I should like to have completed this process by having this project bound so that it read from right to left instead of the traditional manner in which we have learnt and been taught to read. In partaking of such an activity, it would have been my purpose and intention to share with you my sense of physical discomfort that has situated itself beside me at various stages from the on-set of my research. Because I believe in this process, I have decided to follow a traditional approach, and as you can see it reads as it should from left to right. In the introductory phase of this study, I assert quite unequivocally that this is not a thesis. Instead I promote this as a prolegomena; an interlocutory prolusion. But don't be deceived! This is very much a thesis. It has been researched according to guidelines, formatted according to specifications and ethically undertaken. I want you to believe that it is a thesis. Partially because I have pursued this research in a very serious manner and also because no matter how much we try to avoid becoming enmeshed in a system, ultimately we find that we are. Three years ago I embarked on a quest. At this time, I proposed that I would undertake a study on the Historical Understandings of passion throughout the Western World. This idea came to a sudden and dramatic halt, through the encountering of what I should like to refer to as a series of problems. In order to do justice to my subject, I decided to write about these obstacles, a decision that I hoped would lead me back to my original statement of intent, following their reconciliation. It is Michel Foucault, that I credit with the title for this thesis. After reading his book entitled "This Is Not A Pipe" (1982) I felt a certain sense of inspiration and ethical obligation that I considered worth taking the risk for. Due to no longer writing a thesis on passion, I decided that this could not be called a thesis. It could only be an introduction to my thesis that would speak about why it had become impossible for me to pursue my thesis at this stage. The other reason that this carries the title of this is not a thesis, surrounds my favouring the post-modern over any other position that I have inquired about. This prolusion involves a discussion surrounding many of the problematics associated with my research processes. These include extensively looking at existing methodologies available when undertaking research today. Adjunct to the illumination of these problems, I look at literary disruptions; my penchant for knowledge and my naive aspirations which all contributed to thwarting my journey into completing an adequate study on passion. Included in this prolegomena, are two diagrammatic representations of passion. The first seeks to re-inscribe through re-presenting passion away from its traditional juxtaposition with love or sexual gratification. It re-presents passion as a polyvalent movement that is vastly more complicated than that to which we have come to believe in through out the centuries. Accompanying this depiction, are the traditional notions of passion. This is based on the works of authors such as Aquinas, Daly, Cicero and McLellan. In the conclusion of this prolusion, I suggest that there is a need to re-write a new methodology. One that transcends our current juncture that promotes stances belonging to foundationalism, anti-foundationalism and non-foundationalism. It is my ardent belief, that this is a necessary course of action and will enable the subject of passion to be spoken to as never before.

Le raccolte epistolari di Felice Feliciano (1433-1479?) sono affidate a quattro manoscritti, di cui tre autografi e uno apografo; il corpus totale delle lettere ammonta a 189 pezzi, di cui 76 a testimoniale plurimo. Questo lavoro punta per la prima volta a ricostruire il quadro critico di questa complessa tradizione e a definire i prolegomena a una futura edizione degli epistolari. Il primo capitolo traccia il profilo biografico dell’autore e ne inquadra la produzione nel panorama dell’epistolografia quattrocentesca, mentre il secondo è dedicato alla descrizione codicologica e paleografica degli esemplari. Il terzo capitolo restituisce ogni epistolario a un contesto d’allestimento verosimile in una circostanza spazio-temporale precisa, sulla base dei dati interni a ciascun testimone. Il quarto capitolo contiene la trattazione complessiva e non più individuale degli epistolari, allo scopo di individuare una ratio organizzativa nell’assetto delle varie raccolte, tramite il riconoscimento di un’ossatura portante costituita da nuclei di lettere a testimoniale plurimo. Il quinto capitolo offre uno specimen editoriale, ovvero l’edizione critica commentata del nucleo individuato come il più antico, composto da 29 lettere e tramandato da tre mss. su quattro. L’elaborato termina con un’appendice nella quale, attraverso i regesti delle lettere, si propone il modello da seguire per la costruzione dell’edizione integrale degli epistolari felicianei. / The epistolary collections of Felice Feliciano (1433-1479?) are entrusted to four manuscripts, three autographs and one apograph; the total corpus of letters amounts to 189 pieces, 76 of which are in multiple attestation. This work aims for the first time to reconstruct the critical picture of this complex tradition and to fix the prolegomena for a future edition of the epistles. The first chapter traces the author’s biographical profile and sets his production against the panorama of 15th-century epistolography, while the second chapter is dedicated to the codicological and palaeographical description of the manuscripts. The third chapter restores each collection to a plausible setting in a precise space-time situation, on the basis of its internal features. The fourth chapter deals with the four books as a whole and no longer individually, with the aim of identifying a rational organisation in the arrangement of the various collections, through the recognition of a bearing framework made up of groups of letters in multiple attestation. The fifth chapter offers an editorial specimen, that is the critical commented edition of the group identified as the oldest, consisting of 29 letters and handed down by three out of four manuscripts. The thesis ends with an appendix in which, by means of the epistles’ registers, the model to be followed for the construction of the complete edition of Feliciano’s letters is proposed.

