Search

Loys Le Roy’s final work, De la Vicissitude ou variété des choses en l’univers (1575), has often been cited as one of the earliest Modern interventions in the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes. This article explores what might be Modern about this text via a close reading of its final chapter. It draws on Cave’s theory of pre-histories to situate Le Roy within the broader context of the Querelle as well as to offer a reading of Le Roy’s juxtaposition of ancient and modern culture that restores a sense of the particularity both of the work itself and of the immediate context of the work’s composition and publication. In investigating how Le Roy might be considered ‘Modern’, it explores his treatment of the themes of imitation, translation, growth and decay, and the development of new genres or kinds of writing, as informed by contemporary humanist debates, as well as by the context of the French civil wars. It is argued that Le Roy’s view of ancients and moderns is informed both by his understanding of history and by a dual conception of time, which lead him to invest cautiously in the idea of greater, or more perfect, cultural production in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vergil's discussion of tree cultivation in Georgics 2 can be read metapoetically as a literary critical treatise on genre, imitation, and allusion. In Eclogue 10 and Georgics 2, Vergil develops a technique I call metapoetic allegory, in which he literalizes the metaphorical terms of literary criticism, including everyday words that his contemporaries considered to be metaphorically derived, like liber ("book" < liber "bark"). Thus he highlights the analogy between tree cultivation and poetic composition: like trees, poems are harmed by predecessors' shadows, but flourish through generic transplanting and intertextual grafting. Read in this way, Vergil's texts imply a polemical vision of literary history as progress, not decline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on plagiarism. It discusses the theory that a comparable situation holds for writers and works of the future, which practice on past and present literature a kind of spread out radiation. It explains the particular perception that allows readers, in examining texts with enough care, to grasp the new aesthetic territories where the readers are headed. It implies that the entirety of the literary history conception must be altered, once anticipatory plagiarism is accepted.

The article discusses the work "The Inkblot Record" by Dan Farrell in terms of 'pataphysics in poetry and the political possibilities of a 'pataphysical poetic. According to the author, 'pataphysics a pseudophilosopy that deals with the science of imaginary solutions, a term coined by French author Alfred Jarry in 1898. This is then framed in terms of Farrell's poetics, with reference to parody, mimicry, and exaggeration. The author uses this viewpoint to discuss the politics, content, and style of Farrell's work.

A literary criticism of the book "Don Quixote" by Miguel de Cervantes is presented. The work is examined in light of the concepts of representation, reality, and imitation. Topics include mimetic representation, the role of communication in representation, and the role of games and cruelty in the novel's portrayal of representation. Also discussed are the novel's ducal characters, such as knights, duchesses, and dukes, and types of game-playing in the novel, including methectic play.

The article discusses the idea of literary contagion in the context of British writers adopting a character from the German novel "Werther" or "Die Leiden des jungen Werther" which was written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in 1774. British authors and artists who have represented the protagonist Werther in their work include Jane Porter in her book "Thaddeus of Warsaw," James Sayer in the satiric etching "Werther, a tragedy for masters & misses," and Pierre Perrin who feminized the literary character in his epistolary novel "Werthérie." The evolution of Werther as a sentimental caricature in British literature is discussed.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," (NAEL) by Sean Shesgreen. It states the claim of Shesgreen which accounts not only for the advancement of the NAEL, but also for the constitution of its evolving table of contents. It highlights the author's view regarding the falsification, omissions that are apparent to the essay of Shesgreen.

The article focuses on the author's response to several criticis of his essay "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature." He argues that when he wrote his essay, he was in aggrement with five respondents on one common assertion, which aims to offer a thesis entirely self-evident and uncontroversial. It highlights the humility shown by the author, despite of the various allegations that might destroy his credibility as publisher.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," (NAEL) by Sean Shesgreen. It explores the author's arguments pertaining to Shesgreen's article, which is not actually a review on NAEL. It highlights the tendency of some scholars to sacrifice their credibility and ethical values in exchange for monetary gain.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," by Sean Shesgreen. It relates to the author's reaction to Sean Shesgreen's research on M. H. Abrams, which cast a complex blend of imitation and rivalry. It suggests that before a book can be sold to professors, acquisitions editors, they must be sold first to their superiors, then to company's sales force.

Chapter 2 of the book "Bulletin of Hispanic Studies" is presented. It explores the Fábula de Polifemo y Galatea, a poem written by Luis de Góngora, in a imitative view. It also presents the poem's substantial reading done by Jóse María Micó which synthesizes Góngora's texts.

Comments on the stylization and mimicry in the Russian literary theory. Distinction of the Russian concept of stylization; Literary works that are exempted from analysis of stylization; Poets that are considered as stylizers.

The article focuses on the depiction of colonization by both European settlers and Native Americans in the work of William Faulkner. The Indian co-optation of the culture of ownership endorsed by the European colonizers in the "Wilderness" stories is considered. The author provides a reading of the story "Lo!," using Homi K. Bhabha's theory of mimicry. A brief thematic overview of "Lo!," is provided. The impact of ownership of European possessions on Faulkner's Indians is considered. Faulkner's "A Justice," and "A Courtship," are also discussed.

A remarkable fact about William Shakespeare's The Tempest is that characters do not always see or hear the same thing. But while this estrangement of knowledge thins out the boundaries between character and environment to recognizably great dramatic effect, the aporetic energies underlying that estrangement are not yet fully understood. This article explores their significance by examining the connections between The Tempest and Michel de Montaigne's An Apologie of Raymond Sebond (long suspected to be related). It proposes a new verbal parallel between the play and the essay but does not confine its argument to such a criterion. Rather, it is a case study in the Renaissance practice of imitation that works from a number of aspects—shared matrices of thought and feeling, similar metaphors, networks of texts—to reconstruct the presence of a locus classicus of Renaissance skepticism in Shakespeare's late play. Along the way, it triangulates these works with a discussion of King Lear and examines the presence of Vergil and the possible presence of Seneca. It argues that Shakespeare used Montaigne's essay to make his island epistemologically strange and that this sensitive use of a philosophical source is notable for being so deeply dramatically embedded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," by Sean Shesgreen. It relates how Shesgreen obtained those pertenent documents from M. H. Abrams, a famous 20th century literary critic. It highlights the accountability of the "Critical Inquiry" to condone those incompetent estimates, factual unintelligent ideas and using quotations out of context.

The article presents a reaction to "Canonizing the Canonizer: A Short History of The Norton Anthology of English Literature," by Sean Shesgreen. It explores the author's view regarding Shesgreen's wrongful attribution of quotations, distortion of words by taking it out of context, which implies his lack of courtesy with his sources. It highlights the acts of Shesgreen as an blatant disservice and by extention, he is done the same for those interested in the history of literature anthologies.