Journal articles on the topic 'Title romanised'

Romanization of Yiddish is one of the most complex activities in Hebraica cataloging, especially for publications that do not use Standard Yiddish Orthography. The Library of Congress has adopted the VIVO table for vowels, but uses its own Hebrew table for consonants. LC's publication Hebraica Cataloging provides little guidance on Yiddish Romanization, and MARC records contain many errors and inconsistencies in the application of the table. VIVO's linguistic reference works, notably Uriel Weinreich's Modern English-Yiddish, Yiddish-English Dictionary and the translation of Max Weinreich's History of the Yiddish Language, often contradict each other in the Romanization of Hebraisms, while LC's rules for Romanizing Hebraisms seem to have changed recently. Hebrew titles for Yiddish works are particularly problematic, as there are two possible pronunciations. LC appears to be moving in the direction of providing two Romanized title entries in such cases. Several transliterated Yiddish dictionaries have been published in the last decade. Some use the VIVO system; others do not. The extent to which these tools can provide assistance to Hebraica catalogers is assessed.

The standardization of Hebrew names in cataloging and bibliography has its roots in the Anglo-American tradition of Romanized author main entry. Cross-references from Hebrew names to their Roman equivalents are found in some British Hebraica catalogs published in the 19th century. In the Hebrew bibliographic tradition, in contrast, title main entry predominated and, given the nondistinctiveness of Jewish names, author access was rarely provided. Israeli librarians adopted the Western tradition of author main entry while retaining their commitment to original-alphabet cataloging; their Hebraic authority work consisted primarily of standardization of Hebrew orthography. The Hebraic capability of the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN) made American Judaica librarians aware of the advantages of Hebrew name access; they had formerly been accustomed to Hebrew title access only. Many libraries are inputting parallel Hebrew access points to RLIN, with varying degrees of authority control. The USMARC Format for Authority Data has been revised to allow for parallel non-Roman data; the fields defined for non-Roman data have not been implemented, however, because the Library of Congress cannot handle non-Roman scripts in its processing system. Hebraic authority control is therefore done locally, in manual mode or with database management software.

Qu'il me soit permis de braquer le projecteur sur le germaniste Lucien Tesnière. En effet, le thème choisi avec bonheur par les organisateurs de ce Congrès de Ljubljana, permet le positionnement d'autant plus juste des nombreuses langues naturelles, que L. Tesnière les situe dans ce contact ou contraste, nécessaire à! l’interaction européenne. Si, l'année demière, Rouen a privilégié, comme il se doit, le franais, si aujourd'hui, et à juste titre, Ljubljana met en lumière le slovène, et si le mois dernier Strasbourg a réuni les approches germanistes et romanistes - et géopolitique oblige - l'oeuvre si riche di Tesnière invite à des retours.

George Beza (1907-1997) joined the Iron Guard. He acquired the title “Commander” of the legion but soon left the organization. He worked for a while with Mihai Stelescu (excluded from the Iron Guard on September 25, 1934) to publish the magazine "Crusade of Romanism", in which they criticized the legion. In April 1936, he and Stelescu were placed on the watch list of those who were to be punished for their treachery. Beza joined PNȚ and played and played an important role in World War II a monument was erected in Jerusalem in honor of Beza. He played an important role in the plans of SOE to organize anti-Antonescu propaganda in Romania. He was the author of the Vlaicu anti-axis resistance in Romania. This paper presents some aspects of SOE's organizational activities related to the Vlaicu program.

Koenraad Jonckheere is associate professor in Northern Renaissance and Baroque Art at Ghent University. The interview was recorded in August 2017 by assistant professor Stefaniia Demchuk (Chair of Art History, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv). In the first part, Prof. Jonckheere talks about his career path of art historian, his teachers and the most influential books. He explains how the scope of his interests shifted from the Seventeenth-Eighteenth century art markets towards Iconoclasm, its impact and the theoretical debates on the Sixteenth century art. His Ph.D. research on art markets was summarized and published in 2008 under the title “The Auction of King William’s paintings”. It was innovative because the author developed a new approach to work on art markets using auction catalogue. In 2012 appeared his monograph on experiments in decorum in the Antwerp Art after Iconoclasm. The next year he curated the exhibition on the Sixteenth century Romanist artist Michiel Coxcie for Museum M (Leuven). Since 2014 Prof. Jonckheere has been working as an Editor-in-Chief at the Centrum Rubenianum (Antwerp). His own research on Rubens resulted in a monograph titled “Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard: portraits after existing prototypes” (2016). Now Prof. Jonckheere is developing a new methodological approach towards historical interpretation of artworks, which he called the “Thimanthes effect”. This approach uses the rhetorical concept of “quaestio” as a guiding principle for interpretation. Prof. Jonckheere discusses it in the second part of the interview. The third part focuses on the Reformation art and Iconoclasm. Prof. Jonckheere points out main directions in contemporary research on the Reformation art and highlights issues that are still to be solved. The interview concludes with advices to early-career art historians.

