.

Le projet historique de Jean Froissart s’inscrit dans un discours particulier sur les genres historiques, sur les rapports entre la forme et la vérité que le récit des faits est censé véhiculer, sur la manière de construire l’autorité de l’histoire racontée. C’est au croisement entre ce contexte et l’individualité de l’auteur que nous avons voulu sonder les perspectives du chroniqueur sur l’écriture historique. Préoccupé dès le début par les questions de l’impartialité et de la crédibilité de son propos, Froissart met en place un système référentiel de plus en plus complexe qui a pour but d’authentifier son récit des grands événements qui secouaient les royaumes occidentaux depuis presqu’un siècle. La réalité historique que Jean Froissart recrée dans ses Chroniques est dépendante des facteurs personnels qui conditionnaient son appréhension du monde, des manières dont il s’identifiait dans la société de son temps. Elle est recréée avec un grand talent de raconter, mais aussi – ce que l’on a trop souvent méconnu – avec un souci de plus en plus accru de découvrir et d’exposer les réseaux de causes qui sont à l’œuvre dans le cours des événements. Cependant, les moyens littéraires auxquels Froissart faisait appel et qui sont associés notamment à l’art du conteur qu’il était, participent eux à l’authenticité de l’histoire qu´il raconte. Car si le chroniqueur se veut celui qui éternise les faits dignes de mémoire, il se refuse en même temps à écrire une autre histoire que véridique. Et cette préoccupation première de son écriture ne doit pas être obscurcie par le fait que son approche ne corresponde pas à nos critères contemporains de l’écriture de l’histoire. / Jean Froissart´s historical project falls within a specific discourse on historical genres, on relationships between form and truth which an account of deeds is expected to convey, on the manner in which the authority of a story being told is constructed. It is on the very intersection of this context and the individuality of the author that I based my search for the chronicler’s perspectives on the writing of history. Froissart was from the outset concerned with the issues of impartiality and credibility of his account and created a system of references, which grew more and more complex, designed to authenticate his version of important events which had been shaking the West for almost a century. The historical reality which Jean Froissart recreates in his Chronicles is dependent on personal factors which determined his understanding of the world as well as his self-identification within the society of his time. It is undeniably recreated with great storytelling talent, but also – and this has often been overlooked – with growing desire to discover and expose the relations of causes which were at work in the course of the events. Nonetheless, Froissart’s literary means, which are often associated with his artistry as a storyteller, do contribute, for their part, to the authenticity of the story. For if the chronicler presents himself as the one who eternalizes deeds worthy of remembrance, he refuses at the same time to write any other history than the true and truthful one. This primary concern of his should not be obscured by the fact that his approach and methods do not correspond to our contemporary criteria of historical writing.

The Construction of Historical Reality in Jean Froissart's Chronicles Jean Froissart, one of the most famous chroniclers of the Middle Ages, is generally recognized for the literary qualities of his work, less so for the credibility of his account. In my research I have endeavoured to follow those scholars whose aim has been to rehabilitate the author by studying him not on the basis of principles which govern our contemporary understanding of history as an academic discipline, but rather on the basis of conceptual movements which conditioned historical writing in the 14th century, taking into account the traditions upon which medieval conception of history was built. Put differently, this work seeks to examine closely the "historical forge" of Jean Froissart. Clearly, Froissart's historical project falls within a specific discourse on historical genres, on relationships between form and truth which an account of deeds is expected to convey, on the manner in which the authority of a story being told is constructed. It is on the very intersection of this context, on the one hand, and the individuality of the author, on the other, that I based my search for the chronicler's perspectives on the writing of history. Froissart was from the outset concerned with the issues of impartiality and credibility...

Language can create realities, and the totalitarian pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm tend to use language in order to control the oppressed animals’ minds and world view. Orwell’s dystopian fable Animal Farm repeatedly deals with manipulative language, and so an analysis of the animal characters’ language may help upper secondary students to understand themes such as the power of language and truth. Moreover, for students to understand the power of language and truth in Animal Farm more easily I, in this essay, argue that logic and epistemology might help. This logical and epistemological perspective can be seen as a philosophical perspective for English teachers and students when they discuss language and truth on the farm. Finally, this philosophical analysis of Animal Farm may also improve students’ logical reasoning skills and critical thinking.

