Both theatre and drama were imported to Canada from European colonizing nations, and as such the canonical master-texts of European drama, particularly the works of Shakespeare, have always occupied a prominent place in Canadian theatre. This presents a challenge for living Canadian playwrights, whose most revered role model is also their most dangerous competition, and whose desire to represent the spectrum of contemporary Canadian experience on stage is often at odds with the preferences of many producers and spectators for the “classics.” Since the 1990s, a number of Canadian playwrights have attempted to challenge the role of canonical plays and the values they represent by appropriating and critiquing them in plays of their own, creating a body of work which disturbs conventional distinctions between “adaptations” and “originals.” This study describes and analyzes the adaptive dramaturgies used by recent Canadian playwrights to appropriate canonical plays, question the privileged place they occupy in Canadian culture, expose the exclusionary hierarchies they legitimate, and claim centre stage for Canadian perspectives which have hitherto been waiting in the wings. It examines how playwrights challenge, usurp, or exploit the cultural capital of the canon by “re-citing” old plays in new works, how they or their producers attempt to frame the reception of their plays in order to address cultural biases against adaptation, and how audiences respond. This study draws from and builds upon contemporary theories of adaptation and particularly (Canadian) Shakespeare adaptation, seeking an understanding of adaptation based on the motives, tactics, and efficacy of adaptation. Simultaneously, it challenges the dominance of “Shakespeare,” in critical as well as theatrical practice, by comparing appropriations of Shakespeare to appropriations of Chekhov which exhibit similar tactics and motives.

My paper examines how American authors of the South Asian Diaspora (Indian-American or South Asian American) can be read 1) as simply American and 2) without regard to ethnicity. I develop this argument using American authors Jhumpa Lahiri, a first generation American of Bengali-Indian descent, and Bharati Mukherjee, an American of Bengali-Indian origin. I borrow from Deepika Bahri's materialist aesthetics in postcolonialism (in turn borrowed from members of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory) and include theoretical insights from Rey Chow, Graham Huggan, and R. Radhakrishnan regarding multiculturalism, identity politics, and diaspora studies. Huggan and Radhakrishnan's insights are especially useful because their work deals with the South Asian diaspora, in England and the United States, respectively. After setting up a theoretical framework, I critique reviews and essays that privilege hyphenated, "Indian," or "South Asian" identity, and the resultant reading paradigm that fixes these authors into an ethnic minority category. I then trace aesthetic and thematic content of short stories from both Lahiri's Interpreter of Maladies and Mukherjee's The Middleman and Other Stories to demonstrate how these stories resist this ethno-cultural pigeonholing. My analysis exposes how ethnic and multicultural identity politics supplant aesthetic criticism and transform ethno-cultural identity into an aesthetic object, even if done as a celebration of hybridity or liminality as a putatively liberating space (hyphenated identity as embodying that space). Though my purpose is not to undermine the meaningful artwork and criticism instantiated in or about the "in-between" spaces of American culture, I demonstrate that an over-emphasis on ethnicity and culture (culture "other" than the majority culture in the U.S.) in fact stifles the opening of the American literary canon. Ethnicity and culture become ways of limiting the hermeneutics available to literary criticism because they become the only ways of reading, instead of one lens through which American literature is read.

