Literatura académica sobre el tema "1607-1651"

Madeleine de Scudéry (1607-1701) faz parte de um panteão de autoras francesas do século XVII ”“ Ninon de Lenclos (1620-1705), Madame de Sévigné (1626-1696), Madame de La Fayette (1634-1693), Madame d’Aulnoy (1651-1705), apenas para citar algumas ”“, que, apesar de terem deixado um vasto e importante legado literário, são ainda pouco conhecidas em solo brasileiro, já que boa parte de suas obras permanece inacessível a um público-leitor de língua portuguesa. Comentando a respeito do ofício do escritor, Rachel de Queiroz disse, em uma entrevista, que para cada escritor há uma razão diferente de escrever e completou: “no meu caso, num certo sentido é o desejo interior de dar um testemunho do meu tempo, da minha gente e principalmente de mim mesmo: eu existi, eu sou, eu pensei, eu senti, e eu queria que você soubesse”. Nesse sentido, retomando as palavras da escritora e tradutora nordestina, podemos então nos indagar se a tradução não seria uma forma de ouvir esses testemunhos de mulheres do passado, escritos silenciados ao longo da história, e, também, uma maneira de se (re)pensar o cânone literário, muitas vezes androcêntrico e excludente.

William Harvey was born in 1578 in Folkestone. After graduating from private elementary school, William continued his education in the Royal school of Canterbury, Cambridge and Padua universities. In 1602 he received the degree of doctor of medicine, but in 1603, the second doctoral degree at Cambridge University and a license to practice a medical practice in England. In 1604 he was elected a candidate, and in 1607 – a member of the Royal College of physicians, later takes up the chair of anatomy and surgery, where she worked until death. In 1609 Harvey became the Junior, and later chief physician of the hospital of St. Bartholomew's in London. In 1618 William Harvey becoming court physician of James I, and in 1832 Charles I. In 1645 William was appointed Dean of Merton College (Oxford). In 1646 Garvey returned to London, where he devoted himself entirely to his studies. My thoughts about circulation he first gave the lecture, read them in London in 1618, and published in 1628. Research Garvey has revealed the importance of the pulmonary circulation and found that the heart is a muscular organ which provides the injection of blood into the circulatory system. In 1651 he published his second treatise "Studies on the origin of animals," which first formulated the theory of epigenesis. He stated and substantiated the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. In 1654 Harvey was unanimously elected President of the London medical College, but for health reasons, refuses the position. Harvey died in 1657 and was buried in the town of Hempstead (Essex).

Goals. The study attempts etymological analyses of several rare military terms attested in 17th-century Mongol chronicles. The following terms are specifically touched upon in the article: aγuraγ ~ aγuruγ ‘base camp’, bayirildu- ‘to battle each other, fight a battle’, bulγaldu- ‘to fight each other or together’, čaγuraγul- ‘to send on a military campaign’, ide- ‘to capture and plunder (a city)’, nengde- ‘to attack unexpectedly’, niγtarqa- ‘to be in close order’, toyin ‘(military) camp’. All these terms are either totally unattested in the dictionaries of written Mongolian, or used with unique or rare meanings in sources, and reflect important features of military structure in the era of the Mongol Empire. Materials and methods. The paper analyzes three Mongol chronicles of the 17th century, namely: Quriyangγui Altan tobči ‘Brief Golden Summary’ (ca. 1604 to 1634, or mid-to-late 17th century), Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur ‘The Jewel Translucent Sūtra’ (ca. 1607), and Altan tobči ‘Golden Summary’ by Blo-bzaṅ bstan-’jin (ca. 1651 to 1655, or late 17th – early 18th century). The work employs a number of research methods inherent to comparative-historical linguistics and textology. Results. The article presumes the Mongol Empire’s military structure still remained more or less efficient — with some modifications — when the examined Mongol chronicles were being compiled, but completely lost its relevance in subsequent times. In view of this, only a small number of medieval military terms have survived in modern Mongolic languages, sometimes greatly changed in meaning (aγuraγ ~ aγuruγ), used only as obsolete forms (bulγa/bulγaldu-) or bound morphemes (ča’ur). Conclusions. The paper suggests some of the terms are of foreign origin and bear obvious traces of the intensive areal contacts between Mongolic and neighboring languages, notably Turkic (aγuraγ ~ aγuruγ, bulγa(-), toyi/n), Tungusic (nen(g)de-), and Khitan (ča’ur) ones. Some are attested as hapax legomena in individual chronicles (bayirildu-, čaγuraγul-, niγtarqa-), while others articulate highly specific meanings that have no parallels in our sources, and thus either correspond to the semantics of the donor forms (toyi/n) or possibly reflect the influence of local dialects of that time (ide-).