Ce mémoire porte sur les retraductions françaises du XXe siècle d’Al Moqaddima (Les Prolégomènes) (1377) d’Ibn Khaldoun, un traité historique et philosophique du XIVe siècle. La première traduction française, Les Prolégomènes, est réalisée par De Slane entre 1840 et 1863. Elle est suivie de deux retraductions, à savoir Discours sur l’histoire universelle (1967- 1968) réalisée par Vincent-Mansour Monteil, et Le Livre des Exemples I : Autobiographie, La Muqaddima (2002) réalisée par Abdesselam Cheddadi. L’objet de ce mémoire est de mener une analyse contextuelle, paratextuelle et discursive de ces deux retraductions de l’œuvre monumentale d’Ibn Khaldoun, afin de dégager les principaux facteurs déterminant, dans chaque cas, le choix de retraduire. Notre approche théorique s’inscrit dans le contexte récent de remise en cause de ladite « hypothèse de la retraduction » d’Antoine Berman, qui privilégie une analyse textuelle de l’œuvre (re)traduite en négligeant quelque peu l’analyse contextuelle éclairant les conditions de production des retraductions, et en limitant le positionnement du traducteur à sa relation envers la « vérité » du texte source. Ainsi, en retraçant l’histoire des différentes éditions des Prolégomènes au XXe siècle, en exposant le contexte qui entoure les retraductions, et en nous nous attachant aux stratégies discursives déployées par les traducteurs en marge de ces dernières, nous tenons compte des réflexions récentes sur les « causalités multiples » du phénomène de la retraduction, tout en montrant comment la subjectivité du traducteur, ses décisions et ses motivations sont reliées à tous les éléments extratextuels ou contextuels mis en valeur par les théoriciens. Nous montrons par notre analyse que les deux retraductions au corpus sont motivées par des facteurs internes au texte (tels que l’authenticité de leur original, une meilleure connaissance du texte, de la langue et de la culture source, la nécessité de corriger des erreurs dans les traductions antérieures), mais aussi par de nouveaux éléments externes au texte (tels que le changement de normes sociales, littéraires et traductionnelles, l’émergence de nouvelles interprétations du texte, le positionnement idéologique du retraducteur, sa volonté de s’imposer comme une autorité, etc.). La retraduction s’avère donc un phénomène complexe motivé par une combinaison de facteurs, à la fois internes (textuels), externes (contextuels) et personnels, propres au (re)traducteur. / This thesis studies the XXth-century French retranslations of Ibn Khaldun’s XVIth- century historical and philosophical treatise Al Moqaddima (or Prolegomena, 1377). The first French translation as Les Prolégomènes was written by De Slane between 1840 and 1863. It was followed by two XXth-century retranslations, respectively entitled Discours sur l’histoire universelle (1967-1968) by Vincent-Mansour Monteil, and Le Livre des Exemples I : Autobiographie, La Muqaddima (2002) by Abdesselam Cheddadi. This thesis explores the contexts, paratexts, and discursive strategies surrounding each retranslation of Khaldun’s monumental treatise, in order to clarify the major factors that determine, in each case, the translator’s decision to retranslate. Our theoretical approach stems from recent debates around Antoine Berman’s “retranslation hypothesis”, which focuses on a textual analysis of retranslations, and tends to downplay the importance of the context surrounding the production of retranslations, and limits the translator’s positioning to his/her relationship to the “truth” of the original. By documenting the history of XXth-century editions of Khaldun’s Prolegomena, by establishing the context surrounding each retranslation, and by analyzing the discursive strategies deployed by each retranslator in the margins of his work, our study takes into account recent theories of “plural causality” in retranslation; we also highlight the ways in which the translators’ subjectivity, their choices and motivations are deeply connected with the extra-textual, or contextual elements emphasized by such theories. Our analysis shows the two translations under study to be motivated by internal, textual factors (such as: more authentic original manuscripts, better textual criticism and understanding of the source language and culture, the necessity to correct errors in the previous translations, etc.), but also extra-textual, or contextual factors (changing social, literary and translation norms, new interpretations of the original, the translator’s ideological position and need to establish his authority, etc.). In the end, retranslation emerges as a complex phenomenon deriving from a variety of causes, at once internal (textual), external (contextual), and personal, that is, due to the translator’s own agency.

