Umberto Rossi wrote: > > Well, I suspect this scheme is just a scheme, i.e. it is schematic, it is > oversimplified. And it derives from a certain philosophy of history > which is surely respectable, i.e. the one devised by Hegel, but is > not to be acritically accepted today. Not if one takes into account > the critic of that philosophy operated by--say--Walter Benjamin (but > this is just *one* of the radical interrogations of Hegelian theory of > history in this century).
Sorry, but I just can't see what Hegel has to do with the Flaubert-Joyce scheme. Could you be more explicit, please? Larbaud Jr.
