L'astrolabe

Le poème de Pierre Crignon donne une signification au l'études de l'astrolabe, les choses qu'on pouve apprendre:

"La ligne aurore est son inception,
Les cercles ronds et graduacion
Ce sont vertus que Dieu en elle infere;
Le quateur est justification,
Tropicques sont gloire, exaltacion
Dont toute femme en honneur el prefere."

Le chorus du poème est "Juste astrolabe ou la sphere est comprise." Il dit qu'on peut comprendre le monde de l'astrolabe. L'astrolabe est scientifique et juste (donc raisonnable, impartial, et correct), donc les choses qu'on apprit là doive être vrai. La chose qu'on observe dans l'astrolabe est que le monde est de Dieu. Donc, on doit croire que le Dieu chrétien a fait le monde. La science prouve la religion dans l'astrolabe.

Il parle des qualités de Dieu, des qualités de la Vierge Mary, et de Jesus. Je pense que l'idée de la comparison et de dire que si on étudie l'astrologie, on peut bien comprendre Dieu et la religion chrétienne.

Boileau et la Fontaine

Boileau and La Fontaine's poems share the same basic story, a woodcutter is sad about his life and calls for Death. Death appears, but the woodcutter decides that he wants to live. The moral of both poems is that it is better to live and suffer than to die. The details of Boileau and La Fontaine's story differ; these differences in detail show that the way these poems deliver the moral is not identical. The moral is easily applied to all people in Boileau's poem since it has fewer details, which allows everyone to see themselves in the place of the woodcutter. However, Boileau does not explicitly state the moral of the poem, so the moral is less obvious. In La Fontaine's poem, many details of the woodcutter's life are given, so it is hard for the reader to see himself as the woodcutter, which makes it more difficult to understand the moral. La Fontaine makes the moral understandable by clearly stating it at the end of the poem. La Fontaine's poem is less subtle, Boileau's poem makes the reader find the moral himself.

The description of the woodcutter in Boileau's poem is very general, he could be any man: "Le dos chargé de bois, et le corps tout en eau, / Un pauvre bûcheron, dans l'extrême vieillesse." There are not many specific details about the woodcutter's life and situation, so anyone could easily see themselves in the place of this woodcutter: carrying a heavy load and being wet, and being old and poor are all very general human experiences. La Fontaine gives many details about the life of the woodcutter in his poem: "tâchait de gagner sa chaumine enfumée . . . Sa femme, ses enfants." The woodcutter in La Fontaine's poem is also old, poor, miserable, and carrying a heavy load of wood, but he is also a husband, a father, a man who lives somewhere specific. There are more details given about his life, so that he seems more like a specific character and less like a general "everyman." Boileau's general description makes the woodcutter of his poem more accessible. The reader can imagine himself as that woodcutter more easily, and therefore will understand the moral of the poem more easily, so Boileau does not need to point out the moral for the reader at the end of the poem. The woodcutter in La Fontaine's poem is a specific character, so it is more difficult for all readers to relate to him and to thus understand the moral. La Fontaine fixes this difficulty by stating the moral at the end of the poem so that even readers who don't relate to the woodcutter in his poem can learn the message of the story. The way that each poet describes Death’s arrival shows that for Boileau man has little control over Death, whereas for La Fontaine Death is an option that man could easily choose.

The woodcutter must call for Death many times before she appears in Boileau's poem: "Il souhaite la Mort, et cent fois, il l'appelle. / La Mort vint à la fin. 'Que veux-tu ? cria-t-elle.'" The woodcutter in Boileau's poem has to wait a long time for Death. Boileau is showing death as a desire in his poem, yet it is a desire that the woodcutter cannot choose. As much as the woodcutter wants Death to come, he must wait for her to appear. For Boileau, man has no control over Death. Boileau's message seems Christian: man should not desire Death, and man must wait a long time for Death to come rather than trying to hurry her by taking matters into his own hands. Death arrives quickly for the woodcutter in La Fonataine's poem: "Il appelle la Mort. Elle vient sans tarder, / Lui demande ce qu'il faut faire." In La Fontaine’s poem Death arrives immediately- the woodcutter only has to call her once and she arrives right away. La Fontaine shows Death as a choice, readily available to any man who desires to die.

