Academic literature on the topic 'Quaestio'

2014 - 2015<br>Agostino, starting from the confutation of the Aristotelian time’s theory and replying to the question if the time corresponds to the motion (motus) or to the duration (mora), tries to resolve the aporia that is not only related to the analysis of the measure of the time but also to the “being” or to the “not being” of the time itself. Therefore, man’s inability to establish and to explain the “being” of the time does not preclude the opportunity to deal with it. Honouring the time is actually more familiar than any other matter in conversation (in loquendo). Agostino’s reflection does not demand to create a phenomenology of the time but it exhorts man to consider the loqui, unable to reveal a strong connection between res and signa, as the only need of a reditus ad interiorem partem, the only thing able to consulere veritatem. [edited by Author]<br>XIV n.s.

The vexata quaestio of the letter to the Romans is both the starting point and destination of this study. This vexata quaestio of Romans owes its existence to a hermeneutical conundrum: At first glance, the situational context, in which Paul was situated at the time of his writing, does not seem to correspond to its theological context, in which Paul s theological perspectives could be substantiated. In other words, this hermeneutical conundrum drives a wedge between why Paul wrote this letter and what/how Paul spoke of in this letter. When it comes to the situational context of Romans, it is not easily concretized into the epistolary framework of this letter. As a result, speculation looms large in reconstructing such a situational context more than the text of Romans itself can support, and thereby the theological context of this letter comes to be contingent on the speculation of the why of the matter. It is for this reason that we are faced with various implications of the vexata quaestio of the letter to the Romans in the scholarly arena of Pauline studies. Especially, the vexata quaestio of this letter revolves around (1) Paul s overall purpose in writing it to the Roman church he neither founded nor visited beforehand; and (2) Paul s use of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures in the course of his argumentation, which appears to be frequent but concentrated in this letter more than in his other letters. In order to steer away from too much speculation, this study draws attention to distinctive epistolary conventions such as the letter opening, the thanksgiving period, the apostolic parousia, and the letter closing. A comparative study of the form and function of distinctive epistolary conventions will give a glimpse of the why, namely Paul s overall purpose in writing this letter. It is considered that the reason why Paul wrote this letter is to proclaim his gospel according to his apostolic responsibility. This overall purpose functions as standard controls in reading the content (Jervis 1991:27). It compels us to look into the contours of Paul s argumentation in Romans 1 11, which will be interdependent with the overall purpose of the letter. In doing so, we come to the conclusion that the following pattern unfolds as an essential literary texture of Romans 1 11, namely themanner of a rhetorical question + Paul s response with ?? ??????? in an emphatic manner + his use of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures. Including such an essential literary texture of Romans 1 11, it is worth noting that Paul s use of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures appears to be coupled with its respective rhetorical questions at several significant points in the course of Paul s argumentation in Romans 1 11. It necessitates launching into the three-dimensional approach to Paul s use of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures in order to better understand how Paul managed to unfold what he spoke of in the letter body. The three-dimensional approach consists of the tradition-historical investigation, textual version comparison, and hermeneutical investigation, which serves to shed more light on the functional dimension in this quest for the Vorlage (Steyn 2011:24). This three-dimensional approach allows us to delve into Paul s theological perspectives. In doing so, we come to the conclusion that Paul s use of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures carries a soteriological significance. All in all, this study is aimed at dealing with this vexata quaestio of Paul s letter to the Romans, which revolves around the literary genre, Paul s overall purpose in writing this letter, and his use of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures, in a holistic manner. In doing so, this study can pave the way for a better understanding of how Paul managed to unfold what he spoke of in the letter body in terms of why he wrote this letter to the Roman church.<br>Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2015.<br>tm2016<br>New Testament Studies<br>PhD<br>Unrestricted