Philip Schaff's America, newly translated from the German, appeared on these shores 133 years ago. Although that fact belies the title (and pushes the beginning of the American Society of Church History a third of a century into the future), I suspect that in 1888 Schaff would have concurred with much that he had thought as a younger scholar. He claimed, though, that he would not live in California “for any price,” and I have speculated about whether by 1888 he had changed his mind. The question is more than personal, for perhaps the most pungent metaphor in Schaff's America is his “Phenixgrave” figure for the land. “America,” he wrote, “is the grave of all European nationalities; but a Phenix grave, from which they shall rise to new life and new activity.” Beyond that he thought that America seemed “destined to be the Phenix grave not only of all European nationalities … but also of all European churches and sects, of Protestantism and Romanism.”

AbstractEverhardus Booth an irenicist? Eleven years ago F.G.M. Broeyer wrote an article in which he claims that Utrecht preacher Everard Booth's translation of William Perkins' A Reformed Catholike was not intended to be an anti-Roman polemic, but rather was of an irenic nature, and that Booth himself was an irenicist. The author of this article demonstrates that this view is refuted by what Perkins himself says in his dedication to William Bowes and in his preface. Further, according to Broeyer, the translation was a carefully considered initiative by Booth himself and was deliberately intended to foster religious peace in Utrecht. However, these views are in direct conflict with a note written to Booth by Richard Schilders, the publisher of the translation. Finally, we should not overlook the significance of an earlier translation by Booth, in which the very title demonstrates its strongly anti-Romanist nature. Conclusion: Booth's translation of Perkins' tract as well as Booth himself has nothing to do with irenicism.17

‘It is an old theory of ours, that there are very few of the positions assumed by the antagonists of the Catholic church, which may not be turned against each other, with far more effect than they carry against the common adversary whom they all seek to assail. A skilful use of the weapons employed against each other by various sects of Protestantism, in their internecine warfare, would supply one of the most curious, and we will venture to say, one of the most solid and convincing arguments of the truth of the Catholic religion to be found in the whole range of polemical literature’.(Dublin Review, 1855).Anti-Catholicism, represented in the era of the eve of Emancipation by a rich genre of polemical literature focusing on the supposed ‘difficulties of Romanism’, has been the subject of much recent study; notably for the eighteenth century by Colin Haydon, and for the nineteenth, by Walter Amstein, Edward Norman, D. G. Paz, Walter Ralls, F. M. Wallis and John Wolffe. In contrast, English Catholic controversial writing against the Church of England, focusing on what one Catholic writer (in a conscious reversal of the stock Anglican polemical title) called the ‘difficulties of Protestantism’, with notable exceptions such as Sheridan Gilley, Leo Gooch and Brian Carter, 5 has been comparatively neglected for the half century prior to the dawn of the Oxford Movement in 1833.

Со времён диспутов романистов и германистов цивилизация средневековой Европы рассматривалась как результат синтеза. В увидевшей свет в 2019 г. в Буэнос-Айресе книге «Cultura letrada e idendidades sociales en el mundo medieval, siglos IV–XV» («Культура просвещения и социальные идентичности в средневековом мире, IV–XV вв.») предпринимается ещё одна попытка дать ответ на вопрос, каково же было значение христианства в данном синтезе. Книга представляет собой сборник статей, посвящённых письменной культуре и образованию в средиземноморском регионе. Однако в силу как узости тематики, заявленной в названии книги, так и единства и комплементарности статей в концептуальном плане рецензируемое издание является вполне целостным. Все статьи написаны в рамках подхода, характеризующего средневековую культуру как плод синтеза Библии (христианства) и эллинизма. Специфика этого подхода обусловлена тем, что географические рамки исследований охватывают весь средиземноморский регион. Эта методологическая особенность наложила отпечаток на выводы, к которым пришли авторы сборника. Since the time of the Romanist and Germanist debates, the civilisation of medieval Europe has been seen as the result of a synthesis. Cultura letrada e idendidades sociales en el mundo medieval, siglos IV-XV (Culture of Enlightenment and Social Identities in the Medieval World, IV-XV centuries), published in 2019 in Buenos Aires, attempts once again to answer the question of what was the significance of Christianity in this synthesis. The book is a collection of articles on written culture and education in the Mediterranean region. However, due to both the narrowness of the theme stated in the title and the unity and complementarity of the articles in conceptual terms, the reviewed edition is quite coherent. All the articles are written within the framework of the approach which characterises medieval culture as a product of the synthesis of the Bible (Christianity) and Hellenism. The specificity of this approach is due to the fact that the geographical scope of the research covers the entire Mediterranean region. This methodological peculiarity has affected the conclusions reached by the authors of the collection.

