Ce mémoire s’intéresse aux deux traductions en roumain du roman Kamouraska d’Anne Hébert. La première traduction paraît en Roumanie en 1986 à partir de la version anglaise qu’avait proposée Norman Shapiro en 1973. La deuxième traduction, faite cette fois à partir de la version originale française, paraît en 2008. Notre étude contient une présentation du cadre sociopolitique dans lequel a été faite la première traduction de Kamouraska sous le régime communiste, après quoi nous nous penchons sur le contexte de publication des deux traductions et sur des éléments paratextuels : couvertures, quatrièmes de couverture, préfaces, etc. L’examen des principales caractéristiques du style d’Anne Hébert dans Kamouraska est suivi d’une analyse comparative de quelques extraits significatifs du roman dans la première et la deuxième traductions. Nous présentons ensuite notre version française des deux préfaces aux traductions de Kamouraska : la première est signée par Irina Bădescu, et la seconde, par Cătălin Sturza. La traduction française de ces deux textes vient enrichir notre connaissance de la réflexion critique qui est faite de ce roman partout dans le monde. / Abstract : This M.A. thesis focuses on the two translations of Anne Hébert’s novel Kamouraska into Romanian. Published in Romania in 1986, the first translation was done from the English version that Norman Shapiro proposed in 1973. The second translation, this time done directly from the original French version, was published in 2008. We aim at introducing the political context in which the first translation of Kamouraska was made, more specifically under the Communist regime. We then proceed to present the editorial context of these two translations as well as some of the paratextual elements: covers, back covers, prefaces, etc. A survey of Anne Hébert’s main stylistic features in writing Kamouraska is followed by a comparative analysis of significant excerpts from the novel for the first and the second translation. Afterwards we introduce our French version of the two prefaces to the translations of Kamouraska: the first is signed by Irina Bădescu, and the second by Cătălin Sturza. The French translation of these two introductions enriches the critical understanding that is done of that novel everywhere in the world.

No description available.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(人間・環境学) / 甲第17965号 / 人博第661号 / 新制||人||159(附属図書館) / 25||人博||661(吉田南総合図書館) / 30795 / 京都大学大学院人間・環境学研究科共生人間学専攻 / (主査)教授 水野 尚之, 教授 廣野 由美子, 准教授 小島 基洋 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Human and Environmental Studies / Kyoto University / DFAM

The increased probability that future battles will take place in cities can leave military organizations unprepared for future conflicts. Urban warfare requires a different tactical approach than battles in other terrain due to its unique complexity. Previous research on urban warfare tends to agree that combined arms contribute to urban tactical success but lacks on explanations for how it carries into effect inside cities.   This study will examine how combined arms can lead to tactical victory, in a theory-testing approach, by analyzing the U.S assaults on Aachen in 1944 and Fallujah in 2004 during Operation Phantom Fury. Since the Swedish Armed Forces can be considered tactically influenced by Robert Leonhards theory on combined arms, the purpose of this study is to examine the theory’s ability to explain tactical success in urban terrain. The results show that an attacking combined arms force with superior firepower can put the defending enemy in a dilemma. However, the dilemma creates unfavorable conditions for the Alcyoneus principle of the theory to explain why the attacking forces succeeded.

No description available.

The following document is a meta-commentary on the article "Decanting the Rabelaisian Casks: Democratizing Neoplatonic Poetic Fury in Baudelaire's 'L’âme du vin'," co-authored by Dr. Robert J. Hudson and myself, which will soon be submitted for publication. It contains an annotated bibliography of all our primary and secondary sources and an account of the genesis of the argument and the writing of the article. Our article is based upon an analysis of "‘L’âme du vin," the threshold poem of "Le Vin," the central section of Charles Baudelaire's celebrated volume Les Fleurs du Mal. As we demonstrate, previous scholarship on this section is sparse and while certain poems within in have received attention from distinguished scholars, the integral part that it plays in the larger work has been downplayed, if not entirely neglected. Our reading of the poem allows for an explanation of the structure of the entire collection, illuminates Baudelaire's intended internal architecture, and elucidates his theory of poetic creation and aesthetic ideals more generally. As we demonstrate, the transition from the Parisian commoner in "Tableaux parisiens" to the transcendent poet in "Fleurs du mal" requires the transformation provided by the intoxication in "Le Vin" which lends itself to divine fury and attainment of transcendence in and ascension to the sonnets of the "Fleurs du mal." Our development of this conclusion comes through a study of Baudelaire's employment of Neoplatonic theories and images and adoption of Rabelais' Gallic codification of these Neoplatonic tropes. "‘L’âme du vin" illustrates the essence of Baudelaire's progressive populist thought previous to the Revolution of 1848, by rendering permanent the inversion of social order found in the Rabelaisian/Bakhtinian carnavalesque. The Neoplatonic ladder to transcendence, based on Plato's four stages of divine fury, and systemized by Renaissance thinkers Marsilio Ficino and Pontus de Tyard, is tipped, or thrown, on its side in Baudelaire's work, demonstrating not only the overthrow of the hierarchy of the Old Regime, but the solidification of the humanization of the common, working man, the premier venu or homme de la rue, and the ability of the least of society, rather than the members of the nobility or leisured class of centuries past, to access divine fury and poetic transcendence by imbibing, integrating, and appreciating the soul of wine.

No description available.

