Comptes rendus 287 traité de vie dévote. Très copieux, le présent volume montre en tout cas que Caussin, à n’en pas douter, offre matière abondante aux chercheurs. François Trémolières Nin a E k s t e in : Corneille’s Irony. Charlottesville: Rookwood Press, 2007. 210 p. As Nina Ekstein points out near the beginning of this valuable study, « Corneille is not generally associated with irony » (2). One reason the author gives for the generalized underestimation of the importance of irony for our understanding of Corneille is the prominence of the concept of heroism (and, we might add, virtue) in Corneille’s œuvre. But as Ekstein convincingly shows, a wide variety of notions traditionally associated with Cornelian classicism bear the potential for ironic treatment, both in the theater and in Corneille’s writings about his works. Ekstein’s detailed analyses advance a new and provocative vision of Corneille as a creative, complex, at times even playful playwright. This approach complements John D. Lyons’s reflection in Kingdom of Disorder on Corneille’s dramaturgical experimentation, innovation, and frequent uncertainty. In its discussions of ironic doubling of discourse (4) and of changes in reception of Corneille’s works over time (22, 82), Corneille’s Irony also parallels Christopher Braider’s Indiscernible Counterparts; Ekstein’s discussion would have been enriched significantly by direct critical engagement with Braider’s insights on Corneille’s semantic instability and diachronic textual duplicity. In addition to providing careful readings of individual plays, Ekstein guides the reader, mainly in the book’s introduction, through a theoretical discussion of the many complexities of irony. Drawing on the work of Philippe Hamon, Linda Hutcheon, Vladimir Jankélévitch, and D.C. Muecke, among others, Ekstein methodically analyzes the various manifestations (or possible manifestations, as she always carefully points out) of Cornelian irony, including « dramatic irony, the irony of fate, echoic mention, parody, sarcasm, exaggeration, coincidence, raillerie, incongruity, reversal of fortune, changes of register, and contradiction » (1). The first half of Corneille’s Irony focuses on the clearer cases of « Evident Irony, » while the book’s second major section looks at the less certain « Signals of Possible Irony. » As Ekstein explains, the cautious critic’s doubts about whether s/ he is dealing with an example of irony paradoxically contribute to that very (possibly) ironic phenomenon. PFSCL XXXVI, 70 (2009) 288 In spite of the difficulty of pinning down clear examples of irony, Ekstein makes a strong case for a new reading of Nicomède as a tragedy that develops the intriguing oxymoron of « the ironic hero » (41). Largely by means of the indirections and opposing meanings of verbal irony, the dialogue of Nicomède destabilizes the order of language to the extent that the reader/ spectator is obliged to question the heroic values embodied by the eponymous character, and by extension the notion of heroism itself. Also with the character Aspar in Pulchérie, irony contributes to subjective complexity and leads to infinite regeneration of multiple meanings in our assessments of Corneille’s irreducible characters, who are all the more memorable for being so difficult to understand fully or easily. While Corneille’s irony vigorously questions values and concepts associated with characters, it also holds the potential to function as a critical, meta-dramatic discourse. In comedies including La galerie du palais and La suite du Menteur, the outlandish multiplication of marriage proposals serves, on Ekstein’s reading, to call into question the very idea of marriage in dramatic plots, and, on a deeper level, the very rules governing dramatic production. The exploration of possibilities within Corneille’s works for the questioning of fundamental presuppositions of dramaturgy constitutes this study’s most challenging scholarly contribution. Indeed, the questioning extends to the author himself. In prefaces, dedications, and « examens, » Corneille repeatedly provokes his readers into asking whether his self-praise, self-deprecation, and/ or self-parody can possibly be taken at face value: « Corneille sets himself up as an authority and at the same time calls attention to his ability to constantly evolve by ridiculing that very authority » (107). Similarly, by reverently citing ancient sources while also mocking some of his contemporaries’ slavish adherence to them, Corneille opens up spaces of authorial freedom by leveraging ironies against precedents and constraints. Corneille’s Irony concludes with useful syntheses of the close readings of individual plays that occupy the body chapters (in addition to the plays mentioned above, Ekstein focuses extensively on L’Illusion comique, Le Menteur, Œdipe, Horace, Rodogune, Cinna, and Attila). In the final analysis, Ekstein assumes a questioning stance, emphasizing the problematic and irreducible nature of Corneille’s theater. By carefully delineating many aspects of this complexity, Ekstein’s critical insights take the reader toward a deeper understanding of the specificity of Corneille’s always (at least) double-edged art: I propose that we understand these types of irony in Corneille’s theater within a paradigm not of either/ or, but rather of both/ and, itself characteristic of irony. Corneille and his theater occupy both positions, at times Comptes rendus 289 simultaneously. Corneille seeks the sublime and mocks the sublime; his characters embody serious explorations of the nature of heroism and the playwright turns an ironic eye on heroism itself; Corneille is serious and he winks ironically at the audience. This paradoxical quality of irony, I believe, contributes strongly to Corneille’s enduring fascination as a playwright. Irony, in its play of paradox and double meaning, intent and reception, aggression and raillerie, both embodies and serves as a metaphor for Corneille’s complexity, subtlety, and undecidability. (187) As this last passage makes clear, not only is Ekstein’s study precise and rigorous; it is also very readable and will be of interest to a broad range of scholars, teachers, and students of early modern literature and culture. Roland Racevskis L u c il e Ga udin - B o r d e s : La Représentation au XVII e siècle : Pour une approche intersémiotique. Paris : Champion, 2007, 327 p. Conformément au sous-titre, l’ouvrage entend démontrer l’utilité d’une approche « intersémiotique » du concept de représentation au XVII e siècle. Cette approche inédite de l’ut pictura poesis consiste à traquer les occurrences de l’isotopie picturale pour parler de la représentation littéraire et, a contrario, de l’isotopie verbale pour parler de la représentation picturale. Dans ce but, l’auteur procède en trois temps : la première partie, « La figure, un opérateur intersémiotique », parcourt rapidement quelques textes canoniques (Le Songe de Vaux, Le Songe de Philomathe, Les Pensées de Pascal) qui mettent en jeu différentes acceptions du terme « figure », liées au procès de la représentation : sens pictural, rhétorique, théologique, et permettent de conclure : « les termes de figure et figurer apparaissent donc intrinsèquement intersémiotiques : non seulement ils appartiennent aux deux lexiques de la peinture et de la littérature, mais ils soulignent que le passage de l’une à l’autre est d’autant plus facile que la praxis de la représentation est la même ». En effet, la représentation consiste toujours à rendre présent l’objet absent et à le faire ressentir vivement au spectateur, selon le principe de l’enargeia. La seconde partie est destinée à prouver la « communauté des systèmes sémiotiques ». Elle se fonde sur une étude lexicographique, analysant les différentes définitions des termes « représenter », « décrire » et « peindre » dans les dictionnaires de Richelet, Furetière et de l’Académie. Chaque définition est rigoureusement transcrite en une équation grammaticale (par exemple, p. 117, une définition de Furetière devient V synonyme+V1+CCMO+COD+CCM+CCBut), de façon à démontrer au