According to Renan, the day of Marcus Aurelius’ death could be considered as the decisive moment in the downfall of the ancient civilization. He, thus, wonders: “If Marcus Aurelius, the unique emperor-philosopher, did not succeed in saving the world, who else, then, could have saved it?” He notes that the emperor’s death was followed by the succession to the throne of his corrupted son, Commodus, and his friends, who all were all ignorant. Renan observes that the emperor’s kindness could not (...) have prevented the unfortunate fate that befell the Roman Empire after his death. What we have here is the perennial problem, already established in Plato, regarding the role of the philosopher-king in establishing a good state and educating good citizens. However, the case of Marcus Aurelius, as demonstrated by Renan in his book, shows the inability of philosophy to serve the real needs, which ultimately leads to disastrous and irreparable consequences. The present paper attempts to reconstruct the reasons for the unsuccessful application of philosophy, especially the philosophy of the Hellenistic era, to the administrative system of the Roman Empire. It is argued that the failure is mainly due to political, religious and cultural problems. (shrink)

Il faut examiner le débat autour du stoïcisme de Montaigne. Les critiques qui ont vu le jour présentent un Montaigne qui s'intéresse à la philosophie, un humaniste qui essaie de survivre en des temps troublés et d'exercer son esprit pour s'affranchir des contraintes morales et sociales. Pourtant, si l'on regarde de plus près la construction et la genèse des Essais, on s'aperçoit que Montaigne continue d'étudier patiemment les textes anciens, et particulièrement les textes stroïciens, jusqu'à la fin de sa vie. (...) Il affirme que sa recherche est l'homme. Et, tout au long de cette recherche, se développe un dialogue entre Montaigne et lui-même, dans la mesure où son projet explicite est de se connaître. Cette position elle-même ne saurait se comprendre que dans un éclairage stoïcien : cette position du moi - Montaigne - qui débat avec l'homme - Montaigne pris dans l'Univers -, c'est celle où l'homme est Montaigne lui-même dans son rapport au cosmos, où cet « empire dans un empire » trop souvent rebattu se trouve dans la recherche de Montaigne étendu aux dimensions de l'univers. C'est cette persistance du stoïcisme, notamment de la rhétorique stoïcienne, qui anime et rend justice à l'oeuvre de Michel de Montaigne. (shrink)

The present article is divided into two parts: the first focuses on the affections of the soul in general, while the second part investigates the case of melancholy, as it is studied from Aristotle and the Stoics to Galen. The main point of the first part is an analysis of the Chrysippean treatise On the Affections of the Soul as it appears in the Galenic treatise On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato. The analysis identifies several Chry­sippean influences from Plato (...) and Aristotle regarding the psyche. In the second part, the case of melancholy is analyzed through the pseudo-Ar­istotelian treatise Problem XXX 1. The discussion shows the common points between the Aristotelian text and the Chrysippean fragments regarding the issue of melancholy. This article aims to bring to light the evolution of the phenomenon of melancholy in Galen’s thought, which is connected with the study of both medical and philosophical texts already existing before him. (shrink)