Le Banquet (La Petite Collection t. 227) (French Edition)
Of interest to all those involved in literary studies and critical theory, this collection reveals the moment of death as that which binds life and work together - a relation which, here, is as urgent as it is impossible. Editor: Barbara Schaff. This volume explores the dynamic and productive cultural forces engendered by exiles, wanderers, and diasporic communities in Britain and Italy over more than five centuries.
It investigates the historic resonance of transnational encounters and movements between two European cultures that look back on a long history of cross-fertilisation. This volume pays tribute to the stimulating exchange, circulation, and appropriation that has occurred between Britain and Italy, showing that the condition of displacement can lead not only to the articulation of loss and grief, but also to fruitful forms of interaction.
Terms and Conditions Privacy Statement. Powered by: PubFactory. Sign in to annotate. Delete Cancel Save. Since the nineteenth century, it has been expected that serious scholarly editions of medieval texts should refer to manuscript sources and Beaune and d'Arbaumont claim that this is what they do. Nevertheless, in this case, they have simply passed on the reading of earlier printed editions. The fact that Denis Sauvage should have produced this reading is understandable: the manuscript BnF f.
The fact that this is not the case suggests that Sauvage 's edition was a point of reference for Beaune and d'Arbaumont in establishing their text. It is, however, present in Sauvage's text Beaune and d'Arbaumont do not comment on the origin of this variant while Sauvage states quite openly in his preface that he has had to modify La Marche 's text to correct infelicities of style and this appears to be an instance of this practice Beaune and d'Arbaumont discount all possibility of influence by the earlier printed edition over their work, insisting that their edition is based entirely on their selected manuscripts, as Sauvage 's text is unreliable If this were the case, it would be impossible to explain how variants present only in previous printed editions of the work could have found their way into their edition.
The fact that they have suggests that, despite the editors' rhetoric of return to manuscript sources, Sauvage's edition, and not manuscript BnF f. The editors acknowledge that they have read Sauvage's text and say that their notes will draw attention to changes, additions, corrections or omissions in Sauvage's edition and those that followed it. In the course of such a procedure, which demands that a transcription be compared with a printed edition, the temptation to follow the reading of the printed edition, - as opposed to merely noting the differences between the two - must be great and it appears to have been one which Beaune and d'Arbaumont were unable to resist.
Indeed, on occasions Beaune and d'Arbaumont's desire to underline the separation between their own edition and those of the earlier print tradition leads them to do an injustice to the comprehensiveness of Sauvage's edition, suggesting that it omits details which are in fact present. In fact Sauvage acknowledges that these words are present in his base manuscript but, because the promised rules of engagement are not included, he relegates them to a marginal note In this instance it is, therefore, entirely possible to reconstruct the contents of Sauvage's source manuscript from the editor's comments and Beaune and d'Arbaumont's criticism seems to be intended more to stress their separation from the earlier print tradition than to rectify any mistake of that tradition.
Were this really Beaune and d'Arbaumont's concern, they could have drawn their readers' attention to a passage which occurs on the very same page. This passage is also present in manuscript BnF f. This feature of manuscript BnF f. However, Beaune and d'Arbaumont do not even draw attention to this feature's existence in a footnote. The phrase does not occur in Sauvage's edition either - all the more reason for Beaune and d'Arbaumont to include it, one might think, given their constant readiness to point out the deficiencies of the foregoing print tradition.
However, as it has become clear, Beaune and d'Arbaumont have more of a debt to this print tradition than they would like to acknowledge, and one is tempted to ask whether they did actually refer to this passage and others in BnF f. Elsewhere Beaune and d'Arbaumont's edition departs from the text of both their source manuscript and that of the foregoing print tradition.
Elsewhere, it seems that Beaune and d'Arbaumont have omitted such passages in their transcriptions and wish to query their presence in Sauvage's edition. Thus they place square brackets around the phrase ceulx du val de Cassel qui luy furent rebelles. Il between two instances of the word subjuga, despite the fact that it not only appears in their source manuscript in this instance BnF f. A number of criticisms can thus be made of Beaune and d'Arbaumont's use of manuscript and printed sources.
