Sudre, dans Romania , 24, , p. Frazer, dans Academy , ou 26? Comptes rendus: Albert C. Friend, dans Speculum , , , p. Thomas, dans Romania , 19, , p. Compte rendu: Gaston Paris, dans Romania , 15, , p. Compte rendu: Karin Becker, dans Romanische Forschungen , , , p.
Denis Côté (écrivain)
Compte rendu: Gaston Paris, dans Romania , 29, , p. Comptes rendus: John Hill, dans Envoi , , , p. Spencer, dans Review of English Studies , n. Comptes rendus: Gaston Paris, dans Romania 24, , p. Comptes rendus: Lucy M. Gay, dans Modern Language Notes , , , p. Roques, dans Revue de linguistique romane , 59, , p. Monfrin, dans Romania , , , p. Compte rendu: Marion Uhlig, dans Revue critique de philologie romane , , , p. Comptes rendus: Jean Lacroix, dans Revue des langues romanes , , , p.
Compte rendu: Jean Lacroix, dans Revue des langues romanes , , , p. Compte rendu: Grace Frank, dans Speculum , , , p. Compte rendu: Martin Wittek, dans Scriptorium , , , p. Comptes rendus: Alexandra Barratt, dans Parergon , , , p. Holden, dans The Modern Language Review , , , p. Brunel, dans Journal des savants , , p. Hamilton, dans Modern Language Notes , , , p. Herbert Alexander, dans The Romanic Review , 11, , p. Foulet, dans Romania , 46, , p.
Essays in Literature and Criticism, , Compte rendu: T. Gallagher , John F. Levy , Anne Martineau , Jacques E.
Droits cédés / Rights sold
Bloch, R. Bruckner, Matilda T. Sartori et D. Zimmerman, New York, Greenwood Press, , p. Logan E. Glyn S. Burgess, A. Deyermond et al. Petit de Julleville, Paris, Colin, , t. Karen J. Franco Simone, Torino, Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, , t. Peter S. Noble et Linda M. Paterson, Cambridge, St Catharine's College, , p. Ferrante, Joan M. Katharina M. Wilson, Athens, University of Georgia Press, , p. Flum, P. Compte rendu: Jacques Berlioz, dans Romania , , , p. Harrison, A.
les presses du réel – diffusion : future
Catherine M. Jones et Logan E. Whalen, Amsterdam, Rodopi, , p. Jackson, W.
Roman du retour au pays natal, version sud-africaine
Krueger, Roberta L. Il re Giovane e Maria di Francia. Chantal A. Mickel, Emmanuel J. Nagel, E. Travaux et recherches , , t. Pickens, Rupert T. Kristin L. Burr, John F. Moran et Norris J. Lacy, Jefferson et London, McFarland, , p. John Lawlor Evanston, Northwestern University, , p. Series I. Whalen, Logan E. Essays in Honor of Rupert T. Holmes, A. Engstrom et S. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, , , p. Monica L. Wright, Norris J. Lacy et Rupert T. Pickens, Amsterdam, Rodopi Faux Titre, , , p. Jahrhundert , Berlin, Schmidt, , p. Jean Dufournet, Paris, Champion Unichamp, 46 , , p.
Lettres gothiques , , p. Waters, Peterborough, Broadview Press, , p. Harley avec traduction anglaise en regard. A new edition, revised by J. The Ways of Love , trad. Traduction d' Yonec et d' Eliduc. The Lais of Marie de France , trad. Judy Shoaf, And how do these textual and melodic structures relate to those of the texts that surround them? Were these texts intended to be enacted?
If so, how by whom? If these can be viewed as dramas, as theatrical works of some kind, can they legitimately be seen also as liturgical dramas?
- Governor General's Literary Awards.
- The Handlers;
- Menu principal.
- Common Sense (Penguin Civic Classics).
- Governor General's Literary Awards;
- BORN TO PREACH?
How do these texts compare with others also judged to be liturgical dramas? Drama or not, how might these texts have been used within or around the liturgy? If they were not used liturgically, what might their intent have been? It has since undergone severe criticism by scholars including not least C. This process of theological elaboration left a space open for liturgical ceremonies, which had previously been seen as sacramental by Hugh: as sacraments of exercise , to be sacred while no longer sacramental, sacred in a freer way, outside the theological focus of the ceremonies which carried the heaviest theological weight, the sacraments.
