Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-27T17:13:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2012-05-28. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2018-07-27T17:16:52Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 000901718.pdf: 1096974 bytes, checksum: 8120160a281138e459b3d4326f76f817 (MD5) / Esta tese tem por objetivo o estudo de duas obras literárias que têm como personagens cientistas criadores e suas criaturas artificiais. Trata-se das obras de Villiers de l'Isle-Adam (1838-1889) e de Mary Shelley (1797-1851), representadas pelos romances L'Ève future e Frankenstein, respectivamente. Para tanto, e em primeiro lugar, traçamos um histórico do desejo humano de criar uma criatura artificial perfeita desde a Antiguidade até os dias atuais. Em seguida, passamos à análise das referidas obras, caracterizando e comparando os criadores e suas respectivas criaturas, concluindo, ao final, o que ambas representam em termos metafóricos / This dissertation aims to study two literary works whose characters are creators scientists and their artificial creatures. The following novels are studied: L'Ève future by Villiers de l'Isle-Adam (1838-1889) and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1797-1851). Firstly, it was made a survey of the human desire to create a perfect artificial creature from Antiquity to nowadays. Secondly, we started to analyze such literary works, characterizing and comparing the creators and their creatures, and finally, getting the conclusion what both represent metaphorically

La sociologie a proposé une multitude d’explications sur divers phénomènes sociaux. Cependant, plusieurs sociologues, dont Boudon se sont surtout intéressés à l’aspect scientifique de la sociologie. Les questions les plus souvent posées lorsqu’on entreprend de telles études se penchent essentiellement sur le caractère scientifique de la discipline sociologique. Quels sont les critères de scientificité de la sociologie ? Quel est son sens épistémologique dans la littérature scientifique ? Quel est son raisonnement existentiel dans la construction du savoir ? La sociologie pourrait-elle être traitée méthodologiquement parlant au même titre que les autres disciplines des sciences naturelles ou particulières ? Si oui, pourrait-elle expliquer les lois des phénomènes sociaux à partir des observations hypothético-déductives sur la nature de la réalité sociale ? Dans cette thèse, nous tenterons de répondre à ces questions en nous appuyant sur des concepts élaborés par les sociologues classiques et contemporains.

L’orfèvre parisien Pierre Germain dit le Romain (Villeneuve-lès-Avignon, 1703-Paris, 1783), connu pour apublication des Éléments d’orfèvrerie, eut une carrière originale, passant sa jeunesse dans les ateliers d'orfèvres du roi,chez Thomas Germain (1726-1729), puis après un séjour à Rome (1729-1733), chez Jacques Roëttiers (1733-1736) avantde devenir apprenti chez Nicolas Besnier en 1736, et maître en 1744. Travaillant pour Roëttiers jusque vers 1755-1756,devenu grand messager juré de l’université, amateur d’estampes, il publie en 1748 le plus vaste recueil d’orfèvrerie dutemps, les Éléments d'orfèvrerie, cent planches de modèles religieux et civils de style rocaille, gravés par Bacquoy etPasquier, repris et copiés jusqu’au XIXe siècle jusqu’à l’étranger. Il publie aussi en 1751 un court Livre d'ornemens.Installé quai des orfèvres, à La Garde Royale, il produit peu, 1410 kg d’argent jusqu’à sa mort, de beaux ou simplesobjets. Quelques acquéreurs sont connus : Joseph Ier de Portugal en sous-traitance pour François Thomas Germain (1755-1756, 1765), les Wal de Baronville (1761-1763), les Wandalin Mnisech (1762-1764), la princesse des Asturies encollaboration avec Philippe Caffieri et Thomas Chancellier (1765), les Rocheblave (1777), le comte d’Artois et laprincesse de Ligne (1782). L’étude s’élargit aux artistes côtoyés : à Paris, ses maîtres Germain, Roëttiers, Besnier, sonconfrère Denys Frankson, ses apprentis Ange Joseph Aubert et Pontaneau ; à Avignon, les Clerc, Mézangeau et ClaudeImbert, ses parents les architectes J.-B. et François Franque et le menuisier facteur d’orgues Charles Boisselin ; àMarseille, les Durand, les Giraud et son neveu Antoine Germain. / The Parisian silversmith Pierre Germain the Roman (1703-1783). A career near the silversmiths of the king. The Parisian silversmith Pierre Germain the Roman (Villeneuve-lès-Avignon, 1703-Paris, 1783), known for his book the Éléments d’orfèvrerie, had an original career. During his youth he worked for the silversmiths of the king, Thomas Germain (1726-1729); and after some time in Rome (1729-1733), worked for Jacques Roettiers (1733-1736) and as an apprentice for Nicolas Besnier from 1736. Master in 1744, he kept working for Roettiers until 1755-1756. Great messenger of the University, fond of engravings, he published in 1748 the largest book of models of the time, Élémentsd’orfèvrerie, 100 plates of rococo religious and civil silverware, engraved by Bacquoy and Pasquier, reprinted and copied until the 19th century in France and abroad (London, Turin). He also published in 1751 a short Livre d’ornemens. Installed quai des orfèvres, he had a small production, 1410 kg of silver up to his death, beautiful or simple objects,including orders for Joseph I of Portugal under contract for François Thomas Germain (1755-1756, 1765), for the Wal de Baronville family (1761-1763), the princess of Asturias in collaboration with Philippe Caffieri and Thomas Chancellier (1765), the Wandalin Mnisech (1762-1764), the Rocheblave (1777), the count of Artois and the princess of Ligne (1782). This study also covers artists he knew well: in Paris, his masters Germain, Roettiers, Besnier, his collegue Denys Frankson, his apprentices Ange Joseph Aubert and Pontaneau; in Avignon, the Clerc and Mézangeau families and Claude Imbert, his parents the architects J.-B. and François Franque, the organ builder Charles Boisselin; in Marseille, the Durand and Giraud families and his nephew Antoine Germain.

