La biographie intellectuelle de François Picavet (1851-1921) fournit l’occasion d’explorer les débuts de l’histoire de la philosophie médiévale en tant que discipline institutionnalisée, en France, de 1880 à 1920. Figure oubliée du médiévisme philosophique, Picavet fut maître de conférence à l’EPHE (section des sciences religieuses) dès 1888, puis directeur d’études à partir de 1907, secrétaire du Collège de France en 1904 et chargé de cours en histoire des philosophies médiévales à la Faculté des lettres de la Sorbonne dès 1906.Le parcours académique de Picavet s’inscrit dans un contexte particulier, qui voit l’histoire de la philosophie médiévale s’implanter de façon structurée et stable dans l’enseignement supérieur français. De même que d’autres disciplines institutionnalisées, l’histoire de la philosophie médiévale tire profit de la nécessité d’une réforme profonde du système universitaire, articulée dans les sphères politiques et scientifiques dès les années 1860 puis prolongée sous l’impulsion de la IIIe République, et qui aboutit à l’émergence de nouvellesstructures institutionnelles dans l’enseignement supérieur français (fondation de l’EPHE en 1868, création de nouveaux enseignements à la Sorbonne, dont une charge de cours en histoire de la philosophie médiévale en 1906). L’historiographie originale de Picavet restreint la signification des questions philosophiques médiévales qui demeurent liées à leur contexte historique d’origine: chaque système philosophique est ainsi l’expression partielle d’une civilisation donnée, au même titre que les expressions scientifiques, artistiques et artisanales que celle-ci est en mesure de produire et qui la caractérisent. / The intellectual biography of François Picavet (1851-1921) is an opportunity to explore the early days of the history of mediaeval philosophy as an institutionalised discipline in France from 1880 to 1920. A forgotten figure of the study of mediaeval philosophy, Picavet was a lecturer at EPHE (Religious Sciences department) from 1888 and director of studies from 1907, secretary of the Collège de France in 1904 and lecturer in the history of mediaeval philosophy at the Arts Faculty of the Sorbonne from 1906 onwards. Picavet’s academic career took place within a particular context in which the history of mediaeval philosophy came to be established in a structured and stable manner in French higher education. Like other institutionalised disciplines, the history of mediaeval philosophy benefited from the need for deep-seated reform of the university system, which was expressed in political and scientific circles from around 1860 and continued under the Third Republic, resulting in the emergence of new institutional structures in French higher education (the foundation of EPHE in 1868 and the creation of new courses at the Sorbonne, including a history of mediaeval philosophy course in 1906). Picavet’s original historiography confines the significance of mediaeval philosophical questions, which remain bound to the historical context in which they originated: thus, every philosophical system is the partial expression of a given civilisation, just like the scientific, artistic and craft related expressions which it produces and which characterise it.

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.

This study considers Thomas Hoccleve’s role, throughout his works, as a “religious” writer: as an individual who engages seriously with the dynamics of heresy and ecclesiastical reform, who contributes to traditions of vernacular devotional writing, and who raises the question of how Christianity manifests on personal as well as political levels – and in environments that are at once London-based, national, and international. The chapters focus, respectively, on the role of reading and moralization in the Series; the language of “vice and virtue” in the Epistle of Cupid; the moral version of Chaucer introduced in the Regiment of Princes; the construction of the Hoccleve persona in the Regiment; and the representation of the Eucharist throughout Hoccleve’s works. One main focus of the study is Hoccleve’s mediating influence in presenting a moral version of Chaucer in his Regiment. This study argues that Hoccleve’s Chaucer is not a pre-established artifact, but rather a Hocclevian invention, and it indicates the transnational literary, political, and religious contexts that align in Hoccleve’s presentation of his poetic predecessor. Rather than posit the Hoccleve-Chaucer relationship as one of Oedipal anxiety, as other critics have done, this study indicates the way in which Hoccleve’s Chaucer evolves in response to poetic anxiety not towards Chaucer himself, but rather towards an increasingly restrictive intellectual and ecclesiastical climate. This thesis contributes to the recently revitalized critical dialogue surrounding the role and function of fifteenth-century English literature, and the effect on poetry of heresy, the church’s response to heresy, and ecclesiastical reform both in England and in Europe. It also advances critical narratives regarding Hoccleve’s response to contemporary French poetry; the role of confession, sacramental discourse, and devotional images in Hoccleve’s work; and Hoccleve’s impact on literary tradition.