Henri Stein, however, criticizes them not only for the way that they handle these sources but for the way in which they select them in the first place. He hints that their selection of source manuscripts has been influenced more by considerations of geography than by those of textual suitability Beaune and d'Arbaumont do not present their choice. In fact, they do not discuss the practical constraints on the preparation of their edition except in one respect.
The incident demonstrates that the influence of patronage was not merely a feature of the manuscript age but that it continued to shape texts even after they were presented in printed editions. In the light of this perception, those who commissioned this edition felt that it was justified to use the official text of the Treaty of Arras; presumably because they believed that this would make the edition a more valuable resource for historians.
However, this only underlines the question of the clash between the ideals of fidelity to a historical source and fidelity to a manuscript source for a text. The work also contains the text of the Treaty of Soleuvre signed between Charles le Hardi and Louis XI in , which provided for a nine-year truce between the two powers In reproducing this text, Beaune and d'Arbaumont acknowledge the existence of two other manuscripts, "sur lesquelles nous avons pris soin de les collationner, ce qui a permis d'y faire plusieurs corrections importantes" This is probably because neither of the versions identified by Beaune and d'Arbaumont bears the signatures or official seals of the signatories, and the other known copies of the text are similarly unofficial.
The same emphasis can be identified in the table analytique with which the edition ends and in the notes which frame La Marche 's text itself. Most of its entries refer to proper names: of people, towns or nations. Nationalist Histories of the Nineteenth Century. All three are editions which reproduce Denis Sauvage 's text, with little or no editorial comment.
Dread RPG deutsch System Matters Verlag 2018 Neu Grundregelwerk Hardcover owswme359-Sonstige
Petitot's edition contains notes, some of which are the editor's own and some of which are those of Jean Lautens de Gand. Like Stuart and Stuart, Petitot identifies the partisan nature of the way in which Jean Lautens de Gand engages with the work that he edits, whilst recognizing the value of some of Lautens 's interventions and wishing to preserve them. However, the edition only conserves those of Lautens 's notes which are relative to the history of France, a country which, as Petitot makes clear, Jean Lautens regarded as inimical to his compatriots.
The belief that Lautens, as a Ghent separatist, is not equipped to comment on those sections of La Marche 's work dealing with his home town is in keeping with the focus of Petitot's edition, and the others of the early nineteenth century, on the history of France.
Hôtel de l'Europe by HappyCulture (Hotel), Strasbourg (France) Deals
This exemplifies an attitude to La Marche, also present in the work of his biographers, that tends to claim the author as representative of either French or Belgian national culture, subjecting the fifteenth-century author to classification according to categories which were only emerging when he died. The tendency is particularly apparent in these collections, which contain very little other than the text of the works that they reproduce. An Enlightenment Edition. Although it was intended to be part of this series, and was presented as such on its title page, Henri Stein claims that it was removed from the series, despite numerous changes perpetrated on the text by the anonymous editor or editors to meet with the perceived sensibilities of readers in Olivier de La Marche, then, must be made to sound like an educated man of the Enlightenment, and, in order to do this, his introduction - or Book One - must be excised from the edition.
Thus the very aspects that modem. Like many editions already examined, that of incorporates the notes of Jean Lautens de Gand, but, unlike them, it does not comment on the influence of Lautens's pro-Ghent sympathies. There is no indication here - as there was with the edition of Stuart and Stuart - that the editor found the idea of a Ghenter commentating on a vehemently anti-Ghent text picturesque. Indeed, the edition avoids all elements which might be thought picturesque in favour ofthat which is "savant". Nevertheless, the text is that of Jean Lautens, including the modifications which he made to Denis Sauvage 's text to occlude criticism of the people of Ghent.
The extent to which the edition accepts Jean Lautens's work uncritically is displayed by the editorial assertion that Lautens's notes are "souvent [ However, a closer comparison of the two editions reveals that the edition departs further from its source than the preface suggests by re-ordering the chapters. However, there may be rhetorical reasons for a departure from chronological presentation, as it allows the text to alternate periods of war and festivity, giving the impression that the Valois dukes lived scenes of unbelievable grandeur right up to the disaster of The edition of makes the change in the order of the chapters without editorial comment, and this destroys any rhetorical impact that La Marche 's chronological uncertainty might have Copycat Editions of the Seventeenth Century.