本論文將檢視非虛構歷史記錄（史料）與虛構歷史書寫（歷史小說），全方位分析歷史意識與書寫間的關係。在考察大量非虛構歷史記錄與虛構歷史文本間的關聯與從屬性後，試圖梳理出隱晦於兩者間之互動聯繫。上述聯繫奠基於認識論、認知學、美學、語言學與本體論，而這些特性皆將於論文中詳細分析論述。 在深入介紹三位重要的歷史／文學理論家—詹明信、保羅‧呂格爾以及海登‧ 懷特—並且比較其作品之異同後，本人將於第二章提出本論文的主要發現之一，即作品中存在著本人稱為「美學倫理」的、一種不斷形塑的思維。本人認為，美學倫理是一種強大且具約束力的複合物，它連結並影響著非虛構與虛構歷史的書寫， 而書寫則涵納了道德／倫理與美學特性之實踐。美學倫理乃是動態、高度審慎的領域，其中包含個人與群體的歷史經驗，並且盤根錯節於深層美學與意識的大架構之下。在此經驗中，歷史首先實際發生，接著由歷史學家載入史料，其後由歷史小說家書寫成為故事。 在此部份，我將於論文中引述一些重要的分析家，其中最具影響力者要算是約翰‧杜威以及丹尼爾‧維克伯格，他們的「感知歷史」理論將會是重要論述因子之一。在本文理論中另一重要元素乃是人類意識敘事基礎對於虛構與非虛構歷史敘事的理解與組織模式。而這將再次點明實際的意識經驗（歷史）是如何先發生，之後由歷史學家書寫（意識）歷史，接著再由小說家撰寫故事。 第三章根據上述論證，透過敘述意識概念的細節回顧，以及意識如何建構歷史敘述之脈絡，進一步闡述理論。本研究較為獨特之處，在於對主體性、客體性與相互主體性之間，整合運作聯繫性之分析。第四章將詳細剖析各種特定的美學因子，以及這些因子在理論架構中，歷史意識兼敘述之「發展中網絡」裡所扮演的角色。此分析之重要元素乃是本人對於生活與文學中表達模式之檢視，在過去此類概念並未被充分陳述。 第五章包含真實與歷史書寫之分析。根據本人研究，仍有許多關於歷史敘述中真相之觀察與「建構」方面的細節，過去尚未有較完備之研究。透過比較異同，並整合當代多位優秀分析家與理論家之理論，本人將描繪出關於歷史真相之完整且獨特的理論。此外，本章亦將概略提出一個與論文其他分析搭配，且獨立建構的真相理論。在結論部分，將針對上述眾多概念，提出其整體重要性之論述，以及這些概念對於人類歷史意識與書寫之衝擊。 關鍵字：歷史、歷史意識、歷史學家、歷史小說家、史料、歷史小說化、史實、美學、敘述意識、道德、倫理 / This paper is an expansive analysis of historical consciousness and writing, examining the principle genres of non-fiction history (historiography) and fictionalized history (historical novels). The analysis examines a host of relevancies and affiliations that cross among fictional and non-fictional historical writing, and seeks to highlight underlying vincula linking these two narrative forms. These linkages stem from epistemological, cognitive, aesthetic, experiential, linguistic and ontological qualities, all which will be examined and related in detail. The work begins with a thorough preamble that compares, contrasts and critiques the works of three major historical/literary theorists—Fredric Jameson, Paul Ricoeur and Hayden White—and applies their theory to my own ideas, I introduce my main theses and themes, to be examined throughout the study. A principal finding of this study in Chapter Two is the existence of a conditioning conception I call the “aesthetics ethic.” The aesthetics ethic is I posit a strong, binding amalgamation that links and influences these two genres, comprised of transacting moral/ethical and aesthetic features. The aesthetic ethic is a dynamic, densely deliberative field comprising individual and community historical experience, embedded within profoundly aesthetic and conscious contexts, in which history is first lived, and historical writing by historians and historical novelists is then composed. I refer to a number of important analysts in this section of the work, perhaps most importantly John Dewey and Daniel Wickberg, whose theory of “histories of sensibilities” is an important factor. An additional important element of my theory is that the narrative basis of human consciousness maps onto historical narratives, fictional and non-fictional. This again refers to how conscious lived experience (history) is first lived, and then (conscious) historical writing by historians and novelists is then composed. I follow this examination, in Chapter Three, with a detailed review of conceptions of narrative consciousness, and how this consciousness maps onto historical narrative, proper. A unique element of this study is my analysis of a given combinatory transaction linking subjectivity, objectivity and intersubjectivity. Chapter Four is a lengthy analysis of specific aesthetic factors, and their roles in a “burgeoning matrix” of historical consciousness-cum-narrative within my overall theory. An important component of this analysis is my examination of modality in life and letters, and important conception that has not been adequately addressed in the past. Chapter Five includes an analysis of truth in historical writing—and we find that there are intricate details about the apprehension and “construction” of truth in historical narrative that have not been adequately described before. I delineate, compare, contrast and combine ideas from several premier analysts and theorists in this area, reaching what I hope is a coherent and unique theory of historical truth. In this chapter, additionally, I provide a small sketch of an independently created theory of truth that is in accord with the rest of the analysis. The work concludes with final summaries and thoughts about the overall importance of narrative historical writing, and their impact on human historical consciousness and writing.