Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation

The Bestiaire d’amour and the Long Version of the Bestiaire (Bestiary) attributed to Pierre de Beauvais: another look at their affiliation C. Baker has established it: what was called the “Long Version” of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire is in fact the work of a “remanieur” (reviser), who was writing...

Ful tanımlama

Kaydedildi:
Detaylı Bibliyografya
Yazar: Maurice, Jean
Materyal Türü: Article ou chapitre numérique
Dil:Français
Baskı/Yayın Bilgisi: 2009
Konular:
Online Erişim:Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM
Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM
id cairn-RMA_151_0009
record_format cairn
spelling cairn-RMA_151_0009RMALe Moyen Âge https://shs.cairn.info/revue-le-moyen-age-2009-1-page-9?lang=fr https://doi.org/10.3917/rma.151.0009 Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation Maurice, Jean2009 “Long Version” attributed to Pierre de BeauvaisBestiaire d'amourmoralized bestiaryPierre de BeauvaisRichard de Fournivalfre Le Moyen Âge | CXV | 1 | 2009-06-05 | p. 9-27 | 0027-2841 RMA_15136 The Bestiaire d’amour and the Long Version of the Bestiaire (Bestiary) attributed to Pierre de Beauvais: another look at their affiliation C. Baker has established it: what was called the “Long Version” of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire is in fact the work of a “remanieur” (reviser), who was writing around 1246. This date makes it possible to invert the long accepted relationship between this “Long Version” and the Bestiaire d’amour: the latter could be a source of the former. This is C. Baker’s and G. Bianciotto’s opinion. But there is still evidence that continues to favor the traditional chronology. Neither the “Long Version’s” vocabulary, nor the concatenation of “natures” or the slightly anachronistic secular interpretation of some animals occasionally found in it, nor the lack of traces of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire in Richard de Fournival’s work are decisive proof of the new thesis. Furthermore, meticulous comparison of the two texts seems to imply that the Bestaire d’amour clarifies its model by working for greater concision and textual coherence, whereas the supposed compilation of the remanieur would result in a very clumsy account hardly compatible with his supposed virtuosity. And some of its possible borrowings would bring nothing to the religious allegorical construction, which is his work’s “raison d’être”. Overall, inverting the affiliation poses more problems than it resolves. But the debate remains open... Cairn free access
language Français
format Article ou chapitre numérique
building 0/Bibliothèque numérique/
1/Bibliothèque numérique/Cairn/
topic “Long Version” attributed to Pierre de Beauvais
Bestiaire d'amour
moralized bestiary
Pierre de Beauvais
Richard de Fournival
spellingShingle “Long Version” attributed to Pierre de Beauvais
Bestiaire d'amour
moralized bestiary
Pierre de Beauvais
Richard de Fournival
Maurice, Jean
Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
topic_facet “Long Version” attributed to Pierre de Beauvais
Bestiaire d'amour
moralized bestiary
Pierre de Beauvais
Richard de Fournival
description The Bestiaire d’amour and the Long Version of the Bestiaire (Bestiary) attributed to Pierre de Beauvais: another look at their affiliation C. Baker has established it: what was called the “Long Version” of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire is in fact the work of a “remanieur” (reviser), who was writing around 1246. This date makes it possible to invert the long accepted relationship between this “Long Version” and the Bestiaire d’amour: the latter could be a source of the former. This is C. Baker’s and G. Bianciotto’s opinion. But there is still evidence that continues to favor the traditional chronology. Neither the “Long Version’s” vocabulary, nor the concatenation of “natures” or the slightly anachronistic secular interpretation of some animals occasionally found in it, nor the lack of traces of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire in Richard de Fournival’s work are decisive proof of the new thesis. Furthermore, meticulous comparison of the two texts seems to imply that the Bestaire d’amour clarifies its model by working for greater concision and textual coherence, whereas the supposed compilation of the remanieur would result in a very clumsy account hardly compatible with his supposed virtuosity. And some of its possible borrowings would bring nothing to the religious allegorical construction, which is his work’s “raison d’être”. Overall, inverting the affiliation poses more problems than it resolves. But the debate remains open...
author Maurice, Jean
author_facet Maurice, Jean
author_sort Maurice, Jean
title Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
title_short Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
title_full Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
title_fullStr Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
title_full_unstemmed Le Bestiaire d'amour et la Version longue du Bestiaire attribuée à Pierre de Beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
title_sort le bestiaire d'amour et la version longue du bestiaire attribuée à pierre de beauvais : retour sur la question de leur filiation
publishDate 2009
container_title
container_issue
url https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-le-moyen-age-2009-1-page-9?lang=fr
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.3917/rma.151.0009
_version_ 1877246727965114368