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]

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.