Scope of the work - This research project involves two components. The first is a translation from Latin into English of St Thomas Aquinas’s Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis. This is an important, though largely neglected, work of St Thomas dating from 1267- 68, dealing with a range of issues relating to the two categories of created spirits recognised by Thomas, viz. angels and human souls. The perspective of the Angelic Doctor is principally, though not exclusively, that of philosophy rather than of theology. What is found in the disputed question is the development of a number of arguments, and the consequent taking up of a number of positions, that are the immediate source of what St Thomas has to say about angels and the human soul in the first part (prima pars) of his Summa Theologiae - a part which was completed by 1268. What he has to say about the Averroistic view that there is only one receptive intellect, and only one agent intellect, for all human beings (see Articles 9 and 10 of the disputed question) prepared the way for his crucially important polemical treatise of 1270, the De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. The project provides a complete translation of the Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis which extends across eleven ‘articles’ addressing selected questions concerning angels and/or human souls, viz. matter/form composition, modes of union with (or separation from) matter, specific differences between angels, receptive intellect and agent intellect in human beings, and the distinction between the soul and its powers. Pages vi- vii of the Introduction to the project discuss the way in which the translation of the text of St Thomas has been approached. To cite one sentence: “An attempt has been made at all times to use a style of translation that is pleasantly readable, non-jarring, and non-pedantic” - but one that is subject to total fidelity to expressing the philosophical meaning of St Thomas. The second component of the project is eleven sets of notes (one hundred and seven pages in all), each set of which belongs to one or other of the eleven articles making up the text of St Thomas as translated. There is a degree of cross-referencing between some of the notes belonging to particular articles. The notes are of varying length and are concerned to facilitate an understanding of what the Angelic Doctor has to say in his Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis. Most of the notes fall into one or other of the following categories: biographical (providing information about a number of persons whose names appear in Thomas’s text), historical (giving information about institutions and events connected with the time, or life, of St Thomas), exegetical (explaining why a particular English translation of Thomas’s Latin has been used, or illustrating a point in the text by citations from other works of the Saint, or on occasion taking issue with some feature of the critical Latin text of Leo Keeler, S.J., on which the translation has been based), and ‘philosophical extension’ notes (seeking to amplify what St Thomas has been arguing in the disputed question on created spirits by considering related issues in other works of his, or by further exploration of a concept or notion used in the text but not dwelt on by Thomas). 2 Aim of the work - The aim of the project has been to make available an accurate, and attractive, English translation from thirteenth century Latin of an important work of Thomas Aquinas, and to support this activity with accompanying sets of notes. The achievement of appropriate scholarly standards has been a pervasive intention in all that has been undertaken.

Scope of the work - This research project involves two components. The first is a translation from Latin into English of St Thomas Aquinas's Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis. This is an important, though largely neglected, work of St Thomas dating from 1267- 68, dealing with a range of issues relating to the two categories of created spirits recognised by Thomas, viz. angels and human souls. The perspective of the Angelic Doctor is principally, though not exclusively, that of philosophy rather than of theology. What is found in the disputed question is the development of a number of arguments, and the consequent taking up of a number of positions, that are the immediate source of what St Thomas has to say about angels and the human soul in the first part (prima pars) of his Summa Theologiae - a part which was completed by 1268. What he has to say about the Averroistic view that there is only one receptive intellect, and only one agent intellect, for all human beings (see Articles 9 and 10 of the disputed question) prepared the way for his crucially important polemical treatise of 1270, the De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. The project provides a complete translation of the Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis which extends across eleven 'articles' addressing selected questions concerning angels and/or human souls, viz. matter/form composition, modes of union with (or separation from) matter, specific differences between angels, receptive intellect and agent intellect in human beings, and the distinction between the soul and its powers. Pages vi- vii of the Introduction to the project discuss the way in which the translation of the text of St Thomas has been approached. To cite one sentence: 'An attempt has been made at all times to use a style of translation that is pleasantly readable, non-jarring, and non-pedantic' - but one that is subject to total fidelity to expressing the philosophical meaning of St Thomas.;The second component of the project is eleven sets of notes (one hundred and seven pages in all), each set of which belongs to one or other of the eleven articles making up the text of St Thomas as translated. There is a degree of cross-referencing between some of the notes belonging to particular articles. The notes are of varying length and are concerned to facilitate an understanding of what the Angelic Doctor has to say in his Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis. Most of the notes fall into one or other of the following categories: biographical (providing information about a number of persons whose names appear in Thomas's text), historical (giving information about institutions and events connected with the time, or life, of St Thomas), exegetical (explaining why a particular English translation of Thomas's Latin has been used, or illustrating a point in the text by citations from other works of the Saint, or on occasion taking issue with some feature of the critical Latin text of Leo Keeler, S.J., on which the translation has been based), and 'philosophical extension' notes (seeking to amplify what St Thomas has been arguing in the disputed question on created spirits by considering related issues in other works of his, or by further exploration of a concept or notion used in the text but not dwelt on by Thomas). 2 Aim of the work - The aim of the project has been to make available an accurate, and attractive, English translation from thirteenth century Latin of an important work of Thomas Aquinas, and to support this activity with accompanying sets of notes. The achievement of appropriate scholarly standards has been a pervasive intention in all that has been undertaken.

