Notre étude comporte deux axes principaux : premièrement, une réflexion sur la signification de la notion de vérité pour les auteurs médiévaux des textes de notre corpus, historiens des XIIIe et XIVe siècles et romanciers du XVe, et sur la perception de cette signification par la critique actuelle; deuxièmement, une étude des rapports qu'entretiennent ces différentes œuvres, qui présentent une symétrie particulière du fait de la reprise de motifs caractéristiques de chacune des chroniques par chacun des romans. Ces deux axes sont mêlés et doivent s'éclairer mutuellement. Nous commençons par une approche sémantique de la notion dans les œuvres, par un repérage des problématiques concernées par notre sujet (littérature et réalité, distinction entre histoire et fiction au moyen âge, particularités du contexte culturel), et par une discussion des interprétations de la critique au sujet de la véridicité des œuvres. Nous recherchons ensuite dans la structure narrative de chacune des œuvres un rapport avec une conception commune de la notion de vérité, ce qui n'implique pas une même intentionnalité. Au contraire, ayant mis en évidence une référence commune à une certaine apparence de vérité, nous tâchons de mesurer la part de fictionnalisation et de parodie que ces œuvres comportent, à des degrés divers. Nous proposons ainsi une lecture des chroniques littéraire plutôt qu'historienne, et une conception de la reprise des chroniques par les romans comme parodie du discours historique. / Our study follows two main lines: first, a reflection on the understanding of the concept of truth by the medieval authors of the texts of our corpus, historians of the 13th and 14th centuries and novelists of the 15th century, and on how contemporary critics perceive this understanding; second, a study of the relations between these different texts which show a particular parallelism since some characteristic features of each chronicle are taken up in each novel. The two lines constantly cross and must throw light on each other. We begin with a semantic approach to the concept of truth in the texts, and then with a look into the issues related to the theme (litterature and reality, distinction between history and fiction in the Middlle Ages, particularities of the cultural context), and a discussion of critical interpretations of the veridicality of the texts. Then, in the narrative structure of each text of the corpus, we look for a relation with a common conception of the notion of truth, wich doesn't imply they have the same intentionality. On the contrary, after pointing out a common reference to a certain appearance of truth, we try to determine the levels of fictionalisation and parody in the different texts. So, we present a literary, rather than historical, reading of the chronicles, and a conception of the reuse of the chronicles by the novels as a parody of the historical discourse.

Análisis textual y lingüístico de la novela de caballería Curial y Güelfa, enfocando como leitmotiv e hilo conductor el vicio capital de la envidia, tal como era visto y entendido en la Europa del siglo XV.

This paper focuses on the evolution of “reasonableness” as a unitary standard of judicial review and the role of tribunal expertise in that process. The modern era begins with Nipawin in 1973, a time when judicial review operated with a crude binary system of standards that allowed for either full curial deference (patent unreasonableness) or no deference (correctness). It ends in 2008 with Dunsmuir and the jettisoning of the highest standard of curial deference, the standard of patent unreasonableness. Correctness is now implicitly understood not as a standard but, as the justified absence of the need to extend deference to a tribunal`s decision. Patent unreasonableness and the middle ground standard of reasonableness have ostensibly been "collapsed" into a single more rational, workable, flexible and sophisticated unitary system based on the multi faceted standard of reasonableness. It is argued that the new “standard of review analysis” expressed in Dunsmuir is simply a comprehensive restatement of all the previously articulated diverse and, typically, non-dispositive factors and exceptions. The hallmarks of this new standard are the recognition that, more often than not in administrative law, there is no one right or best answer and that, a reviewing court will respect and affirm a tribunal’s choice if it is within the range of options provided it is well reasoned. This paper also addresses the primarily academic criticism of the Supreme Court over conceptual problems in distinguishing patent unreasonableness from reasonableness, a dispute fuelled by this court’s continued attempts to justify a standard of review that allowed for a tribunal’s right to be wrong. It is argued that patent unreasonableness had become less of a standard of review and more of a simple expression of judicial censure for egregious fault in decision making; a qualifier to a finding of unreasonableness. Arguably that role may have been preserved even with the collapsing of the two standards into one standard in Dunsmuir. While Dunsmuir should have clarified many of the issues the three-way difference of opinion in the Court demonstrates continuing deep rifts that may portend further uncertainty. Uptake by lower courts indicates otherwise. / Thesis (Master, Law) -- Queen's University, 2009-03-17 14:58:15.299

