Contenu du sommaire

This article examines whether Thomas himself is capable of responding to the challenge he poses to Averroès'noetics : to provide a theoretical justification for the proposition hic homo intelligit. We shall examine two statements which may well be in competition: on the one hand, ‘the soul thinks in and of itself' ; on the other, ‘the human being thinks'. In doing so, we reconsider the distinction between the different levels of action, the status of the human soul as the formal component in the hylomorphic make-up of the human being, the notion that actiones sunt suppositorum, and finally the significance of the soul's dependence on body.

Justus Lipsius (1547-1606), editor of the complete works of Seneca, wrote his treatise Physiologia Stoicorum (Antwerp, 1604) with the intention of deepening his understanding of the Roman philosopher. In order to harmonise Stoic teachings with Christianity, he plays down their materialism. And in keeping with this concern, his attitude towards the theory of the World-Soul is influenced by the Renaissance belief in a prisca theologia. The present article examines Lipsius' interpretation of the World-Soul in that historical and intellectual context. In particular, it analyses his intention, and the method and strategy he adopts, when dealing with his sources.

By the early 18th century, the Christian Cabala, which Pico della Mirandola had brought to light, had fallen into relative neglect for about thirty years. And yet, the Institutiones ad Verbi Dei scripti intelligentiam, the work of the Dominican master theologian, Josephus Maria de Turre, published in 1711, dedicate an entire treatise to the Cabala. In it, de Turre refers mainly to the works of Pico della Mirandola, Sixtus of Sienna, Wilhelm Schickard and Jacques Bonfrère, proposing a threefold division of the Cabala : an evil, magic and mantic Cabala ; a neutral, speculative and theoretical Cabala ; and a pious Cabala which seeks to interpret Scripture and its mysteries. It does not appear that anyone emulated de Turre's work ; indeed, it seems to have been unknown even to those who would subsequently become the interpreters and advocates of the Cabala in Catholic circles.

The term ‘Church Fathers' (or rather, simply ‘Fathers', for the noun's complement was a very late addition) dates back to the patristic period itself. It is rooted in Scripture (the ‘fathers' of Israel) but around the middle of the 4th century, and especially in Athanasius of Alexandria, it takes on a new meaning in a specific context : namely, in reference to the Council of Nicea. Those who took part in this first ecumenical council were to be the ‘fathers' of the faith defined by the creedal definition drawn up there. The Fathers are therefore first and foremost the council fathers, i.e. those who participated in the first ecumenical council. The expression was then extended to cover the other ecumenical councils, or in certain cases isolated authors. Yet the tendency remained to maintain its collective or anonymous sense : it is not as individuals that the Fathers are authoritative, but as a communion, whose particular function is to define the faith.