The traditional model of initial training of judges in Spain and in other countries has been focused, and is still focused, on the mechanical digestion of a pile of stereotyped notions related to several legal subjects.This knowledge is presented with no references to specific legal disputes and does not meet at all, neither the profile of modern complex constitutional legal systems consisting of several levels, internally changing and conflicting; nor the practice of those systems. It does correspond, however, the historical model of the Napoleonic judge, who tends to act as a mechanical enforcer of the law and the longa manu of the real power rather than guardian of the citizens’ basic rights. The alternative to this kind of judicial training would be a system of training incorporating a high quality operative knowledge of the positive law actually in force, together with a theoretical-philosophical training in line with the suggestions made by Manuel Sacristán of «a level of exercise of thinking» based on the specific field and activity inherent to that group of legal practitioners.<br>El modelo tradicional de formación inicial de jueces para el desempeño del rol, en España, pero no solo, se ha cifrado y se cifra en la asimilación mecánica de todo un cúmulo de nociones estereotipadas relativas a las diversas disciplinas. Se trata de un bagaje que, por su carácter desproblematizador, no se ajusta en absoluto al perfil de los modernos ordenamientos constitucionales complejos, dotados de distintos niveles y, con frecuencia, internamente conflictivos y cambiantes; y menos a su práctica.Pero responde, en cambio, al histórico tipo de juez del modelo napoleónico, longa manu del poder en acto más que garante de derechos, tendencial aplicador mecánico. La alternativa a esta clase de formación estaría en otra que incorporase a un buen conocimiento operativo del derecho positivo en su ser actual y realmente vigente, una formación teórico-filosófica en la línea sugerida una vez por Manuel Sacristán, como «un nivel de ejercicio del pensamiento» a partir de y sobre el específico campo temático y de la actividad propia de tal clase de operadores.

