Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis (KU Leuven)" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 20:
Voir aussi le jugement de la Cour d'appel de 1844 : ''La Belgique judiciaire'', 28 juillet 1844 {{numéro|69}}, {{p.|1}} : Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles. Deuxième chambre. L'université libre de Louvain ne représente pas légalement l’antique université de cette ville. Attendu que cette université (l’ancienne ''Université de Louvain''), instituée par une bulle papale, de concert avec l'autorité souveraine, formait un corps reconnu dans l'État, ayant différentes attributions, dont plusieurs même lui étaient déléguées par le pouvoir civil ; Attendu que ce corps a été supprimé par les lois de la république française ; Attendu que l'université existant actuellement à Louvain ne peut être considérée comme continuant celle qui existait en 1457, ces deux établissements ayant un caractère bien distinct, puisque l'université actuelle, non reconnue comme personne civile, n'est qu'un établissement tout à fait privé, résultat de la liberté d'enseignement, en dehors de toute action du pouvoir et sans autorité dans l'État…}}.</ref> qui ont refusé d’octroyer les bourses de l'ancienne université à la nouvelle : l'Université catholique de Louvain ne peut être considérée comme continuant l'ancienne Université de Louvain<ref>Cour de cassation : « '''L'Université catholique de Louvain ne peut être considérée comme continuant l'ancienne Université de Louvain''' ; et lorsqu'un acte de fondation a désigné pour collateur un professeur de cette ancienne université, il y a lieu d'y pourvoir par le gouvernement », ''Table générale alphabétique et chronologique de la Pasicrisie belge contenant la jurisprudence du Royaume de 1814 à 1850'', Bruxelles, 1855, {{p.|585}}, colonne 1, alinea 2. Voir également : ''Bulletin usuel des lois et arrêtés'', 1861, {{p.|166}}.</ref>.
<br><br>
:::Let's be serious. The French Wiki says even about the "first school" that it affirms that there is "une certaine continuité". Accepting this for the sake of the argument, it's far away from saying that the KUL is the university founded in 1425, just under another name. I've also checked the sources given on that Wiki page: The [https://www.kuleuven.be/over-kuleuven/geschiedenis.html first one], from the KUL itself, is much more nuanced than you make it look. It starts by saying they are setting out the "roots" of the "Leuvense universiteit" (i.e. "Leuven university" with "Leuven" being an adjective - universitas Lovaniensis), they then describe the history of the old university, ending with the statement that in 1797 the "French Republic dissolved the old university". They go on to say "In 1816 opende de Universiteit te Leuven weer haar poorten als een Rijksuniversiteit, opgericht door koning Willem I der Verenigde Nederlanden." (translation: "In 1816, the University at Leuven opened its doors again, as a State University, founded by King William I of the United Netherlands.") Here, either the capitalisation of "Universiteit" and "Rijksuniversiteit" is a spelling error or they are trying to play games; whatever it is, "Universiteit te Leuven" cannot be a name, but only a description, because no university has ever had that exact name. What's interesting here is that they seem to imply that the State University of Leuven already was the same university as the old one; something for which there are actually better reasons than in the case of the KUL, but which has never been asserted by that university itself or for that matter it's founder, King William. The further implication (if we are to think that the KUL is the same university) of course would be that in 1835, the Catholic University of Mechelen ceased to be itself but became the State University of Leuven (being the same as the old university) under a different name and governing body, because both universities briefly coexisted in 1834 (at which time they could therefore not have been identical). Lets read further: "De Belgische bisschoppen stichtten in 1834 te Mechelen een Katholieke Universiteit. Maar al in 1835 kwam deze terug naar het vertrouwde Leuven, waar de Rijksuniversiteit was opgeheven." (translation: "The Belgian bishops in 1834 founded a Catholic university in Mechelen, but already in 1835 it came back to the familiar Leuven, where the State University had been dissolved.") And that's it! No further claim of identity! The [https://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/universite-de-louvain/ second source] says: "Supprimée par le Directoire en 1797, elle fut rétablie en 1816 (comme université d'État). Après l'indépendance de la Belgique, l'université d'État disparut et l'épiscopat put rétablir à Louvain une université catholique (1835)." (translation: "Dissolved by the Directoire in 1797, it has been reestablished (as a state university) in 1816. After Belgian independance, the state university vanished, and the bishops were able to reestablish a Catholic university in Leuven (1835).") "'''A''' Catholic university! That's no claim of identity for the KUL either! (But again, the text does claim that for the state university who never said so itself.) Finally, the [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Catholic-University-of-Leuven third source] is indeed written as if these universities were the same, but with all due respect to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the text obviously isn't very precise. It e.g. seems to say at times that KUL and UCL are the same university while explaining elsewhere that the original university has been partitioned into two separate ones. The text says that "The original university was founded by Pope Martin V at the behest of Duke John (Jean) IV of Brabant" (while I think it would be more correct to say that it was founded by Duke John with the assent of Pope Martin) and goes on to claim: "The forces of the French Revolution suppressed the university in 1797, but in 1834 the Belgian episcopate reestablished it as a French-language, Roman Catholic university." Yep, here you have a claim of identity, but a pretty sloppily written one, because it omits to mention that in 1834 the university wasn't even in Leuven and completely leaves out the state university which would have had a much better claim to continuity but which still existed in 1834. I should also mention that while the French Wiki only notes "a certain continuity" when citing the "first school", the Dutch Wiki describing the same dispute clealy states: "Het is duidelijk dat er weliswaar geen juridische band bestaat tussen de in 1797 afgeschafte en de in 1835 opgerichte universiteit." ("It's clear that it's true that there is no legal link between the university dissolved in 1797 and the one founded in 1835.") So, it's not as if we are saying something completely different here than other Wikis do. There is no serious claim that these universities are really the same. What can be said is that the tradition of university teaching in Leuven goes back to 1425 (with only a minor interruption between 1797 and 1817 but several professors of 1797 teaching again there in 1817). And starting from there you could describe the dispute about "continuity" (whatever that then may mean) and about the degree to which the KUL can rightly claim to continue the same teaching tradition as the old university; there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't talk about this in the article. But stating that the current university was founded in 1425 - or even that this can seriously be claimed - is simply misleading. [[Usor:Sigur|Sigur]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Sigur|disputatio]]) 10:57, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
== Responsio ad Sigur ==
| |||