The article presents the results of a linguistic analysis of three early sources on Oirat historical dialectology, Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh (Compendium of Chronicles, completed between 1306 and 1311) and the Mongol chronicles Sir-a tuγuǰi (Yellow History, between 1651 and 1662) and Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur (The Jewel Translucent Sūtra, c. 1607). The author concludes that these sources substantially differ in terms of their linguistic value and reliability. The early historical accounts of Oirat lexical differences, provided by Rashīd al-Dīn and the unknown author of the Sir-a tuγuǰi, are most likely to have been obtained from unreliable external sources and based on hearsay evidence, orally transmitted by non-Oirats, at best, only passingly familiar with the Oirat language and its actual features. Both authors probably heard something about distinctive lexical features of the Oirat dialects of their time, but they hardly had a clear idea of what these features were and how to explain them in an adequate manner. On the contrary, the ‘Oirat fragment’ contained in the Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur seems to be much closer to fact than to fantasy. It presents a deliberate and quite reliable attempt to introduce some features of the Oirat dialects spoken at the turn of the seventeenth century. In the absence of earlier internal evidence of the linguistic differences between the Mongolic languages, this may be the oldest known representation of dialectal data in the Mongolian literary tradition. The evidence is of special importance because it includes morphophonological (an innovative colloquial shape of the clitics ni ~ n̠i < *inu and la ~ =la < *ele) and morphosyntactic (the progressive/durative in ‑nA(y)i), rather than lexical, features, which seem to have been considered Oirat by the early seventeenth-century author(s) of the chronicle. These features look more genuinely Oirat, at least for the early 17th century, although their modern distribution is certainly rather wide and non-specific. It may be assumed that the information on Oirat dialects that the Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur contains may have been obtained from an Oirat, or, at least, from an individual well-versed in the language of the time. Thus, one cannot overestimate the importance of the chronicle as a highly valuable source on historical dialectology of Mongolic languages.

The article examines the chapter On Virginia, included in the book “Kort Berättelse om Wäst Indien eller America, Som elliest kallas Nya Werlden” published in Sweden in 1675 and containing a “Russian” fragment. The section describes the Virginian fauna and, among other things, notes that North American wild pigs are smaller than “Tatar and Muscovite.” The chapter On Virginia was borrowed by the Swedish translator from the book “Nieuvve wereldt, ofte, Beschrijvinghe van West-Indien” (AD 1625 and 1633) by Dutch geographer and director of Dutch West Indies Company J. de Laeta or containing a “Virginian” section his works of the “collection” “Beschrijvinghe van Virginia, Nieuw Nederlandt, Nieuw Engelandt, en d’Eylanden Bermudes, Berbados, en S. Christoffel” (1651), and in them not wild pigs, but bears are compared with Russian and Tatar ones. The “Virginia” chapter of de Laeta’s work goes back to the book of Captain J. Smith, who visited Russia, A Map of Virginia (1612) or to its abridged version, placed in chapter 4th Purchas his Pilgrimes (1625), and they deal with on bears. In contrast to the Dutch version, in the Latin (1633) and French (1640) versions of the arrangement of Smith’s work, “Muscovite and Tatar” bears are replaced by “northern” bears. The Swedish translator, who has every reason to do the same, replaces the bear, which is considered the Swedish “iconographic national symbol” (H. Helander), with a wild pig and thus formulates his attitude towards the eastern neighbor. In the Swedish version the fragment becomes an episode of the Russian-Swedish controversy.