Talk:Mise en abyme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

Mise en abyme is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

[edit] spelling

The modern French spelling is abîme. My little dictionary does not show abyme, nor the sense of this article (in either spelling), so I'm wondering: is abyme an archaic spelling adopted intentionally? —Tamfang 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia remarks "on écrit parfois aussi, par abus de langage : mise en abîme", so the author of that, presumably a native French speaker, considers mise en abyme correct. It's from heraldry, which tends to still use terms from rather archaic French. You wouldn't hear gules in modern use outside of heraldry, either; it's a "frozen" vocabulary. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's from heraldry that I know the word; I see abîme but not abyme in Rietstap's Armorial. Go figure. (The French spelling gueules, too, happens to be a word in modern use.) —Tamfang 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In English, isn't this a coat in pretence? --Wetman 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't say whether I've seen that exact phrase, but I have seen escutcheon of pretence which amounts to the same. On another hand, it ought not to be called that when it's the pronominal or dynastic coat, as for example in the royal arms of Denmark and Spain. —Tamfang 05:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)