No description available.

Texte remanié de: Diss.--Florence--Università degli studi, 1993. / Bibliogr. p. 129-133. Index.

Proefschrift--Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 272-282. Index. Résumé en anglais.

Thesis--Edinburgh. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

Th. doct.--Leiden--Universita di Leida, 1993. / Contient un résumé en allemand et en anglais.

Diss.--Kunstgeschichte--München, 1976. / Bibliogr. p. 941-1042.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 225-244).

Zugl.: Regensburg, Univ., Diss., 2006

Ma recherche sera consacrée au regard que posait Nietzsche (1844-1900) sur, selon ses propres mots, cet « âge d’or », la Renaissance. Il s’agira de traiter de l’évaluation de la Renaissance par Nietzsche. Cette étude portera sur une analyse des auteurs de la Renaissance que Nietzsche a lu, comme par exemple Miguel de Cervantès (1547-1616) et parfois même apprécié tel que Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) ou encore Nicolas Machiavel (1469- 1527). Elle m’amènera aussi à traiter de l’image de l’artiste et du génie de la Renaissance qu’il soit peintre comme par exemple Raphaël (1483-1520), sculpteur comme Michel-Ange (1475-1564), musicien ou écrivain. Cette lecture nous permettra d’une part d’aborder certaines figures de la Renaissance avec les yeux de Nietzsche, et elle nous donnera alors la possibilité de comprendre pourquoi Nietzsche considère l’époque de la Renaissance comme la « dernière grande époque », et d’autre part de comprendre l’influence sur de la Renaissance sur sa philosophie. Nous tenterons de comprendre pourquoi il pense que la culture de la Renaissance est une « culture noble » et cette époque, « l’âge d’or de ce millénaire ». Comment la Renaissance a-t-elle pu permettre l’épanouissement de grandes individualités et même favoriser l’émergence d’individus d’exception ? Et nous nous demanderons alors pourquoi nous n’avons pas récolté « la dernière grande moisson de culture qu’il était possible de récolter », pourquoi et comment la ruine de cette grande époque, la Renaissance, a-t-elle eu lieu ? Qu’arriva-t-il ? Et qu’est ce que cette époque peut encore nous enseigner ? / My investigations were dedicated to Nietzche (1844-1900) look on, according to his own words, this golden age named La Renaissance. I dealt with La Renaissance assessment according to Nietzche. This study focused on an analysis about La Renaissance authors that Nietzsche read, as for instance Miguel de Cervantès (1547-1616) and even sometimes appreciated.as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) or Nicolas Machiavel (1469-1527). It also drove me to deal with La Renaissance artist and genius image whether it’s a painter as Raphaël (1483-1520) for instance or a sculptor as Michelangelo (1475-1564), a musician or a writer. This reading allows us to to talk about some La Renaissance figures through Nietzche eyes and leads then to the possibility to understand why Nietzche considered La Renaissance as the « last important age » and on the other hand, to understand this influence La Renaissance had on his philosophy. I tried to understand why he thought that La Renaissance culture was a « noble » one and this period, « this millenium golden age ». How did La Renaissance lead to important personalities blooming and even contributed to exceptional people emergence And then, I wondered why we didn’t gather « the last culture wealth we were able to amass », why and how this age ruin, La Renaissance one, did take place ? What did happen ? And what does this period can still teach us ?

The language used in critical readings of Hamlet is rife with implicitly teleological terms: according to many critics, and the ghost of King Hamlet, the story of his father's murder and Claudius' succession requires Hamlet to do something. I ask, why should Hamlet kill his uncle, revenge his father, correct his mother, become king, marry Ophelia, and produce heirs to rule when he is gone? While Hamlet's inaction is often described as delay or paralysis, I suggest that the Danish prince resists teleology through his studied ambivalence towards dynasty: land-owning, child-bearing, wars and marriage. Building on recent theoretical and historical work by scholars like Lee Edelman, Will Fisher, Margreta de Grazia and Madhavi Menon, I suggest that Hamlet, through the interventions of its main character, thwarts the assumption that the relationship between a nobleman and his land is natural, that the desire for possession and rule is inherent. Combining de Grazia's invaluable historicism with Fisher's discussion of prostheses, Ir ead the Renaissance nobleman as a prosthetic creature, physically and politically embodied by his marriage, his children, his land. In delaying the revenge he has been called upon to carry out, in hesitating to take up the crown, Hamlet defers the prostheses of nobility, and opens up a space from which to question the dynastic project. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate