This thesis provides the first comprehensive study of an eminent but oft-overlooked Victorian polymath, with the overarching aims of assessing his contributions to nineteenth-century intellectual life and of exploring the mutual relations between science and religion in his work. One of the towering figures of the Victorian scientific establishment, William Carpenter (1813-1885), F.R.S, was a famous physiologist and public figure. He is most remembered for his concept of 'unconscious cerebration' which contributed to the emergence of the disciplines of neurology and modern psychology, but Carpenter was also noted amongst his peers for his evolutionary approach to the study of the unicellular marine invertebrates known as the foraminifera. As a lifelong practicing Unitarian, Carpenter's outspoken support for evolutionary theory made him an exemplary advocate of the compatibility between rational thought and Christian belief amidst the Victorian debate about science and religion. As the Registrar of the University of London during its formative years, Carpenter also had a nationwide impact on the fortunes of scientific education and secondary education as a whole. Finally, as a populariser of science and public moralist, "Dr. Carpenter" was also well known to the Victorian public as one of the most outspoken critics of spiritualism, alleged paranormal phenomena, and superstition more generally. Nevertheless, no systematic study of Carpenter's work had until now been carried out, and the commonly held view that he lacked originality as a scientist had not been fully questioned. The current study therefore aims to review Carpenter's achievements and trace his intellectual legacy. As an intellectual biography, it argues that focusing on the now lesser-known members of the British intelligentsia can shine new light on the context of the professionalization of science in Victorian Britain. In its focus on science and religion, this thesis argues that a deeper understanding of Carpenter's Unitarianism must feature at the heart of any endeavour to analyse his work. Previous references to Carpenter either bypassed Unitarianism and its nineteenth-century transformations, or reduced Unitarian thought to certain core tenets that fell short of uncovering Carpenter's philosophical pursuits. Carpenter's Unitarianism is still often equated with the rationalism and mortalism that defined late eighteenth-century Unitarianism, and this failure to recognise how much Carpenter's own faith had departed from earlier strands of Unitarian belief has led to some misinterpretations of his motives. The current thesis therefore offers fresh interpretations of Carpenter's work, based on new archival material and recent historical studies of the shifting priorities shaping the more romantic and emotional spirituality of nineteenth-century Unitarianism. Taking an integrative approach to Carpenter's various projects makes it possible to show how seminal many of his ideas were, and how his Unitarianism, both in its social and spiritual dimensions, influenced his professional, political and intellectual choices. The biographical angle taken in this thesis also makes it possible to uncover a degree of epistemological coherence underpinning Carpenter's thought, and to argue that Carpenter's efforts to transcend conflicting viewpoints partook of his wider social and metaphysical aims.

No description available.

Aujourd’hui encore, notre vie politique est organisée autour de la relation de commandement à obéissance à laquelle nous oblige la souveraineté politique. Mais ce rapport d’obligation est une forme particulière du pouvoir politique, qui émerge au XVIe siècle à travers la pensée de Bodin, dans une conjoncture historique précise. Comment ce concept, renvoyant à l’obéissance absolue et inconditionnée des « francs sujets » à leur Souverain, a-t-il pu être conservé par les sociétés démocratiques modernes? L’indivisibilité et la transcendance de ce pouvoir peuvent-elles exprimer la souveraineté du peuple? C’est une première métamorphose de ce concept qui est requise pour traduire la forme républicaine instituée suite aux deux révolutions américaine et française du XVIIIe siècle. Se pose alors la question de savoir comment conjuguer la nécessaire obéissance aux pouvoirs publics avec la liberté humaine. L’obligation d’obéir à laquelle nous sommes tenus par l’autorité souveraine n’est-elle pas en effet assimilable à une limitation de cette liberté? Et tout pouvoir ne tend-il pas, par nature, à s’hypertrophier? Comment assurer les citoyens de la préservation de leurs droits subjectifs, tout en veillant à leur coexistence en communauté? L’étude la république fédérale américaine permet d’appréhender l’interaction particulière qui existe entre une certaine représentation des fonctions du pouvoir politique, et une dynamique sociale puissante et entreprenante. En divisant la souveraineté, les Américains en contredisent un des traits posés comme essentiels, provoquant ainsi sa deuxième métamorphose. Jusqu’où peut-on alors aller dans la remise en cause des attributs souverains, sans perdre la relation de pouvoir spécifique qu’elle inaugure / Even today, our political life is built on an interaction between command and submission, to which we are bound by political Sovereignty. But it is a particular form of the political power, that raised in the 16th century with Bodin’s intellectual contribution, from a precise historical juncture. How this concept, referring to the absolute and unconditional submission from the « free subjects » to the Sovereign, also pertains to modern democratic societies? Are the indivisibility and transcendence of this power appropriate to express people’s sovereignty too? Identifying a first metamorphosis of this concept is necessary, while assessing its transcription into the republican form of government set up by the two American and French Revolutions in the 18th century. Then it became relevant to question how to combine the necessary obedience to public powers with human liberty. Isn’t the obligation to submit to which we are compelled by a sovereign autority, a limitation of this liberty? Isn’t it in the nature of every power to turn abnormally large and invasive? How to ensure both the preservation of the subjective rights of the citizens and the citizen’s coexistence in a society? The study of the American Federal Republic allows us to describe the particular interaction between a certain representation of the political power’s fonctions, and an efficient enterprising social dynamic. By dividing the sovereignty, the Americans contradict one of its essential presumed features, initiating its second metamorphosis. To what extend, then, can we challenge the attributes of sovereignty, without losing the specific relation of power that its inception inaugurated