Notre étude comporte deux axes principaux : premièrement, une réflexion sur la signification de la notion de vérité pour les auteurs médiévaux des textes de notre corpus, historiens des XIIIe et XIVe siècles et romanciers du XVe, et sur la perception de cette signification par la critique actuelle; deuxièmement, une étude des rapports qu'entretiennent ces différentes œuvres, qui présentent une symétrie particulière du fait de la reprise de motifs caractéristiques de chacune des chroniques par chacun des romans. Ces deux axes sont mêlés et doivent s'éclairer mutuellement. Nous commençons par une approche sémantique de la notion dans les œuvres, par un repérage des problématiques concernées par notre sujet (littérature et réalité, distinction entre histoire et fiction au moyen âge, particularités du contexte culturel), et par une discussion des interprétations de la critique au sujet de la véridicité des œuvres. Nous recherchons ensuite dans la structure narrative de chacune des œuvres un rapport avec une conception commune de la notion de vérité, ce qui n'implique pas une même intentionnalité. Au contraire, ayant mis en évidence une référence commune à une certaine apparence de vérité, nous tâchons de mesurer la part de fictionnalisation et de parodie que ces œuvres comportent, à des degrés divers. Nous proposons ainsi une lecture des chroniques littéraire plutôt qu'historienne, et une conception de la reprise des chroniques par les romans comme parodie du discours historique.

Magister Theologiae - MTh / The service of deacons in the Church is documented from Apostolic times. A tradition attested already by St. Ireneus and influenced in the liturgy of ordination, sees the origin of the diaconate in the institution of the “seven” mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (6:1-6). St Paul refers to the deacons and to bishops in his letter to the Philippians. (1:1), while in his first letter to Timothy (3:8-13) he lists the qualities and virtues which they should possess so as to exercise their ministry worthily.While the permanent diaconate was maintained from earliest Apostolic times to the present in the Eastern rite churches (Orthodox and Catholic), it gradually disappeared in the western church during the first millennium. The diaconate continued as a vestigial form as a temporary, final step along the course to ordination to the priesthood in the western church. In the 20th Century, the Permanent Diaconate was restored in the western church.Following the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council (in Lumen Gentium29), in 1967 Pope Paul VI issued the motu proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem,restoring the ancient practice of ordaining to the diaconate men who were not candidates for priestly ordination.The permanent deacons are assigned to work in a parish and to assist priests in their pastoral and administrative duties, but report directly to the bishop who appoints them. Unlike most clerics, permanent deacons are married or single men who also have a secular profession.In the Archdiocese of Cape Town, the first deacons to be ordained to the order of Permanent deacons took place in 1980. In the early days, the archdiocese had a clear policy for diaconate training and formation. Priests requested men to study towards becoming deacons. Over the past 30 years the bishops have ordained close to 100 deacons to minister in 75 parishes throughout the Archdiocese.Today there is a need to try to understand why deacons lack the zeal and passion that was so prevalent at their ordinations. Is it due to their training or has a need a risen for a deeper theological understanding of the diaconate. Priests do not fully understand the ministry of the deacons which on occasions gives rise to conflict within the parish.Currently more and more communities are calling on the parish deacon before approaching their parish priest for advice. It is in these theoretical grounds that a critical assessment of the Profile and Ministry of the Catholic Diaconate in the Archdiocese of Cape Town was undertaken. This is pioneer research in the Archdiocese.