Hélène Leblanc

Among the treatises on logic left to posterity by the XIVth Oxonian philosopher Ralph Strode, is a treatise on those formal exercises, typical of Scholastic logic, called Obligationes. In the preface to this treatise, Strode introduces the genre by developing a spectacular martial metaphor in which the ars obligatoria is compared to the ars dimicandi, in other words to the art of combat, and more specifically to fencing. This contribution is divided into two parts: in the first, Pascale Bermon transcribes the Prologue to Strode’s Obligationes from the Venice edition of 1507, followed by a French translation; in the second, Hélène Leblanc offers a commentary on this text.

This edited collection of eight original essays pursues the aim of bringing the spotlight back on Anton Marty. It does so by having leading figures in the contemporary debate confront themselves with Marty’s most significative contributions, which span from philosophy of mind, philosophy of language and ontology to meta-metaphysics and meta-philosophy. The book is divided in three parts. The first part is dedicated to themes in philosophy of language, which were at the centre of Marty’s philosophical thinking throughout his life. The second part focuses on the problem of the objectivity and phenomenology of time and space, upon which Marty was working in the final years of his life. The final part turns to Marty’s meta-metaphysical and meta-philosophical considerations. The intended audience of this book are primarily scholars and students interested in the relevant contemporary debates, as well as scholars working on the Austrian tradition.

Fencing books, or more generally fight books, are a heterogeneous icono-textual corpus that aims to convey single combat techniques with various weapons. From the 14th century onwards, this corpus underwent a significant expansion in Europe, particularly in the German, Italian and Iberian regions. Fencing was theorised through logical and philosophical concepts, but also through the mathematical enumeration of guards, blows and steps. During the 15th and 16th centuries in particular, there was a pronounced tendency towards the geometrical representation of motion. Authors of fight books clearly and repeatedly asserted that the principles of fencing derive from geometry. Although this tendency was not exclusive to fencing—consider the rival field of ballistics— the challenge fight books undertook was specific in that the geometrical approach applies to human body movements. This paper will present the geometrical approach as a pivotal shift in the theorization of fencing by examining its social and conceptual causes, as well as its relationship to the practice of fencing. The central question addressed is: in what way did the geometrical approach to fencing represent a break or a continuity, compared to a logical approach that previously prevailed?

La scolastique tardive, au début du XVIIe siècle, est le théâtre d’un débat sur la définition du signe, qui se traduit par la division entre signum formale et signum instrumentale. Le premier est l’écho de la tendance médiévale à comprendre les concepts comme des signes. Le second correspond à une définition qui remonte à Augustin, selon laquelle le signe est une chose sensible qui doit être connue pour porter à la connaissance de quelque chose d’autre. Se démarquant de la voie qui avait fait de la seule Logique de Port-Royal le paradigme de la pensée sémiotique de l’Âge classique, cet ouvrage montre, à partir de ce débat scolastique, que le XVIIe siècle se caractérise globalement par une translatio, visible notamment chez Bayle, Gassendi et Hobbes, d’un modèle linguistico-psychologique à une sémiotique emblématique d’une mutation de la logique désormais ordonnée vers l’épistémologie.

La Divine Comédie est le récit poétique d'une vision, d'une expérience surnaturelle qui se fait toujours plus intense, et que le langage peine toujours davantage à traduire. La mission de Dante consiste à rapporter cette vision. La question que nous pose la Divine Comédie réside dans la différence entre l'intraduisible et l'indicible: y a-t-il un intraduisible dicible? Ou en d'autres termes : quelle est, au-delà du topos de l'indicible poétique, et au-delà de la figure rhétorique de la prétérition, la signification conceptuelle de l'expression du "dire" dans la Divine Comédie?

La tarda scolastica, all’inizio del XVII secolo, è il teatro di un dibattito sulla definizione di segno, che si traduce nella suddivisione tra signum formale e signum instrumentale. Il primo è l’eco della tendenza medievale a considerare i concetti come segni. Il secondo corrisponde a una definizone che risale ad Agostino, secondo la quale il segno è una cosa sensibile che deve essere conosciuta per portare alla conoscenza di qualcosa d’altro. Smarcandosi dalla corrente che aveva fatto della sola Logica di Port Royal il paradigma del pensiero semiotico del XVII secolo, quest’opera mostra, a partire da questo dibattito scolastico, che il XVII secolo si caratterizza globalmente per una translatio, un trasferimento, che è visibile in particolare in autori come Bayle, Gassendi e Hobbes, da un modello linguistico-psicologico a una semiotica ormai orientata all’epistemologia.