Boileau and La Fontaine give the same basic message in their poems: it is better to live in misery than to die. Boileau’s poem gives a general description of a man so that anyone can relate to the poem and see the moral for himself. La Fontaine gives more details about the woodcutter in his poem, so it is harder for the reader to relate to him; La Fontaine makes up for this by explicitly stating the moral at the end of the poem to ensure that all reader’s have understood the moral even if they couldn’t see themselves in the woodcutter’s position. Boileau’s woodcutter has to wait a long time for Death to arrive; he calls for her many times before she will appear. Boileau shows that Death is not under man’s control. Man cannot easily bend Death to his will. Christians believe that God is in charge of death and that suicide is a sin. Boileau’s version of the poem seems to have undertones of these Christian beliefs about Death. La Fontaine’s woodcutter calls for Death once and she arrives immediately. La Fontaine sees Death as a choice that man could easily make, but the moral of his poem says that man should choose to live rather than choose to die. The basic moral of these poems is the same: it is better to live in misery than to die, so don’t wish for Death. However, these small differences in the way that Boileau and La Fontaine tell their stories show that they think differently about the best way to communicate a moral to their readers and how much control man has over Death.

Amusant - Il y a un "post" du Roussau au dessous!!!

AH LA VACHE!
Oh, my Cow! (Good God!)

C'EST LA FIN DES HARICOTS.
It's the finish of the green beans. (It's hopeless.)

POSER UN LAPIN.
To leave a rabbit. (To stand someone up.)

AVOIR LE GUEULE DE BOIS.
To have a wooden face. (Have a hangover)

FAIRE UN TABAC.
Make a tobacco. (Be the toast of the town.)

FAIRE UN BOEUF.
Make a beef. (Improvise [as a jam session.])

METTRE LES VOILES.
Put on the sails. (To split.)

SE FAIRE UNE TOILE.
To make a fabric. (Go to the movies.)

COMME UN CHEVEAU SUR LA SOUPE.
Like a hair in the soup. (Something out of context.)

FAIRE UN BIDE.
To make a big belly. (To fail, flop.)

BOIRE COMME UN TROU.
Drink like a hole. (Get smashed.)

PRENDRE LE TAUREAU PAR LES CORNES.
Take the bull by the horns. (To face a problem.)

PRENDRE SON PIED.
Take his foot. (It was swell.)

C'EST LE BOUQUET.
That's the bouquet. (That's the limit.)

J'EN AI RAS-LE-BOL.
My bowl is overflowing. (I can't take it any more.)

LES CAROTTES SONT CUITES.
The carrots are cooked. (I've had it!)

FAIRE LE PIED DE GRUE.
To make like a flamingo stands. (To wait.)

MARCHER A COTE DE SES POMPES.
To walk next to your shoes. (To be out of it.)

CHERCHER DES PUCES.
To look for fleas. (To bug someone.)

ARRETE TON CHAR.
Stop your chariot. (Stop it!!)

SE FENDRE LA PIPE.
To break the pipe. (To laugh.)

METTTRE LES PETITS PLATS DANS LES GRANDS.
Put the little plates in the big ones. (Putting on the dog.)

SE FARCUR.
To be stuffed. (To be bored.)

ETRE A LA COLLE.
To be glued. (To have a romantic adventure.)

ETRE UN BON COUP.
To be a good hit. (To be good in bed.)

CIEL, MON MARI!
Sky, my husband! (Caught in the act!)


Je les ai trouvés à: http://www.anvari.org/shortjoke/Shaggy_Dog_Humor/1994.html

I think that slang is a new phase of language. We've gone from using pictures and gestures to using words that express specific things to using words for abstract ideas. Language has been moving further and further away from what it represents, language has become more abstract. With slang such as this, language has moved even further away: words don't even mean what they mean! And language is becoming more complex. Does this complexity help us to communicate more effectively, though?

Rousseau

J'aime ce travail. Je pense que ses explications sont très bonnes. Les étages des hommes et des langues sont très intéressants:
"Ces trois manières d'écrire répondent assez exactement aux trois divers états sous lesquels on peut considérer les hommes rassemblés en nations. La peinture des objets convient aux peuples sauvages ; les signes des mots et des propositions, aux peuples barbares, et l'alphabet, aux peuples policés."

Je me demande si Rousseau a pensé qu'il y aura un autre étage de la langue? Que ce serait-il? Rousseau fait une histoire de la langue, il prouve que la langue est fluide, donc on ne peut pas croire que nos langues sont immuables.

Paul Scarron

Sur Paris

Un amas confus de maisons
Des crottes dans toutes les rues
Ponts, églises, palais, prisons
Boutiques bien ou mal pourvues
Force gens noirs, blancs, roux, grisons
Des prudes, des filles perdues,
Des meurtres et des trahisons
Des gens de plume aux mains crochues
Maint poudré qui n'a pas d'argent
Maint filou qui craint le sergent
Maint fanfaron qui toujours tremble,
Pages, laquais, voleurs de nuit,
Carrosses, chevaux et grand bruit
Voilà Paris que vous en semble ?