The presence of some chants recorded in ms. In this way, the Prague chapter came into possession of one of the richest collections of late trope repertory still preserved, which also includes a number of items characteristic of the Aquitanian singing tradition. It is very likely that the prime interest of the Prague clergy in the manuscript was drawn not to its repertory, but to its late Lothringian staff notation, which was to replace the German neumatic notation in Prague by the midth-century.
Besides genuine Aquitanian chants, the troper includes several, today uniquely preserved, pieces with rich ornamental melodic lines, characteristic of chants from Aquitaine; they were, however, obviously never incorporated into the official Prague liturgy and remained only as inscriptions in manuscripts preserved in the chapter library.
The versus we find in the Paris, BnF, latin manuscript provide a fantastic means for studying the metrical forms developed in Aquitania at the end of the eleventh century. This paper offers a systematic and exhaustive analysis of these internal structures in order to reveal how these compositions engage in formal experimentation. This, in turn, gives us an insight into the poetic ingenuity of eleventh-century composers. The notion of variability and not irregularity enables us to see how composition involved a range of conscious processes that can uncover the fixed patterns which marked the first steps towards the new poetic formulae that would define future medieval lyric.
Obviously, they only represent a small portion of these papers, since among the five hundred texts that were submitted for publication after the Congress only a hundred and seventy were selected through double-blind peer review, about one tenth of all the papers delivered at the Congress. This sample, however, does reflect the vitality and the new directions taken by the discipline, both in terms of the geo-cultural origin of the contributions and in terms of approaches and methods.
Both these criteria were among those used by the readers who made the selection — of course, they came after the number one criterion of scholarly quality and originality. The papers delivered in this seminar have been included and contribute, along with the plenary lectures, to give the volumes their global structure 3. Are these volumes just a new set to be added to an already voluminous amount of books that intend to re think the stakes of comparison and comparatism, the foundations and the renewal of the discipline of Comparative Literature in the diversity of its forms and practices?
The present set of six volumes differs from all the above-mentioned books both by its size and by its ambition. The ambition of these nearly two hundred texts is not to present a State of the Discipline, be it on a national or international scale 6. Some articles do indeed take a stand on such or such evolution of the discipline and many of them echo or respond to each other, at a distance and without any prior concertation.
Whatever the permanency of this crisis of the discipline 11 and whether or not one should consider that what the field is going through today is indeed a crisis , what is undeniable and what is common to all the texts in these volumes is their historic specificity, that is, the historic specificity of the contemporary context: economic globalization affects the book market as a whole as well as the economy of the arts and culture; the development of internet and of new technologies of information and communication forces us to rethink drastically the status of the author, of the text and of the reader; and with the rise of nationalisms, which has occurred at the same time as the development of liberalism and economic globalization, such crucial notions from a comparative perspective as those of foreignness and otherness are called into question.
In this context, it is obvious that comparatism does not exist in the singular and that there is no one and only comparative method but that there are indeed comparatisms in the plural. The variations in approaches and methods to be read in the present volumes provide a way of measuring the effective diversity in comparative practices and they give concrete documentation for a comparison of comparatisms. The different paths that readers will choose to follow in the volumes will allow them to construct such a comparison, or rather comparisons 26 — comparison of the ways objects of study are constructed, comparison of the ways the stakes of the approach are elaborated, comparison of procedures….
In order to facilitate the reading, the body of texts selected from the twentieth ICLA Congress and coming from the seminar that followed has been organized in six thematically autonomous volumes that are coherent as separate units. This organization, which has not been determined a priori but emerged on the basis of the texts selected by the editorial board, is in itself very telling of a state of questions and topics privileged by comparatists today.
Within each volume, the reader will find both sections that were constructed as such for the Congress 12 and also sections that have been constructed for the publication as a result of the overall organization of the selected texts. This does not mean that the reader will not encounter, in other volumes, articles dealing with, say, Shakespeare or the One Thousand and One Nights.
And this also means that the first volume entirely focuses on a three-term articulation: comparatism, classical and early-modern periods, modernity and contemporaneity. What do comparisons bear upon?