In 1994, military historian Martin Van Creveld presented his hypothesis about the future of modern military conflicts. He argued that these conflicts primarily would involve non-state actors or state actors employing unconventional means and methods. Thirty years later, his hypothesis appears more relevant than ever. He claims that his theory of maneuver warfare should be able to explain success against this type of adversary.  This thesis aims to test whether Van Creveld's theory of maneuver warfare can lead to success when a conventional actor faces an unconventional opponent. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the current research regarding maneuver warfare and increase understanding of whether his theory can be applied against an unconventional adversary.  The theory has been applied on the U.S. lead coalition during Operation Anaconda and Operation Phantom Fury, from early 2000s. The result of the thesis implies that Van Creveld's theory of maneuver warfare can explain the outcome of both operations and should therefore be considered as valid. However, several circumstances are identified that should be considered in modern military conflicts in the future.

À partir du geste de Jodelle, qui fait de sa Cléopâtre une furieuse en 1553, la tragédie des XVIe et XVIIe siècles n’a eu de cesse de reprendre le motif de la fureur qui engage tout l’ethos des personnages dans un risque de destruction intime, de dérèglement intérieur, d’emportement passionnel. Cette thèse se propose de questionner l’intérêt que les dramaturges tragiques ont trouvé à la fureur pour la conserver malgré toutes les évolutions et les transformations du genre, de la Cléopâtre captive jusqu’en 1653, date de l’échec de Pertharite. La fureur, au cœur de l’écriture tragique plutôt que de sa théorie, nous permet d’envisager une forme d’unité de ces cent ans de tragédies dans la pratique même du genre. Le travail constant du motif furieux par les auteurs éclaire ainsi la manière dont ils envisagent la représentation des passions exacerbées de la Renaissance jusqu’à la tragédie galante. Nous explorerons d’abord le cœur de l’élaboration complexe du motif, hérité de l’Antiquité mais recréé par l’écriture dramatique. Nous pourrons montrer, ensuite, que la fureur permet de relire notre large corpus pour faire émerger de nouvelles influences dramatiques et comprendre comment chacun des auteurs intègre le motif à son écriture spécifique – ou, au contraire, le refuse. Dès lors, il sera possible d’analyser les enjeux théoriques de la fureur tragique dont le contenu « vide » permet d’engager librement des questionnements esthétiques, éthiques et politiques. Enfin, c’est à la représentation problématique de la fureur que nous nous attacherons : la dimension spectaculaire du motif, dès ses origines, impose d’interroger ses modes d’expression. Comment les auteurs, puis les comédiens, parviennent-ils à faire entendre et faire voir au public la déraison incontrôlable grâce à l’écriture poétique et scénique ? / After Jodelle’s 1533 initial play, in which he made his Cleopatra a furious character, the Tragedy genre throughout the 16e and 17e centuries never stopped questioning the motif of Fury, a force which profoundly undermined the characters’ ethos, jeopardized as they were by the threat of personal destruction, innermost disorders, and outbursts of passion. My thesis endeavour to elucidate the reasons why Tragedy’s playwrights probed so enduringly into Fury, which persisted as a motif, irrespective of all the metamorphoses of the genre, from Jodelle’s ‘Cléopâtre captive’ until the fiasco of ‘Pertharite’ in 1653. Although Fury appeared peripheral to the theory of Tragedy, it was central to its writing. Thus, from the standpoint of the material, it provides a form of unity in over a century of varied production. Subsequently, the perpetual reworking of the motif of Rage by these authors sheds light on the manner in which they envisioned the representation of extreme passions, from the Renaissance to the tragédie galante. First of all, the complex elaboration of the motif is investigated, exploring how Antiquity’s legacy was being reinvented by dramatic writing. Then, through the prism of Fury, the large corpus of plays under scrutiny is given fresh insight, revealing new dramatic influences and how the motif was espoused by the authors and interwoven with their personal style – or rejected. After that, owing to the fact that Fury was devoid of any clear theoretical and moral contents, it is detailed how it became a field where authors could engage freely in aesthetical, ethical and political discussions. Eventually, the problematic rendition of Fury on stage is investigated: from the outset, the spectacular quality of the motif begs the question of its various modes of representation. By means of poetic and scenic writing, how did the authors and then the comedians appeal to the audience and bring this uncontrollable madness to life?

Even though battles have been fought in built-up areas for a long time, there have not been any specific theories connected to it. As the world becomes increasingly urbanized, the problem of not having any complete theories with which to analyze military operations in urban terrain becomes bigger. This essay aims to contribute to the field of military theory by investigating if Robert Leonhard’s theory of combined arms can be used in analyzing such operations and to be able to explaining the outcome of them.   The main question posed in this essay is; to what extent can Leonhard’s theory explain the outcome of military operations in urban terrain? The method used to answer this question is a comparative method formed as a case study of two military operations in urban terrain, Operation Vigilant Resolve and Operation Phantom Fury, which both took place in Fallujah during the Iraq war 2004. The intention is to test Leonhard’s theory in both cases by assigning the theory several indicators, which are tested in each case.   The result shows that the indicators appeared almost equally in both cases, even though one of the operations was said to be a success and the other a failure. However during the occasions when the coalition force used combined arms, both operations achieved military effectiveness. The conclusion is that Leonhard’s theory of combined arms cannot be used to explain the outcome of military operations in urban terrain. The theory has not been verified and strengthened by empirical evidence, but weakened, which is the opposite of what should have been the result. Combined arms-theory cannot be used to assimilate lessons learned from military operations in urban terrain.