Par un édit de janvier 1751 Louis XV créa l’Ecole royale militaire de Paris. Elle devait accueillir 500 boursiers du roi. En raison d’insuffisances notoires elle fut scindée en deux. Les enfants devaient acquérir les connaissances de base à La Flèche avant de rejoindre Paris. Ce système jugé coûteux fut réformé en 1776 par le comte de Saint-Germain. L’éducation des jeunes gens se fit, en province, dans des écoles tenues par des religieux puis à Paris ou dans des régiments. Peu de congrégations étaient susceptibles d’accueillir les boursiers ; celle de Saint-Maur obtint 6 collèges dont Pontlevoy. Quel enseignement y était donné ? Que lui apporta la présence de 50 boursiers du roi, chaque année, entre 1777 et 1793 ? Outre la réponse à ces questions, il fallait s’intéresser aux boursiers eux-mêmes, à leur origine, à leurs parents et à leurs revenus. Les règles de l’édit furent-elles respectées ? Les réformes de Saint-Germain visaient à améliorer le sort de cette noblesse provinciale, à récompenser ses talents. Le but fut-il atteint ? / It was not until 1751 when Louis XV succeeded in establishing the Ecole royale militaire de Paris, intending to enroll 500 disadvantaged noble youths. Due to well-known learning deficiencies among many of the pupils, the school was split in two. Younger students studied at the lower school in La Flèche before being sent to Paris. Saint-Germain reformed this costly system in 1776, ordering that the first level of education be entrusted to twelve monastery colleges, spread among the provinces. Afterwards, the king’s pupils would go on to Paris or would enter the army. Few religious orders disposed of the means necessary to educate these pupils. The Benedictine order of Saint-Maur took charge of six colleges. Among them was Pontlevoy. What kind of education should be provided? What economic impact would be caused by the arrival of the new pupils? Additionally, who were these pupils, what was their parents’ income? Did the established rules abide by the terms of the law? Did Saint-Germain achieve his goal of promoting the talents of the king’s pupils and of enhancing the status of the provincial nobility?

Thèse--Paris. / Includes bibliographical references.