Ibn Khaldun is a great Moslem thinker of the fourteenth century (b. 1332, d. 1406 A. D.). Modern writers are inclined to consider him as a pioneer or a precursor in the science of society and the philosophy of history. Some of them consider him as the first sociologist in the history of mankind and even the founder of modern sociology. His Prolegomena, which is the primary subject of study in the present work, is regarded by one authority as one of the six important monographic works in general sociology. The aim of this dissertation is not to study either Ibn Khaldun or his theory in minute detail. In fact, other modern students have successfully achieved that task. The aim of this work is, rather, a different one. Our aim here is to see Ibn Khaldun in a different light, or, to use Mannheim's term, through a perspective which is greatly different from the customary one. Ibn Khaldun lived in a culture quite different from our present culture, and was accustomed to view the world within a frame of reference with which we are perhaps completely unfamiliar. The first duty that lies, therefore, before us, in order to be able to understand Ibn Khaldun, is to reconstruct his perspective or his frame of reference anew, and to try to look at the social phenomena through it. In this work, the space which is devoted to the discussion of Ibn Khaldun's theory per se is small in comparison to that devoted to the reconstruction of the perspective and the categories of thought according to which Ibn Khaldun and his fellow writers viewed their world. This work is, as its subtitle shows, a study in the sociology of knowledge. Ibn Khaldun is then taken as a point in case. He is studied primarily to show how his theory and the theories produced in his culture can fit into the general scheme of the sociology of knowledge as recently developed by modern sociologists. / text

The Russian Evangelical Soteriology as a phenomenon was evaluated in the dissertation. The original Russian Evangelical confessions of faith and some other historical documents of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries are used to present the following hypothesis. The historic fluidity of Soteriology of Russian Evangelica1s may only be understood in the light of their consistent adherence to the principles of Sola Scriptura and the Priesthood of all believers. We come to conclusion that the existence of Russian Evangelical Soteriology is not a question to be discussed, but a clear historical fact. We show that it has its past and present, a well-defended subject of study with clear presuppositions, rather developed vision, and it is unique as a phenomenon. The major principles of this theology strictly devoted to the Scripture and a flexible formulation of doctrines. We strongly insist that it is impossible without being eclectic combine the Evangelical Soteriology of Scripture with the Orthodox Soteriology of Tradition. The additional result of the study is the attempt to evaluate the possibility for a reconstruction of Russian Evangelical Soteriology as a part of a self-identification process. / Systematic Theology and Theological Ethics / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)

