Europe plurielle/Multiple Europes

The series «Multiple Europes» is multiple in two ways: it understands Europe in an interdisciplinary manner with a strong historical perspective, and it understands Europe as being inserted in transnational and global contexts. On both levels, the perspectives on Europe and the very role and understanding of Europe is multiple. The special emphasis of the series thus lies in understanding the pasts of Europe as well as its complex present. The history of Europe and the history of European integration have influenced each other in the past and will continue to do so in the future. There is an inbuilt tension in the relation between European history and the history of European integration. Europe signifies a space and semantics much broader and more complex than the EU. The relations between ideas of Europe, European history, global history and European integration need to be faced more openly. In order to do this, an open dialogue between academic disciplines is just as necessary as critical self-reflection within each discipline. Furthermore, European history was preoccupied with looking at itself and needs to be connected to global relations. La collection « Europe plurielle » tente d’’analyser à la fois la richesse du passé dont l’’Europe est issue et la complexité de son présent à travers une lecture transdisciplinaire, historique et globale – en un mot : plurielle. L’’histoire de l’’Europe et l’’histoire de l’’intégration européenne se sont influencées mutuellement dans le passé et continuent à le faire. Il existe, en effet, une tension inhérente entre elles. Mais le terme « Europe » renvoie à un espace et à un signifié bien plus amples et complexes que celui d’’« Union Européenne ». Par ailleurs, l’’histoire européenne s’’est trop longtemps penchée sur elle-même et doit à présent s’’articuler aux relations internationales en général. Les relations entre l’’idée de l’’Europe, l’’histoire européenne, l’’histoire mondiale et l’’intégration européenne doivent donc être abordées de façon plus large dans un dialogue interdisciplinaire qui intègre également une réflexion critique à l’’intérieur de chaque discipline. Tels sont les objectifs de la collection. The series «Multiple Europes» is multiple in two ways: it understands Europe in an interdisciplinary manner with a strong historical perspective, and it understands Europe as being inserted in transnational and global contexts. On both levels, the perspectives on Europe and the very role and understanding of Europe is multiple. The special emphasis of the series thus lies in understanding the pasts of Europe as well as its complex present. The history of Europe and the history of European integration have influenced each other in the past and will continue to do so in the future. There is an inbuilt tension in the relation between European history and the history of European integration. Europe signifies a space and semantics much broader and more complex than the EU. The relations between ideas of Europe, European history, global history and European integration need to be faced more openly. In order to do this, an open dialogue between academic disciplines is just as necessary as critical self-reflection within each discipline. Furthermore, European history was preoccupied with looking at itself and needs to be connected to global relations.

51 publications

Hermeneutic Commentaries

ISSN: 1043-5735

"The question of “interpretation” of the text is at the center of this collection of monographs and commentaries on classical literatures. Interpretation starts with the realisation that at the outset, the sense of a text is an hypothesis to be gradually and constantly revised and ascertained. Grammar, syntax, and rhetoric are certainly the necessary part for this critical operation, but they fall short of giving full sense to the signification of the text. A philological commentary establishes the texts as close as possible to the author’s text, and provides the information necessary for modern readers to understand what the text meant to its contemporary users. But besides the impossibility of achieving this task fully, this sort of information does not provide the sense of the text as it opens itself to the questions of its individuality and universality, its historicity and its transhistorical iterability, as it hides the rules and game of its composition, its difference in order to show its identity. These opposite poles are constantly united and create a tension, a continuous oscillation that are the very domaine of the interpretative analysis, and the conditions of the text’s ever emerging sense . The hermeneutic circle, through which the critical hypothesis is constantly revised and made more precise, can be viewed also as a sort of deconstructive operation, a decomposing of the text in order to recompose it around its now discovered rules and games, of which the author is not necessarily always fully aware. Because of these conditions the sense of a text is more open to the critics than to its author; this point makes the critics conscious that as they are “reading”, they are in some way “writing” the text." "The question of “interpretation” of the text is at the center of this collection of monographs and commentaries on classical literatures. Interpretation starts with the realisation that at the outset, the sense of a text is an hypothesis to be gradually and constantly revised and ascertained. Grammar, syntax, and rhetoric are certainly the necessary part for this critical operation, but they fall short of giving full sense to the signification of the text. A philological commentary establishes the texts as close as possible to the author’s text, and provides the information necessary for modern readers to understand what the text meant to its contemporary users. But besides the impossibility of achieving this task fully, this sort of information does not provide the sense of the text as it opens itself to the questions of its individuality and universality, its historicity and its transhistorical iterability, as it hides the rules and game of its composition, its difference in order to show its identity. These opposite poles are constantly united and create a tension, a continuous oscillation that are the very domaine of the interpretative analysis, and the conditions of the text’s ever emerging sense . The hermeneutic circle, through which the critical hypothesis is constantly revised and made more precise, can be viewed also as a sort of deconstructive operation, a decomposing of the text in order to recompose it around its now discovered rules and games, of which the author is not necessarily always fully aware. Because of these conditions the sense of a text is more open to the critics than to its author; this point makes the critics conscious that as they are “reading”, they are in some way “writing” the text." "The question of “interpretation” of the text is at the center of this collection of monographs and commentaries on classical literatures. Interpretation starts with the realisation that at the outset, the sense of a text is an hypothesis to be gradually and constantly revised and ascertained. Grammar, syntax, and rhetoric are certainly the necessary part for this critical operation, but they fall short of giving full sense to the signification of the text. A philological commentary establishes the texts as close as possible to the author’s text, and provides the information necessary for modern readers to understand what the text meant to its contemporary users. But besides the impossibility of achieving this task fully, this sort of information does not provide the sense of the text as it opens itself to the questions of its individuality and universality, its historicity and its transhistorical iterability, as it hides the rules and game of its composition, its difference in order to show its identity. These opposite poles are constantly united and create a tension, a continuous oscillation that are the very domaine of the interpretative analysis, and the conditions of the text’s ever emerging sense . The hermeneutic circle, through which the critical hypothesis is constantly revised and made more precise, can be viewed also as a sort of deconstructive operation, a decomposing of the text in order to recompose it around its now discovered rules and games, of which the author is not necessarily always fully aware. Because of these conditions the sense of a text is more open to the critics than to its author; this point makes the critics conscious that as they are “reading”, they are in some way “writing” the text."

1 publications