Intellectual historians have rarely attended to the genre of fighting manuals, but these provide a new window on long-debated questions such as the relationship between Scholasticism and Humanism. This article offers a close comparison of the first known fencing manual, the 14-th century Liber de Arte Dimicatoria (Leeds, Royal Armouries FECHT 1, previously and better known as MS I.33), and the corpus of fighting manuals which underwent a remarkable expansion during the 15th and 16th centuries. While the former clearly shows its origins in a scholastic background, the latter is mainly viewed as reflecting its humanist context. To this historiographical division corresponds a linguistic one: MS I.33 is a Latin text, while the rest of the corpus is mainly written in German and Italian. However, exceptions arise, amongst which, Heinrich von Gunterrodt’s Sciomachia et Hoplomachia: sive de Veris Principiis Artis Dimicatoriae (1579), the first text which explicitly refers to I.33. This article will compare these two texts, in order to interrogate their common relation to Scholasticism, namely the traditional frame of the knowledge within the medieval and early modern universities. The intent is to show that (at least some) Renaissance fight books include references to Scholasticism and to provide a better qualification of the nature of such references. The general hypothesis is that a large part of the texts―and products of culture―of the Renaissance that have been read, until recently, exclusively in relation to a humanist intellectual background can valuably be interpreted in the context of a Scholasticism that is still vivid during the period in question.

The debate between Husserl and Marty focuses on the notion of general grammar. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to have been a clear outcome, and the terms of the debate remain quite unclear. Moreover, while both authors make striking use of historical references, their entanglement seems to call for some clarification. This paper aims to shed light on this debate, by considering it from an historical perspective. In doing so, two putative candidates will be introduced as (conceptual) precursors of the ‘allgemeine Grammatik’: the Grammaire générale et raisonnée of Port-Royal (1660), and the medieval grammatica speculativa, which included a group of late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century philosophers of language known as the Modistae. I will first identify Husserl’s and Marty’s respective critiques, distinguishing, between Husserl’s critique of the conflation of the a priori and empirical, and Marty’s of the conflation of meaning and forms of expression. Second, I will place these critiques in an arrangement involving two types of cross-reference: on the one hand, Marty and Husserl can be seen as standing in opposition to their historical predecessors; on the other hand (and more significantly), Marty and Port-Royal can be seen as standing in opposition to Husserl and the speculative grammarians.

L’histoire de la pensée sémiotique se caractérise par une oscillation entre définition large et définition étroite de son objet. Au Moyen Âge, la définition augustinienne du signe est jugée trop étroite, car elle ne concerne que le signe sensible. De nouvelles définitions tentent alors de faire des concepts des signes qui renvoient aux choses. L’Âge moderne, au contraire, affirme une volonté de rétrécissement à l’égard de la notion de signe. Cet article montrera les caractéristiques d’une telle réflexion sémiotique à travers deux auteurs représentatifs d’un premier empirisme moderne : Pierre Gassendi et Thomas Hobbes. Le retour à une sémiotique étroite s’effectue par la référence aux traditions stoïcienne, sceptique et épicurienne, ainsi qu’à un Aristote renouvelé, et par une prédilection affichée pour la valeur indiciaire du signe par rapport à sa valeur sémantique. Ceci veut dire que les empiristes vont insister avant tout sur la fonction remémorative du signe et sur sa valeur de probabilité. L’indice en tant que trace sera ainsi privilégié par rapport au signe communicationnel, et il s’agira d’en défendre la validité en tant qu’il s’inscrit dans une échelle de certitude, au sommet de laquelle se situe la preuve.

While being a crucial figure in the Brentanian School, Anton Marty did not receive the attention he deserves. This chapter briefly presents the aim of the volume: bringing the spotlight back on Marty and his most significant philosophical contributions with the help of leading figures of the contemporary debate. This chapter also offers an overview of the eight original contributions of the volume and its tripartite structure: Language and Communication, Ontology and Consciousness of Space and Time, Meta-metaphysics and Meta-philosophy.

Parmi les différentes approches possibles de la matière historique, on observe souvent, dans la littérature, une tension entre les deux options suivantes : faire d’un auteur le précurseur d'une révolution dont notre modernité serait l'héritière directe, ou au contraire, et par réaction, se livrer à un travail de remise en contexte détaillé qui prend parfois le risque de gommer l'originalité possible de ce même auteur. Le Traité sur les signes de Jean Poinsot (appelé également Jean de Saint Thomas), dominicain du début du XVIIe siècle, a ainsi d’abord été édité comme un texte annonciateur de la sémiotique de Peirce, la thèse de cette originalité révolutionnaire étant fondée sur le traitement de la catégorie de la relation. Le travail critique qui s’est effectué en réaction tempère, parfois de façon excessive, la nouveauté de cet auteur du point de vue de sa contribution à la pensée des signes. Cet article s’inscrit dans cette démarche de remise en contexte en proposant une comparaison entre le texte de Poinsot et les Quaestiones sur les signes, que l'on doit à Sebastião do Couto, commentateur de l'université de Coimbra. Optant pour une contextualisation qui vise à mesurer l’originalité relative de Poinsot, cette étude porte sur les variations de la description du rapport du signe à l'intention. Nous montrerons ainsi que même si les contenus du discours sur les signes ne comportent que de maigres différences, on peut cependant constater une certaine originalité de Poinsot dans son traitement de la relation, qui l’amène à reconfigurer l’ordonnancement de la question des signes.