O objetivo central proposto nesta dissertação é investigar como a recepção da primeira edição da Crítica da razão pura ressoa no corpus dos textos dedicados à preparar o leitor para a compreensão da obra, ou seja, como Kant reconstitui seu discurso propedêutico em relação à Crítica da razão pura a partir dos referenciais oferecidos pelos juízos do público sobre a obra publicada em 1781. O corpus, portanto, está delimitado aos três textos cuja tarefa propedêutica ou seja, a referida preparação prévia do leitor é claramente influenciada pela recepção da Crítica da razão pura. São eles: Prolegômenos a toda metafísica futura que queira apresentar-se como ciência; a Introdução à Crítica da razão pura em sua segunda edição; o Prefácio à segunda edição desta mesma obra. Esta problemática aparentemente técnica é tomada como mote para a realização de uma leitura da posição de Kant frente a acontecimentos marcantes no contexto filosófico e político dos anos seguintes à publicação da primeira edição da Crítica da razão pura marcadamente, a Pantheismusstreit e a mudança no trono prussiano em 1786, a qual, frequentemente, é tomada como causa da suposta recaída no dogmatismo, que seria observada na segunda edição da Crítica da razão pura. Não obstante, a interpretação de algumas das questões centrais para a fortuna crítica da filosofia kantiana, em particular, o estatuto do idealismo transcendental, a autonomia que deve caracterizar o uso público da razão e a elucidação do projeto de uma Crítica da razão pura também fazem parte do escopo da problemática proposta nesta dissertação. Sobretudo, importa valorizar o discurso propedêutico de Kant e as mudanças nele introduzidas, sem as quais as tentativas de compreensão de sua obra seriam inócuas, senão impossíveis de realizar-se objetivamente. / The main objective of this dissertation is to investigate how the reception of the first edition of the Critique of pure reason echoes in the text corpus devoted to prepare the reader to understand this book. In other words, how does Kant reconstitute his introductory speech in relation to the references and judgments given by the readers of the first edition, which was published in 1781? Thus, the text corpus comprises three texts where the propaedeutic task - the prior preparation of the reader - is clearly influenced by the reception of the Critique of Pure Reason. These texts are: the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which presents itself as science, the second edition of the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason and the Preface of the latter. Moreover, these changes could be analyzed in Kant\'s position about remarkable events in the philosophical and political context of the years following the publication of the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. They were mainly the Pantheismusstreit and the change in the Prussian throne in 1786, which is often taken as the cause of the alleged \"return into dogmatism\" that was noticed in the second edition of the Critique of pure reason. On the same note, the interpretation of some of the nodal questions in the critical fortune of the Kantian philosophy, especially the status of transcendental idealism, the autonomy that must characterize the public use of reason and the elucidation of the project of a Critique of Pure Reason also compose important points for this dissertations investigation. All in all, it is crucial to valorize the introductory speech of Kant and the changes made by the author as an overall attempt to understand his work. Without it, our comprehension of such important texts would be innocuous or even impossible to occur objectively.

Apresentamos neste trabalho a tradução da primeira parte do Commentarium in Hermogenis librum PerÈ st.sewn, de Siriano Filoxeno, o isocrático. Na introdução procuramos circunscrever o gênero do comentário retórico às estases de Hermógenes, como praticado por filósofos platônicos durante os séculos III a VI d.C. Comisso pretendemos discorrer sobre como a sofística e a retórica se dão no currículo próprio das chamadas escolas filosóficas, que se evidencia pelo gênero encomiástico das vidas. Nessa operação, procuramos evidenciar como os filósofos platônicos interessam-se pela retórica declamatória, reaproximando os problemas que dizem respeito à invenção daqueles que concernem ao logos e a apreensão (kat.lhyic). Por fim, relativizamos, a partir da leitura do Comentário de Siriano, as categorias modernas que separam os filósofos platônicos da segunda sofística. / Here we present a translation of the rst part of the CommentariuminHermogenis librum PerÈ st^sewn, written by Syrianus Philoxenus, the isocratic. In the introduction we seek to circumscribe the rhetorical comment to stasis theory of Hermogenes a special kind of introductory work, as practiced by Platonic philosophers over the third to the sixth century. erewith, we intend to talk about how sophistry and rhetoric could happen in an curriculum, concerning the so called philosophical schools presented in the encomiastic gender of lifes. In this operation, we show how the Platonic philosophers rea>rm your interest in the declamatory rhetoric, reconnecting the problems that concern the invention (eÕresic) of those logos and his apprehension (kat^lhyic). Finally, from reading the Syrianus Commentary, we hope to relativize the modern categories that separate the Platonic philosophers from the Second Sophistic.

Apresentamos neste trabalho a tradução da primeira parte do Commentarium in Hermogenis librum PerÈ st.sewn, de Siriano Filoxeno, o isocrático. Na introdução procuramos circunscrever o gênero do comentário retórico às estases de Hermógenes, como praticado por filósofos platônicos durante os séculos III a VI d.C. Comisso pretendemos discorrer sobre como a sofística e a retórica se dão no currículo próprio das chamadas escolas filosóficas, que se evidencia pelo gênero encomiástico das vidas. Nessa operação, procuramos evidenciar como os filósofos platônicos interessam-se pela retórica declamatória, reaproximando os problemas que dizem respeito à invenção daqueles que concernem ao logos e a apreensão (kat.lhyic). Por fim, relativizamos, a partir da leitura do Comentário de Siriano, as categorias modernas que separam os filósofos platônicos da segunda sofística. / Here we present a translation of the rst part of the CommentariuminHermogenis librum PerÈ st^sewn, written by Syrianus Philoxenus, the isocratic. In the introduction we seek to circumscribe the rhetorical comment to stasis theory of Hermogenes a special kind of introductory work, as practiced by Platonic philosophers over the third to the sixth century. erewith, we intend to talk about how sophistry and rhetoric could happen in an curriculum, concerning the so called philosophical schools presented in the encomiastic gender of lifes. In this operation, we show how the Platonic philosophers rea>rm your interest in the declamatory rhetoric, reconnecting the problems that concern the invention (eÕresic) of those logos and his apprehension (kat^lhyic). Finally, from reading the Syrianus Commentary, we hope to relativize the modern categories that separate the Platonic philosophers from the Second Sophistic.

