"Francis Ponge, souvent qualifié de poète des choses ordinaires, écrit sur la chèvre, le savon, le crottin... Il tente ainsi, hors de tout procédé rhétorique et de toute technique poétique, d'entrer dans les choses comme telles ou telles qu'elles sont. Mais ce 'telles qu'elles sont', souvent nous en faisons un 'telles qu'elles nous paraissent être' à nous-mêmes, nous qui ne savons pas réellement rendre compte de la part sensible des choses. Comment comprendre alors cette immersion dans un univers sensible (...) que l'on sait par avance hors des choses? Cette immersion s'inscrit-elle dans une lecture philosophique de la réalité, une sorte de réduction phénoménologique merleau-pontienne, ou dans une vision naturaliste du monde faisant de la nature un principe fondamental, à la manière de la religion naturelle de Diderot ou de l'écriture naturaliste de Zola? Francis Ponge écrit-il pour montrer les lacunes du langage courant, ou au contraire pour mettre en place un autre langage? Écrit-il ou est-il dans une tentative d'écriture comme tous ces écrivains, tels Sarraute, Blanchot ou Beckett, qui résistent à l'écriture en écrivant?"--. (shrink)

At the crossroads of poetry and philosophy: Francis Ponge and Maurice Merleau-Ponty The aim of the present article is to clarify the place of the sensitive dictionary in the work of Francis Ponge and to show how it denotes human's relationship to nature. To achieve that, we will use the body question as a measure of the human–nature relationship and apply the phenomenological method that Ponge took over from Merleau-Ponty. It should be noted that Merleau-Ponty rarely makes reference (...) to Ponge's poems, except for a few incisions in his Causeries. As for Ponge, he uses explicitly only the notion of phenomenological reduction to explain his project of sensitive dictionary. However, we will argue that there are many similarities of thought between the philosopher and the poet, which are still unexplored. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Council's Solar CalendarFrancis M. DunnIt is well known that for some time during the fifth century, the calendar used by the council in Athens to conduct its business ("prytany calendar") employed a year of a different length from that of the calendar used by the archon to schedule religious events ("festival calendar"). In the fourth century the archon's calendar consisted of twelve or thirteen lunar months, while the (...) council's calendar divided the same year of 354 or 383/4 days into ten prytanies, one for each tribe. For at least part of the fifth century, however, the two calendars ran for different periods, and began and ended at different times. The nature of this independent or noncoterminous year has been debated, and a consensus seems to be emerging that it was a schematic year of 366 days.1 In what follows I show that this schematic year is highly improbable and propose a new reconstruction of the council's calendar.In 1894 Bruno Keil demonstrated that in the late fifth century the archon's calendar of months did not begin or end at the same time as the council's calendar of prytanies.2 This finding was confirmed by subsequent scholars, who offered different explanations: Meritt (1928, esp. 72) argued that the council's calendar followed the solar year and was introduced by Cleisthenes, whereas Dinsmoor (1931, esp. 327–29) argued that it followed a precise astronomical scheme and was introduced by Meton. Meritt was able to show (1932, 152–58) that Dinsmoor's elaborate scheme was not consistent with known dates from the period, but he did not develop or explain his own hypothesis of approximate solar years. One crucial piece of evidence has been the Logistai Inscription (IG I3 369 [423/2]). From the accounts on this stone Kubicki and Meritt had shown that interest for the quadrennium 426/5 to 423/2 was calculated for 1,464 days, so that for those years the council's calendar averaged [End Page 369] 366 days.3 Meritt went on (1928, 70–71) to reconstruct four years of 366, 368, 365, and 365 days respectively for the period 426/5 to 423/2. This approximate solar year seemed to agree with the calendar equations for 423/2 ( = Prytany 10.2, IG I3 369 78–79) and 412/1 (Skirophorion 14 = Prytany 1.1, Arist. Ath. Pol. 32.1), from which he calculated an average of 365 4/11 days for the council's year during the period 423/2 to 412/1 (1928, 84–85). Meritt's view, in other words, was that the independent calendar of the council followed the solar (tropical) year, but because the council's calendar was not rigid or consistent, its agreement with the solar year was not exact.4Pritchett, however, has argued that the council's year consisted of fixed and regular prytanies.5 On this view, it follows that the quadrennium 426/5 to 423/2 consisted of four equal years, and Pritchett was able to show that the accounts on the Logistai Inscription were consistent with a schematic council calendar of 366 days comprising six 37–day prytanies followed by four 36–day prytanies in each year of the quadrennium.6 In support of this view, Pritchett added the negative argument (1964, 40–41, 49–50) that Meritt's average of 365 4/11 days for the subsequent period from 423/2 to 412/1 depends upon a contested reading of the Logistai Inscription and upon speculation concerning the calendar between 423/2 and 412/1. He added the positive argument (Pritchett and Neugebauer 1947, 95–96) that his own scheme is consistent with two additional inscriptions: rates of pay in the Erechtheum accounts imply that there were 37 days in Prytany 6 (IG I3 476 60–63 [408/7]) and 36 days in Prytany 8 (IG I3 476 266–70), while dates on the Choiseul Marble include Prytany 8.36, Prytany 9.36, and Prytany 10.36 (IG I3 375 29–34 [410/9]). The evidence is somewhat circumstantial, but taken as a whole it strongly... (shrink)

Bhabha, Georges Didi-Huberman, David Morgan and Lee Siegel, as well as a series of focused contributions by Yve-Alain Bois, Wendy Doniger, Kenneth Frampton, Martin E. Marty, John Hallmark Neff, Annemarie Schimmel, and Helen Tworkov consider how rapture resonate's both in a cultural context and within the experience of a single human being.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Cet article devait ouvrir l’ouvrage considérable des Écrits sur l’art de Leiris, établis et publiés par Pierre Vilar. En raison des proportions et des coûts de fabrication du livre, l’éditeur, Tiburce Poulet a supprimé in extremis toutes les illustrations qu’appelaient l’ouvrage. Les illustrations et cet article. On regrettera l’absence, dans un tel ouvrage, des illustrations. La Patte de chat est une de ces brèves préfaces – rédigée pour une exposition Masson à Genève, où toute la méthode de Leiris devant l’art (...) – avec ou sans majuscule – se condense : l’art comme nœud, lieu de la révélation et du trouble. (shrink)

Publié en 1989, La Lettre à Louise mettait bien involontairement le doigt sur le secret de famille que révèlera le Journal, publié post-mortem par Jean Jamin. Ce qui, dixit Jamin impressionna Leiris et eut bien des conséquences. L’article est aujourd’hui un peu fané, mais son histoire vaut le détour du signifiant.