Le présent mémoire propose d’examiner, d’une façon approfondie et innovatrice, le rapport entre les chrétiens et Marc-Aurèle à travers une analyse complète des sources à disposition, notamment celles historico-littéraires, épigraphiques, numismatiques et législatives. En particulier, l’on démontrera l’absence de fondement de l’image faite a posteriori de Marc-Aurèle en tant que protector christianorum dont le premier témoin, d'après nos connaissances, est Tertullien. L’on montrera, par le biais d’une analyse législative des sources à notre disposition qu’à l’époque de Marc-Aurèle il n’y avait aucune loi qui protégeait les chrétiens. Bien au contraire, les dispositions de Trajan étaient toujours valides. Par la suite, nous chercherons à trouver les véritables raisons de la politique de Marc-Aurèle envers les chrétiens à travers la comparaison entre la pensée médio-platonicienne de Justin et celle stoïcienne du princeps. L’interprétation philosophique de l’attitude à montrer face à la mort, nous donnera une clef de lecture pour pénétrer les raisons les plus profondes des violences et des procès que les chrétiens ont subis au cours de son principat<br>This work aims to provide an original and thorough exploration of the relationship between Marcus Aurelius and the Christians by means of an in-depth analysis of the available historical, literary, epigraphic, numismatic, and legal sources. Specifically, it will show that the a posteriori view of Marcus Aurelius as protector Christianorum, apparently introduced by Tertullian, is unfounded. In support of this argument, a legal analysis of the available sources will show that, far from enjoying legal protection during the Principality of Marcus Aurelius, Christians were still subject to Trajan’s laws. The true reasons underlying the policy of Marcus Aurelius towards the Christians will be investigated by comparing the Middle Platonism of Justin Martyr with the stoic meditations of the princeps. In particular, the philosophical interpretation of the attitude deemed suitable in the face of death will provide an insight into the reasons that led to the wave of violence and to the trials of Christians under Marcus Aurelius’ rule

Que nous dit sur la tradition des Œuvres de Rabelais, La Cresme philosophalle, curieux opuscule ajouté à la fin des éditions parues après la mort de l’écrivain ? Et comment le lire ? Telles sont les deux questions examinées dans cette thèse. Dans la première partie, en est retracée la réception critique (XVIIe-XXe s. ), puis la tradition éditoriale dans les éditions du XVIe siècle. La question de l'attribution donne ensuite lieu à trois hypothèses : l'authenticité complète, l'attribution partielle (opuscule traduit), enfin, l'inauthenticité. Dans la deuxième partie, après avoir décrit les enjeux et les espèces de la quaestio, genre dont relève cet opuscule, et qui appartient à l'histoire de la scolastique, est retracée la tradition des critiques dont celle-ci fait l'objet dans le cadre de la bataille des arts, puis lors la polémique frontale des premiers temps de la Réforme. Ensuite, en contre-champ, sont considérés plusieurs opuscules de nature parodique, appartenant à la production festive des clercs, toujours en rapport avec la quaestio. Pour finir, l’étude interne puis la comparaison de cet opuscule avec l'ensemble des textes précédemment considérés permettent d’affirmer qu'il s'agit d'un opuscule, aux confins de plusieurs sphères de discours, reposant sur une stratégie parodique. Plusieurs procédés sont en outre conformes à l'utilisation rabelaisienne de la figure. Surtout, cet opuscule confirme la nécessité de rapprocher sinon croiser histoire littéraire et histoire de l'Université. Cette étude est suivie de la première édition critique de cet opuscule, suivie d’appendices, contenant plusieurs opuscules inédits en français<br>The Philosophical Cream is a curious opuscule added to the end of the editions published after its author's death: what does it tell us about the tradition of The Works of Rabelais ? And how should we read it ? These are the two questions that are discussed in this thesis. In the first part, we have retraced its critical reception (17th-20th c. ), then its editorial tradition in the editions of the 16th century. After which, the issue of its attribution gives place to three hypotheses : the complete authenticity, the partial attribution (translated opuscule) and, finally, the unauthenticity. In the second part, after describing the stakes involved and the different types of quaestio - the genre to which this opuscule pertains, belonging to the history of scholasticism -, the tradition of criticisms is discussed, this being the object in the frame of the battle of arts, since then a frontal debate in the Reformation times. Then, as an anticlimax, several opuscules of parodic nature are discussed, as belonging to the festive production of clergymen, always in relation with the quaestio. Finally, the internal study as well as the comparison between these data and the previously examined texts enable us to state that the work is an opuscule, at the borderline of several discourse spheres, lying on a strategy of mimetic satire. Several procedures are consistent with the Rabelaisian use of figures. But this opuscule in particular confirms the necessity to confront the history of literature with the history of University. The study is complemented by the first critical edition of this opuscule, followed by wide appendixes containing several other opuscules, remained unpublished in French