Laurent de Montchenu naît le 14 décembre 1726 dans le Dauphiné dans une famille de noblesse ancienne. Après ses études à Louis le Grand, il devient page de la Petite Écurie puis de la Grande Écurie de 1742 à 1745. Puis il rentre dans les gardes du corps du roi, compagnie Écossaise. Son mariage en 1763 avec Marie-Angélique de Busson de Bussy, lui apporte l’aisance financière. En 1780, il est nommé commandant en second en Vivarais, et s’installe à Tournon jusqu’en 1789. Il bénéficie de la proximité du château familial à Châteauneuf-de-Galaure. Sous les ordres de Gabriel Marie de Talleyrand Périgord dit le comte de Périgord, commandant en chef du Languedoc, il travaille aussi avec le vicomte de Cambis, commandant en second à Montpellier, qu’il remplace plusieurs fois. Il assure également le remplacement du comte de Périgord pour le retour du Parlement à Toulouse en 1788. Laurent de Montchenu reçoit l’aide précieuse du commandant particulier Jean Bruno Frévol de La Coste, et des subdélégués de l’intendance ainsi que du commandement. Sa fonction de commandant en second apparaît dans sa correspondance qui comprend plus de 3200 lettres entre 1780 et 1789, dont 800 pour les années 1788 et 1789. Cette correspondance dévoile ses différents interlocuteurs et révèle son rôle de commandant en second centré sur la vie militaire et la sûreté et sécurité publique dans la région troublée du Vivarais. En 1789, alors que Laurent de Montchenu espère une promotion avec le départ du vicomte de Cambis, le système administratif de l’Ancien Régime disparaît. Il rentre à Paris et meurt le 15 avril 1802 dans son hôtel rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré. / Laurent de Montchenu was born in the Dauphiné on 14 December 1726 to an old aristocratic family. After completeing his secondary education at Louis le Grand, he became a page boy at the Petite Écurie and then at the Grande Écurie from 1742 to 1745. His career then led him to the Scottish Ensigns. His wedding to Marie-Angélique de Busson de Bussy in 1763 ensured his financial well-being. In 1780 he was appointed second-in-command in Tournon, in the Vivarais region, a post which he kept until 1789. There he enjoyed the proximity of the Châteauneuf-de-Galaure family castle. Laurent de Montchenu was under the orders of Garbiel Marie de Talleyrand Périgord, known as Count of Périgord, who was the commander-in-chief of the Languedoc region. He worked with the Viscount of Cambis, second-in-command in Montpellier, whom he replaced several times. He stood in for the Count of Périgord to ensure the return of the Toulouse Parliament in 1788. He received precious help from Special Commander Jean Bruno Frévol de la Coste. He was also helped by the subdelegates of the Supply Corps and of the Command as well as by the constabulary. His role as second-in-command appears in his correspondence, which contains over 3200 letters for the period going from 1780 to 1789 and 800 just for the 1788-1789 period. These letters show who his various interlocutors were and describe his role as second-in-command, which revolved around military life and consisted in ensuring public safety and order in the often troubled Vivarais region. In 1789, just as Laurent de Montchenu was hoping for promotion after the departure of the Viscount of Cambis, the administrative system of the Ancien Regime disappeared. He returned to Paris and died in April 1802 in his Montchenu mansion on rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré.

Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Jacques-Antoine-Hippolyte, comte de Guibert (1743-1790) dedicated his life and career to creating a new doctrine for the French army. Little about this doctrine was revolutionary. Indeed, Guibert openly decried the anarchy of popular participation in government and looked askance at the early days of the Revolution. Rather, Guibert’s doctrine marked the culmination of an evolutionary process that commenced decades before his time and reached fruition in the Réglement of 1791, which remained in force until the 1830s. Not content with military reform, Guibert demanded a political and social constitution to match. His reforms required these changes, demanding a disciplined, service-oriented society and a functional, rational government to assist his reformed military. He delved deeply, like no other contemporary writer, into the linkages between society, politics, and the military throughout his career and his writings. Guibert exerted an overwhelming influence on military thought across Europe for the next fifty years. His military theories provided the foundation for military reform during the twilight of the Old Regime. The Revolution, which adopted most of Guibert’s doctrine in 1791, continued his work. A new army and way of war based on Guibert’s reforms emerged to defeat France’s major enemies. In Napoleon’s hands, Guibert’s army all but conquered Europe by 1807. As other nations adopted French methods, Guibert’s influence spread across the Continent, reigning supreme until the 1830s. This dissertation adopts a biographical approach to examine Guibert’s life and influence on the creation of the French military system that led to Napoleon’s conquest of Europe. As no such biography exists in Anglophone literature, such a work will fill a crucial gap in understanding French military success to 1807. It examines the period of French military reform from 1760 to the creation and use of Napoleon’s Grande Armée from 1803 to 1807, illustrating the importance of Guibert’s systemic doctrine in the period. Moreover, the work argues that Guibert belongs in the ranks of authors whose works exerted a primary influence on the French Enlightenment and Revolution by establishing Guibert as a “Great Man” of the Republic of Letters between 1770 and his death in 1790.