding this Aristotle’s work did not seek to propose a method of true knowledge of reality. The properties of a demonstration, regarding its shape and content of the propositions that compose it, would describe an ideal of perfect knowledge.

The problem scrutinized in this thesis is the relationship between Robert Grosseteste, mentioned in the colophon of William of Shoreham's "Song to Mary," and the author of said poem. The influence of Grosseteste on William of Shoreham appears to be extensive. Many similarities of organization, diction, and, especially, imagery, exist in the works of both men. The images of the windowpane, the mirror, and Mary as a castle are found in more than one instance in both Grosseteste's Chasteau d'Amour and in several of Shoreham's poems. Moreover, the borrowed imagery in Shoreham's poetry is unquestionably superior to any other in his works. It is the conclusion of this thesis that Robert Grosseteste was a considerable influence on the works of William of Shoreham.

Translations of works containing Arabic and ancient Greek knowledge of the philosophical and mechanical underpinnings of the natural world—a field of study called natural philosophy—were disseminated throughout twelfth-century England. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, institutional (ecclesiastical/university) scholars received and further developed this natural philosophical knowledge by reconciling it with Christian authoritative sources (the Bible and works by the Church Fathers). The subsequent discourse that developed demonstrated ambivalence towards natural philosophical knowledge; institutional scholars expressed both acceptance and anxiety regarding the theory and practice of alchemy, astrology/astronomy, and humoral/astrological medicine. While the institutional development and discourse surrounding natural philosophical thought is well-represented within medieval scholarship, an examination of the transmission and reception of this institutional discourse by broader sectors of English medieval society is needed. Examining fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Middle English public writings, texts, and copies of Latin works provides an important avenue of analysis when exploring the transmission and reception of institutional natural philosophical discourse to the laity. By comparing the similarities of discourse evident between the institutional and lay texts and the textual approaches the Middle English writers employed to incorporate this discourse, these works demonstrate that the spheres of institutional and lay knowledge traditionally separated by medieval historians overlapped as the clerics and laity began sharing a similar understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the natural world.