Cet ouvrage propose une approche globale des reconstructions erudites et des utilisations polemiques de la philosophie de la Renaissance dans la France du XIXe siecle en centrant l'attention sur une relecture politique de la pratique historiographique a l'epoque de Victor Cousin. This book offers a comprehensive approach to scholarly reconstructions and polemical uses of Renaissance philosophy in nineteenth-century France by focusing on the political implications of historiographical practice in Victor Cousin's time.

The issue of whether the writings of Thomas Aquinas show internal contradictions has not only stirred readers from his earliest, often critical, reception, but also led to the emergence of a literary genre that has crucial relevance to the history of medieval Thomism. Concordances were drawn up which listed Thomas' contradictory statements and, in most cases, tried to disguise the appearance of contradiction by exegesis. But what was at stake in this interpretive endeavor? What role did the concordances play in shaping Thomism? What tensions did they reveal in the works of Thomas? The book aims to investigate these questions and puts the concordance of Peter of Bergamo (1482), which represents the most important example of this type of text, at the center of the investigation. Contributors are Marieke Abram, Kent Emery, Jr., Maarten J.F.M. Hoenen, Isabel Iribarren, Thomas Jeschke, Catherine Koenig-Pralong, Mario Meliado, Silvia Negri, Zornitsa Radeva, and Peter Walter.