Sonnet

Vous faites voir des os quand vous riez, Heleine,
Dont les uns sont entiers et ne sont gueres blancs ;
Les autres, des fragmens noirs comme de l'ebene
Et tous, entiers ou non, cariez et tremblans.
Comme dans la gencive ils ne tiennent qu'à peine
Et que vous esclattez à vous rompre les flancs,
Non seulement la toux, mais vostre seule haleine
Peut les mettre à vos pieds, deschaussez et sanglans.
Ne vous meslez donc plus du mestier de rieuse ;
Frequentez les convois et devenez pleureuse :
D'un si fidel avis faites vostre profit.
Mais vous riez encore et vous branlez la teste !
Riez tout vostre soul, riez, vilaine beste :
Pourveu que vous creviez de rire, il me suffit.



Les poèmes de Scarron s'aggissent des sujets graphiques, bas, laid, et crus. La langue des poèmes simple et franc, c'est l'opposite des poèmes précieux.


La description de Paris en "Sur Paris" est en forme d'une liste. Les choses sales se suivent, et le poème crée un sens de l'élan. Il n'y a pas beaucoup de virgule aux fins des vers, donc on lit le poème très vite. La question au fin est une opportunité pour le lecteur de pense aux choses qu'il a lu.


La description des dents de la femme du sonnet fait qu'au fin du poème, le lecture est comme le narrateur: il veut que la femme "creviez de rire" et mort, pour qu'on n'a plus besoin de penser ou regrader la bouche pourrie.

Les Obsèques de la Lionne

"Les Obsèques de la Lionne" is a satire of the court, using animals as characters instead of people. It is permissible to use animals in a text that criticizes the court. The use of animals makes the story fall clearly into the realm of fiction: the story could be based on real events, but since the characters are animals the story is obviously a fantasy. When using animals in a story, there is no need for names. One says "le Lion," or "le Cerf," or simply "le Monarque." Because there are no proper names, each animal is just a general role; there is no specific person invoked who could take offense at the story. The use of animals also makes the fable timeless. If a satire used people, there would have to be descriptive details that would set the satire in a specific place and time (such as we see in La Princesse de Clèves), which could be offensive to some people. It is safer for Jean de La Fontaine to use animals as his characters because the claim of fiction is made obvious, so people are less likely to be offended by his story.

The king in La Fontaine's story is portrayed as being very stupid, as are the members of the court. La Fontaine portrays le Lion as being an ineffectual and irresponsible king. He is willing to give up some of his power by letting his officers rank the nobles, he changes his mind after hearing le Cerf's pleasant lies about his wife being happy in her afterlife, and his anger goes unnoticed by le Cerf. The message at the end of La Fontaine's story is that kings are easily fooled if one tells them what they want to hear. La Fontaine shows kings as being very weak.

The king seems to take very little responsibility on himself, choosing to give some of his power to his Prévôts. His wife has died, so he informs his people, and then cries, letting his officers handle the funeral: "Il fit avertir sa Province / Que les obsèques se feraient / Un tel jour, en tel lieu ; ses Prévôts y seraient / Pour régler la cérémonie, / Et pour placer la compagnie." It seems significant that the Prévôts are the ones who decide where the nobility will sit during the funeral. The seating at events has great meaning for the nobility; where one is seated is a reflection of rank and favor with the king. If the king leaves the seating arrangements to his Prévôts, he is giving them the power to give favor to some of the nobles. The king's opinion becomes less important when he allows his Prévôts to assign seats to the nobles.

The king is outraged when one of his courtiers tells him that the Cerf was smiling instead of crying, so le Lion orders the wolves to kill le Cerf: "Nous n'appliquerons point sur tes membres profanes / Nos sacrés ongles ; venez Loups, / Vengez la Reine, immolez tous / Ce traître à ses augustes mânes." The king says that he does not want to soil his hands by touching the deer himself, so he orders the wolves to kill the deer for him. It should be an act of power to have things done by someone else, but the king seems impotent because his order is not carried out. The king changes his mind after he hears the deer speak about his wife, la Lionne, being in heaven. Rather than being torn apart, le Cerf is rewarded for his speech: "Le Cerf eut un présent, bien loin d'être puni." The king's order was not carried through, he changed his mind. Le Lion appears weak because he is easily swayed by le Cerf's lies.

La Fontaine seems to mock the king's anger- he describes it as being terrible, but le Cerf does not recognize it because he hasn't read Solomon: "La colère du Roi, comme dit Salomon, / Est terrible, et surtout celle du roi Lion: / Mais ce Cerf n'avait pas accoutumé de lire." La Fontaine is being ironic in saying that the anger of all kings is great, especially this king's anger, but then saying that le Cerf did not notice le Lion's anger. La Fontaine's irony shows how little respect and power a king can have.

