Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-14T03:19:52.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Richelieu-Corneille Rapport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

M. Amelia Klenke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comment and Criticism
Information
PMLA , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , March 1950 , pp. 322 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PMLA, LxIv (Sept. 1949), 724–745.

2 On the other hand, when she says (p. 739) that, according to me, the “Cid was even greater than the other two plays”, she is drawing upon her imagination. I certainly never supposed that Jerusalem Delivered is a play, and I have not claimed that the Cid was greater than the Italian works merely because Richelieu thought it interested a wider audience. There is no evidence that Médêe was a failure, as Sister A. implies (p. 726). Her reference to me on the same page is misleading. What I admit as a possibility is presented as if I agreed with Van Roosbroeck, whose theory I was attacking; cf. Part II, p. 120 of my History. The hypothesis of Corneille's withdrawal from the Five Authors, which Sister A. accepts (p. 727), is probably based on a misprint; cf. my History, Part II, pp. 205–206.

3 Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1936.