If the edition departs from the text found in Jean Lautens de Gand, it nevertheless challenges it much less than did post-Enlightenment editors of La Marche, aware of the potential prejudice in Lautens's account. These not only reproduce the text and critical apparatus of Jean Lautens's edition, but also retain the same pagination, making it possible for them to use Lautens's contents page and index. Given this methodology, it is debatable whether they should be regarded as separate editions at all.
Nevertheless they demonstrate a further attitude to the text, namely that Lautens's edition is definitive and - if only for the practical reason that drawing up a revised index is a long and complicated process - that it should not be modified.
- Le Roi René (Biographies Historiques) (French Edition)?
- bogbkey.tk Ebooks and Manuals.
A Ghent of the Seventeenth. And yet, as subsequent editors and commentators have recognized, there is a lot in Jean Lautens's edition that one might wish to modify Lautens's prejudice in favour of the people of Ghent has been noted, and it makes itself felt both in his lengthy footnotes and in the modifications he makes to chapter titles. The editor cannot be accused of concealing this partiality; he draws attention to both strategies in his introduction. It would be easy to conclude that the second of these - the modification of chapter headings - is the more serious since it entails changing the text itself and not merely the addition of exegesis.
Indeed, Lautens's view is that no French writer could deal with these subjects impartially. Lautens can do this because he believes that La Marche writes with a militant anti-Flemish bias which needs to be counteracted and that Sauvage has failed to do so. This also leads him to add his comments to La Marche 's narrative in often lengthy marginal notes providing, for example, background information on the rejection by Ghent of a tax on salt in 1 In the course of providing this type of material, Lautens supplies his reader with a wealth of factual and historical information which subsequent editors have often found useful and incorporated into their editions.
The fact that it chimes in with the historical approach of subsequent editors may be entirely coincidental. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Lautens was the first editor to take this approach and, although those who followed him may have rejected his polemical standpoint, there are certainly grounds for arguing that he was influential in establishing their critical approach. More than this, however, there are reasons for arguing that Jean Lautens's polemical position itself has been influential in shaping the way subsequent readers have seen La Marche.
Lautens's aim was, as has been demonstrated, to counteract La Marche 's anti-Flemish position by changing or adding paratextual material. Towards the end of the work La Marche includes a passage which is highly critical both of the ruling class of Ghent and of those who followed them. Jean Lautens's account obscures two features of La Marche 's version of events to which the editor might object: firstly, and in keeping with his stated aims of countering French anti-Ghent opinion, he omits La Marche 's implication that Ghentish rebellion is morally culpable, because comparable to the sin of idolatry; secondly, however, he avoids describing the extent to which the people of Ghent were themselves implicated in the implementation of Habsburg policy against Ghentish rebellion.
The First Edition. As has been demonstrated above, both its text and structure shaped subsequent editions - in fact all are based on Sauvage 's edition in one way or another, even that of Beaune and d'Arbaumont, which claims to be the result of a return to the manuscript source. However, even Sauvage's work is not the unmediated reproduction of a manuscript source and there is frequently good reason for the editor's departures from what is believed to be his source manuscript, BnF f. In his introduction, Sauvage drew his readers' attention to the difficulties he had had with the absence of punctuation in his fifteenth-century text, but the changes he made go beyond questions of orthography and punctuation.
Sometimes these changes relate only to the manuscript which Sauvage consulted and amount to corrections which bring BnF f. An example of this occurs when, describing a victory by Saracens over Christians, BnF f. All the other manuscripts contain the more plausible 'religion crestienne', and Sauvage exercises his judgement to make an informed correction of his manuscript And what about the two short silver horns protruding on his forehead?
le banquet la petite collection t french edition Manual
This is another worrying sign, especially since Greek deities never display animal features. Bull horns at the forehead of a Greek god: how shocking! This bloody nebris is the livery of Dionysos, which is also worn by his suite. This hide is tied on the right shoulder, and one can even distinguish the small animal leg as well as the irregularly serrated reverse of the skin edge, across his torso. A mantle section, as if lifted by the wind, is waving on his left shoulder. This association — tunic, fawn hide and mantle — is very peculiar, as the god is usually wearing one or the other of these clothing items, sometimes two, but seldom all three of them.