The end of La Fontaine's fable shows how weak and easily manipulated kings can be: "Amusez les Rois par des songes, / Flattez-les, payez-les d'agréables mensonges, / Quelque indignation dont leur coeur soit rempli, / Ils goberont l'appât, vous serez leur ami." It is hard to know exactly what La Fontaine implies. By saying that they will swallow the bait, is La Fontaine suggesting that kings are conscious of the fact that people manipulate them. Do some kings knowingly allow themselves to be swayed by lies and flattery? Is La Fontaine being sarcastic when he says that one will be the king's friend by doing these things? Perhaps kings need to be happy in order to be good rulers, and so if lies make them happy, then one is being their friend by lying? Le Lion in the story is grieving the whole time; so perhaps le Lion's weakness is due to his grief, and le Cerf is helping le Lion to be a good king again by lying to him and making him happy. Since it is not clear if le Lion was a good king before his wife died we cannot know if La Fontaine intends this interpretation or not.

La Fontaine's fable is very clever. In such a short poem he shows us many ways that kings can be irresponsible. They can neglect their duties by having others take over, they can change their mind when they hear lies, and their anger can be impotent. La Fontaine's fable shows an ineffectual ruler. One could read the end of the fable as forgiving: if kings are unhappy they are not good rulers, so flatterers and liars are their friends because they make kings happier and therefore better able to rule. This seems an unlikely interpretation, though. La Fontaine most likely intends his command to be a friend to kings by lying to them to be seen as ironic. La Fontaine does not seem to portray kings as very responsible or effectual, but rather as petty and stupid.

Perrault et Bruyère

Perrault compare les auteurs Français aux auteurs Grecs et Romains: "Et l'on peut comparer, sans craindre d'être injuste, / Le siècle de Louis au beau siècle d'Auguste." Perrault résume les qualités d'Homère qu'il admire. Ensuite, il dit que les auteurs Français serront fameux aussi. C'est un très grand prétention, et il donne la louange, mais il ne dit pas pourqoui les auteurs Français sont bons. Aussi, il dit que la France est aussi bonne que la Rome (Auguste), mais il parle beaucoup d'Homère, qui est Grec. J'avance que les Romains et les Grecs sont tous "les anciens" pour Perrault.


Bruyère a beaucoup des commentaires sur les auteurs anciens. Il intime qu'on a besoin de la génie pour être bon auteur: "il faut plus que l'esprit pour être auteur" (3). Il donne une importance subtile aux lecteurs, parce qu'on doit les convaincre qu'un texte est bon: "ils sont si beaux qu'ils font lire sa critique" (15). Il dit aussi que si on aime un texte qui est inspirateur (moral), le texte est bon: "quand une lecture vous élève l'esprit, et qu'elle vous inspire des snetiments nobles et courageux, ne cherchez pas une autre règle pour juger l'ouvrage; il est bon" (31). Il me semble que les critères pour un bon texte ne sont pas les critères d'une compétence de la langue. Pour Bruyère les idées sont l'aspect le plus important du texte.



Une maxime de la Rouchefoucault pour les étudiants anxieux:
"On n'est jamais si heureux ni si malheureux qu'on s'imagine."

Voltaire

En donnant des reproches, Voltaire expose les règles pour l'usage du Français dans les pièces. Il y a les règles diffèrentes pour la comédie et la tragédie.

Dans les remarques sur Médée, Voltaire dit que c'est le péril qui fait intéressantes les histoires Greques: "ce péril donna de la célébrité à l'entreprise."

Voltaire critique Corneille et trouve qu'il fait beaucoup d'erreurs, mais je pense que Voltaire donne une louange quand il dit: "Corneille fut le premier qui sûttransporter sur la scène française les beautés des auteurs grecs et latins."


Voltaire parle des difficultés du Français pour les poètes: "la plus grande difficulté de la poésie française, et son plus grand mérite, est que la rime ne doit jamais empêcher d'employer le mot propre." Il dit aussi: "Plus on a de termes pour exprimer la même chose, plus la poésie est variée." Voltaire identifie les problèmes de la poésie pour le lecture, mais il dit que ces difficultés donnent de la valeur aux poèmes: "Dès que vous ôtez la difficulté, vous ôtez le mérite." Donc, est-ce que Voltaire intime que la poésie française est meilleure que les autres parce qu'elle est plus difficile?


Pour Voltaire, les vers de la poésie doivent être bonnes en prose aussi: "Pour juger si des vers sont mauvais, mettez-les en prose; si cette prose est incorrecte, les vers le sont." Aussi, quand on lit, les problèmes du lange sont plus évidents: "ces petites négligences multipliées se font plus sentir à la lecture qu'au théâtre."



Est-ce que Voltaire est critique expert? Est-ce que tous les Français sont d'accord avec ses opinions? Et s'il y a un mouvement d'avoir un Français plus français, pourquoi est-ce que Voltaire fait des comparaisons aux Grecs et Shakespeare?