Comme son titre l’indique, la présente thèse porte sur la canonicité de la Conférence des évêques. Elle vise à réfléchir au degré d’autorité decette nouvelle institution spécifiquement latine. La Conférence des évêques est devenue un organe permanent, alors que le Synode desévêques né en 1965 sous le pontificat de Paul VI n’a pas reçu cette caractéristique. La Conférence des évêques est-elle une expression de lacollégialité épiscopale ? Le Concile Vatican II (1962-1965) l’a admise comme l’une des composantes de cette collégialité. Vatican II l’aconsacrée et institutionnalisée (Constitution Lumen Gentium et Décret Christus Dominus), mais sans parvenir à lever toutes les questionsliées à son autorité et à sa juridiction. Le Synode des évêques de 1969, dont le thème annoncé était précisément la collégialité vécue, a aussiabordé la question des Conférences épiscopales. À cette Assemblée synodale, le débat a concerné principalement les moyens à mettre enoeuvre pour réaliser une coopération réelle et efficace entre Rome et les Conférences épiscopales et pour garantir une meilleure autonomie àces Conférences, sans pour autant entraver la liberté du Pape, ni porter atteinte à l’autorité de l’évêque diocésain. Il s’en est suivi une plusgrande détermination des principes qui régissent d’une part les relations entre les Conférences épiscopales et Siège apostolique, et d’autrepart les liens des Conférences épiscopales entre elles.Mais ce débat n’a toujours pas été tout à fait dirimé, surtout quant à l’autorité magistérielle de la Conférence des évêques. La qualificationjuridique en 1983 par les soins de la codification latine semble n’avoir pas suffi. Témoigne de ce malaise persistant le Synode des évêques de1985. Celui-ci a formellement demandé une réévaluation de l’institution de la Conférence des évêques : « Puisque les Conférencesépiscopales sont particulièrement utiles, voire nécessaires dans le travail pastoral actuel de l’Église, on souhaite l’étude de leur « status »théologique pour qu’en particulier la question de leur autorité doctrinale soit plus clairement et plus profondément explicitée, compte tenude ce qui est écrit dans le décret conciliaire Christus Dominus n° 38 et dans le Code de droit canonique, can. 447 et 753 ». Cela aoccasionné deux efforts institutionnels, l’un consultatif (L’Instrumentum laboris de 1987 de la Congrégation pour les évêques), l’autre décisionnel (le Motu proprio Apostolos suos de 1998). Dans cette dernière norme de requalification théologique et juridique, le Pape Jean-Paul II réaffirme de manière plus décisive la spécificité de la Conférence des évêques. Ce vaste dossier peut sembler redondant et lancinant. Les chercheurs peuvent constater que le problème de l’autorité de la Conférence des évêques s’avère encore difficile à trancher. En effet, les principaux paramètres de l’édifice ecclésial ne sont-ils pas profondément interrogés ? / As it is suggested within the title, the present thesis focuses on the canonicity of the Conference of bishops. It aims to reflect the degree ofauthority of this new specifically Latin Institution. The bishops Conference has become a permanent body, while the Synod of bishops whichwas born in 1965, under Pope Paul VI did not receive this feature. Is the Conference of bishops an expression of episcopal collegiality? TheSecond Vatican Council (1962-1965) was admitted as a component of this collegiality. Vatican II was consecrated and institutionalized(Constitution Lumen Gentium and Decree Christus Dominus), but failed to raise any issue relating to its authority and jurisdiction. The 1969Synod of bishops, whose theme was announced, more precisely lived collegiality, also addressed the question of episcopal conferences. Atthe Synod Assembly, the debate has mainly concerned the means to implement in order to achieve a real and effective cooperation betweenRome and the bishops' conferences, and to ensure greater autonomy to these conferences, without impeding the freedom of the Pope, orundermining the authority of the diocesan bishop. There ensued a greater commitment to the principles which govern, on the one hand, therelationship between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See, and on the other hand, the links between the different episcopalConferences.But that debate has still not been completely invalidated, especially as it refers to the teaching authority of the Conference of bishops. Thejuridical qualification, in 1983, through the efforts of the latin codification seems to have been insufficient.The Synod of Bishops, in 1985, demonstrates this persistent discomfort. It has formally requested a reassessment of the institution of theConference of bishops: « Since the Episcopal Conferences are particularly useful, even necessary in the current pastoral work of theChurch, we want to study their theological " status " so that in particular the issue of their doctrinal authority would be more clearly anddeeply explained, taking into account what is written in the conciliar Decree Christus Dominus, item N° 38 and in the Code of Canon Law,can. 447 and 753 ». This situation derived to two institutional efforts: an advisory one (The Instrumentum laboris of 1987 of theCongregation for bishops), then another one, a decision (the Motu proprio Apostolos suos 1998). In this last theological standard and juridicalrequalification, Pope John Paul II reaffirms, more decisively, the specificity of the Conference of bishops. This extensive file may seem to beredundant and haunting. Researchers can notice that the problem of authority of the Conference of bishops remains difficult to determine. Infact, are the main parameters of the ecclesial structure not deeply questioned ?