Along with Aphrodite, goddess of love, Dionysos is one of the most frequently depicted deities in the classic world, from the Archaic Period to the end of the Roman Empire. If he is naturally shown on banquet dishes from the 6 th century BC onward, he was also depicted on a whole series of other media. The piece considered here can be linked by its style to the production of the Hellenistic period 4 th — 1 st century BC , when the cult of Dionysos enjoyed a new enthusiasm, notably under the aegis of Alexander and his successors.
This statuette was found in Chochlia, Central Greece, and is dated to the middle of the 2 nd century BC. Paul Getty Museum, California, , p. But the bust of Dionysos — and of his comrades Seilenos, the satyrs and the bacchantes — is also used as an adornment for furniture items related to the banquet, such as series-produced appliques adorning the head-rests of banquet couches fulcra , fig. The productions which are closest to our bust thus date back to the Hellenistic period. These small decorative bronze objects were cast, recast and very widely spread.
A plaster casting very similar to the one considered here shows to what extent these objects have been copied and multiplied. All these clues make it seem like the cultivated circles were immersed in the vapours of wine, and worshipped Dionysos as a leading god. The applique bust of the FGA is in fact of a rare quality: the precision of its modelling, of its inlays, the treatment of the facial features, body details eyelids, well-defined lips and clothing show great technical skills and a true sense of perfection.
The mitra , for instance, is creased on the forehead like a real headband; the same is true for the tunic and the beast hide. Barr-Sharrar speaking of Dionysiac busts of the Hellenistic period. A style notably identified in the sparse wreath with its leaves which seem to be moved by the wind. A style where nothing is left to chance, neither the hair nor the facial expression. All these details give this piece a clearly theatrical aspect, typical of the bronze appliques with Dionysiac designs of the late 2 nd century BC. The FGA bust can also be compared to a series of six appliques from the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, showing the fair Dionysos wearing the same three items of clothing: a tunic with low-cut collar, a beast hide tied on the torso and a coat folded back over the left shoulder.
But these appliques are larger, less refined, and never equipped with inlays. These six exemplars as well as our piece may have been inspired by the same model, 7 Manfrini-Aragno, Bacchus , p. In the Hellenistic period, Alexandria was one of the active centres of the cult of Dionysos.
It shows a drunk and happy Dionysos, as the god indulges himself with wine. Wearing ivy — and not grapevine, as is later the case — the mitra on his forehead, he is holding a cup against his breast and placing his right hand on the top of his head, the usual expression of joyful intoxication. As suggested by his empty eye sockets, his eyes must have been inlaid too, like those of our bust. A rather rare feature, as we shall see. Dionysos enjoyed a notably fervent cult in Alexandria, under the Ptolemies, where he seems to be a protector of the dynasty.
This sumptuous celebration included several chariots, the first of which was devoted to Dionysos and his party: this impressive sight was supposed to embody the myth and triumph of the god, and therefore the power and wealth of the Lagids.
- Aïe Aïe Aïe !?
- naaxbkr.tk Ebooks and Manuals.
- The Quest for Courage.
- Whos who in Philadelphia in wartime.
- Recherche des livres parus sur l'ensemble des collections Nelson en!
This bust, found at Thmuis in the Delta, was dated to the early 2 nd century BC. Roemer- und Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim, Mai - To conclude, the refinement of this piece of metalwork, the likely date of its production and the display of a well-known thema in Lagid Egypt suggest that it comes from an Alexandrine workshop which produced high-quality pieces.
What is the meaning of these bull horns at the forehead of Dionysos? Zeus can also occasionally take the shape of a white bull, as he does to abduct princess Europe.