The Russian Evangelical Soteriology as a phenomenon was evaluated in the dissertation. The original Russian Evangelical confessions of faith and some other historical documents of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries are used to present the following hypothesis. The historic fluidity of Soteriology of Russian Evangelica1s may only be understood in the light of their consistent adherence to the principles of Sola Scriptura and the Priesthood of all believers. We come to conclusion that the existence of Russian Evangelical Soteriology is not a question to be discussed, but a clear historical fact. We show that it has its past and present, a well-defended subject of study with clear presuppositions, rather developed vision, and it is unique as a phenomenon. The major principles of this theology strictly devoted to the Scripture and a flexible formulation of doctrines. We strongly insist that it is impossible without being eclectic combine the Evangelical Soteriology of Scripture with the Orthodox Soteriology of Tradition. The additional result of the study is the attempt to evaluate the possibility for a reconstruction of Russian Evangelical Soteriology as a part of a self-identification process. / Systematic Theology and Theological Ethics / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)

O objetivo central proposto nesta dissertação é investigar como a recepção da primeira edição da Crítica da razão pura ressoa no corpus dos textos dedicados à preparar o leitor para a compreensão da obra, ou seja, como Kant reconstitui seu discurso propedêutico em relação à Crítica da razão pura a partir dos referenciais oferecidos pelos juízos do público sobre a obra publicada em 1781. O corpus, portanto, está delimitado aos três textos cuja tarefa propedêutica ou seja, a referida preparação prévia do leitor é claramente influenciada pela recepção da Crítica da razão pura. São eles: Prolegômenos a toda metafísica futura que queira apresentar-se como ciência; a Introdução à Crítica da razão pura em sua segunda edição; o Prefácio à segunda edição desta mesma obra. Esta problemática aparentemente técnica é tomada como mote para a realização de uma leitura da posição de Kant frente a acontecimentos marcantes no contexto filosófico e político dos anos seguintes à publicação da primeira edição da Crítica da razão pura marcadamente, a Pantheismusstreit e a mudança no trono prussiano em 1786, a qual, frequentemente, é tomada como causa da suposta recaída no dogmatismo, que seria observada na segunda edição da Crítica da razão pura. Não obstante, a interpretação de algumas das questões centrais para a fortuna crítica da filosofia kantiana, em particular, o estatuto do idealismo transcendental, a autonomia que deve caracterizar o uso público da razão e a elucidação do projeto de uma Crítica da razão pura também fazem parte do escopo da problemática proposta nesta dissertação. Sobretudo, importa valorizar o discurso propedêutico de Kant e as mudanças nele introduzidas, sem as quais as tentativas de compreensão de sua obra seriam inócuas, senão impossíveis de realizar-se objetivamente. / The main objective of this dissertation is to investigate how the reception of the first edition of the Critique of pure reason echoes in the text corpus devoted to prepare the reader to understand this book. In other words, how does Kant reconstitute his introductory speech in relation to the references and judgments given by the readers of the first edition, which was published in 1781? Thus, the text corpus comprises three texts where the propaedeutic task - the prior preparation of the reader - is clearly influenced by the reception of the Critique of Pure Reason. These texts are: the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which presents itself as science, the second edition of the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason and the Preface of the latter. Moreover, these changes could be analyzed in Kant\'s position about remarkable events in the philosophical and political context of the years following the publication of the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. They were mainly the Pantheismusstreit and the change in the Prussian throne in 1786, which is often taken as the cause of the alleged \"return into dogmatism\" that was noticed in the second edition of the Critique of pure reason. On the same note, the interpretation of some of the nodal questions in the critical fortune of the Kantian philosophy, especially the status of transcendental idealism, the autonomy that must characterize the public use of reason and the elucidation of the project of a Critique of Pure Reason also compose important points for this dissertations investigation. All in all, it is crucial to valorize the introductory speech of Kant and the changes made by the author as an overall attempt to understand his work. Without it, our comprehension of such important texts would be innocuous or even impossible to occur objectively.