Philippe Desan

Editors' Introduction: Mirrors, Frames, and Demons: Reflections on the Sociology of Literature

The sociology of literature, in the first of many paradoxes, elicits negations before assertions. It is not an established field or academic discipline. The concept as such lacks both intellectual and institutional clarity. Yet none of these limitations affects the vitality and rigor of the larger enterprise. We use the sociology of literature here to refer to the cluster of intellectual ventures that originate in one overriding conviction: the conviction that literature and society necessarily explain each other. Scholars and critics of all kinds congregate under this outsize umbrella only to differ greatly in their sense of what they do and what the sociology of literature does. They subscribe to a wide range of theories and methods. Many would not accept the sociology of literature as an appropriate label for their own work; others would refuse it to their colleagues. Nevertheless, every advocate agrees that a sociological practice is essential to literature. For the sociology of literature does not constitute just one more approach to literature. Because it insists upon a sociology of literary knowledge and literary practice within the study of literature, the sociology of literature raises questions basic to all intellectual inquiry. The sociology of literature begins in diversity. The way that it combines the ancient traditions of art with the modern practices of social science makes the very term something of an oxymoron. There is not one sociology of literature, there are many sociological practices of literature, each of which operates within a particular intellectual tradition and specific in-

Le "Cymbalum Mundi", Actes du colloque de Rome, 3-6 novembre 2000

Sommaire: Avant-propos de F. Giacone; J. Ceard, «Hommage a Michel Simonin». Ouverture: R. Cooper, «Cymbalum Mundi: etat de la question»; Y. Giraud, «La lettre et l’esprit. Problemes textuels et editoriaux autour du Cymbalum Mundi». Histoire de Livres: M. Simonin, «Vol au dessus d’un nid de corbeaux: le prince, les lettres et le Cymbalum Mundi»; Ph. Desan, «La reliure du livre de Jupiter: lecture bibliologique du Cymbalum Mundi»; R. I. Vulcan, «Une cymbale du Cymbalum Mundi, le colportage»; F. M. Higman, «Le Cymbalum Mundi et la censure»; J. Roudaut, «La reception du Cymbalum Mundi: 1538-1824»; F. Giacone, «Une reception du Cymbalum Mundi en Allemagne au XVIIe siecle»; P. J. Smith, «Prosper Marchand et sa “Lettre critique sur le livre intitule Cymbalum Mundi”»; G. Bedouelle, «Le Cymbalum Mundi au XIXe siecle»; F. Giacone, «D’un livre a l’autre: echos bibliques et theologiques dans le Cymbalum Mundi». Fables, mythes et symboles: J. Ceard, «“Dialogues poetiques” ou la mythologie dans le Cymbalum Mundi»; R. Gorris-Camos, «Le bain de Diane: mythe et transmutation dans le Cymbalum Mundi»; M. Huchon, «Dialogue poetique et litterature mercurienne»; C. Bologna, «Lo spirito del Cymbalum Mundi»; F. Lestringant, «L’espace du Cymbalum Mundi»; B. Pinchard, «Un Pantagruelisme des Antipodes? Lecture comparee du Cymbalum Mundi et des mythologies Pantagruelicques»; B. Conconi, «Lettura di due leggende incrociate: Pietro Aretino e l’autore del Cymbalum Mundi»; J.-Cl. Carron, «L’enigme du Cymbalum Mundi: de l’allegorisation subversive au dialogue comique». Dialogue et theâtralite: O. Millet, «Le Cymbalum Mundi et la tradition lucianique»; Ch. Lauvergnat-Gagniere, «Le deguisement dans le Cymbalum Mundi»; B. Petey-Girard, «De l’usage du dialogue dans le Cymbalum Mundi: theâtralite, enseignement, reflexion»; D. Menager, «L’ironie et l’humour dans le dialogue des chiens (Cymbalum Mundi IV)»; S. Bamforth, «Aspects theâtraux du Cymbalum Mundi»; E. Kushner, «L’inscription du second dialogue dans l’histoire du dialogue a la Renaissance»; V. Zaercher, «Voix et enonciation dans le Cymbalum Mundi»; Sens et non-sens: la parole en question: A. Tournon, «Exegese par enigmes: l’epitre liminaire du Cymbalum Mundi»; G. Patrizi, «I temi “italiani” del Cymbalum Mundi»; T. Peach, «Curiosite et conquete du vide dans le Cymbalum Mundi»; P. Tordjman, «Pour qui sonne la Cymbale? Quelques problemes concernant le theme de l’efficacite symbolique dans le Cymbalum Mundi attribue a Des Periers»; O. Pot, «Le livre et la parole dans le Cymbalum Mundi: entre hommes et betes»; G. Polizzi, «Parole “vide” et parole ‘pleine’: l’«inquietante etrangete» du Cymbalum Mundi»; C. La Charite, «Inter pastorem et impostorem: l’augustinisme rhetorique et le Cymbalum Mundi (1537)»; M. Clement, «Le Cymbalum Mundi, un texte cynique?»; R. Rosenstein, «Cervantes et le Cymbalum Mundi: du loquax canum agmen a la rhetorique du silence»; R. Cooper, Conclusions. Appendices: A.W. Caswell, «Le paradoxe contre les lettres est-il un autre pamphlet de Thomas?»; G. Guilleminot, «Le dernier possesseur du Cymbalum Mundi de 1537»; Ch. Clavel et T. Tran Quoc , «Euge Sophos: synthese de la devise et de l’image».