AbstractEverard Booth's irenic Perkins translation The French diplomat Jean Hotman included the French translation of William Perkins' A Reformed Catholike in a syllabus of irenical literature published by him in 1607. This is important. In around 1600 Protestant people were not struck by the unfriendly remarks about the Roman Catholic Church in Perkins' book but by the fact that each of its chapters started with a discourse on the issues on which Catholics and Protestants agreed. Therefore it makes little sense to pay special attention to Perkins' dedication to William Bowes, as W J. op 't Hof does. The translator, Booth, moreover, did not know English. He made use of a Latin translation for his version and never saw the dedication to Bowes. The wording of his translation of Perkins' preface differs very much in character from the original, as a result of its origin in the Latin text. Op 't Hof refers to a note written to Booth by his publisher Schilders. Yet this note only contains information about the sale of the translation, and tells us nothing at all about the contents of the book or Booth's intentions for it. In his own preface, Booth does tell us about these intentions. Op 't Hof disregards these remarks and brushes aside the strong possibility that the work of Booth's former professor Franciscus Junius, the author of Eirenicum de Pace Ecclesiae Catholicae, may also have influenced his translation. An earlier work of translation by Booth shows his interest in the dialogue between Protestants and Catholics. On the basis of its title, Op 't Hof ascribes to it a strong anti-Romanist nature, but the book itself does not confirm this. The author states explicitly that he does not want to annoy the other side. My conclusion is that Hotman's opinion of Booth's translation of Perkins has to be taken seriously: this version of A Reformed Catholic has an irenical nature.

William III's military and political career was marked by a sustained tension between his obsessive struggle against France and the fear caused by his accession to enhanced titles of power. Crucial to William's shift from stadholderate to kingship was his assumption of emergency powers in 1672 to defend his country against French invasion. Throughout his stadholderate (1672–1702), he came to be seen by his Dutch republican opponents as a Roman dictator intent on using military power to break the harmony of the constitution, while Orangist propaganda tried to present the rule of the One as the best remedy to the recurrent danger of civil war and anarchy. Spurred by the Ryswick treaty of September 1697 and fuelled by a deeply engrained tradition of resistance to any expanded military establishment, the standing army debates of 1697–9 came as an effort to understand a major political controversy in the light of the history of republican Rome. The political theorists of the New Country Party strove to reassert the superiority of civil over military power by showing how the decay of the Roman Republic had been caused by a departure from the civic militia paradigm and a drift towards military monarchy which fostered the growth of tyranny. It was thought that England's commitment to a prolonged war effort would entail a similar process and imperil the age-old balance between king and parliament. The contention of this article is that the standing army debates of 1697–9 can be construed as an encounter between Dutch and English neo-Romanism, crystallizing in the controversial figure of William. An overall view of William's military and political career and the search for elements of continuity in his supporters' and his opponents' arguments will serve to look at the role of historicism in the construction of a late seventeenth-century Anglo-Dutch ideological space.

Le droit des organisations internationales et le droit international administratif constituent des champs classiques qui relèvent du droit international public. L’essor des travaux sur la mondialisation a mis en lumière de nouvelles dimensions transnationales dans l’élaboration de règles et de standards par des entités hybrides ou privées. Le projet du droit administratif global (global administrative law), lancé à New York en 2005, porte sur un élargissement par l’inclusion de fonctions de contrôle, de normalisation et de régulation qui ne relèvent pas exclusivement des organisations internationales. Cette situation rendrait indispensable l’élaboration de nouveaux principes, ainsi que des mécanismes d’imputabilité, sans perdre de vue pour autant les travaux des organisations internationales qui soulèvent des problèmes similaires. Encore peu connu du public francophone, ce débat est en constante progression alors que la réalité même du droit administratif global reste controversée. Un examen attentif de ce débat permet de dégager deux axes où la légitimité et la juridicité du droit administratif global alimentent de nombreuses questions. La synthèse de cette évolution montre des lacunes. Engagés dans un renouveau théorique sur le fondement de la mondialisation, du droit transnational et postnational, des professeurs venus de divers champs du droit, notamment le droit international et le droit administratif, ont décrit et parfois postulé l’existence d’un droit administratif globalisé. Si la réponse pouvait être affirmative pour cet élargissement du droit administratif, le débat engagé a négligé le contenu, et les acquis, des différents droits administratifs nationaux, qui ont été exclus d’emblée en 2005. La démarche méthodologique suivie par la majorité des auteurs est du type holistique sans qu’aucun débat ait pu être engagé sur la pertinence de plusieurs notions propres au droit administratif à titre de cadre conceptuel qui permettrait de décrire l’action administrative dans toute sa complexité et ses raffinements. L’existence d’un patrimoine commun pour tous les droits administratifs nationaux, peu importe que la filière soit du type romaniste ou de common law, laisse augurer plusieurs développements positifs pour la dimension administrative de la mondialisation.

Si tamen plures per se navem exerceant. Several Remarks on the Liability of ShipownersSummaryThe problem discussed in this paper regards the liability of several shipowners (exercitores) managing the same ship. In the title de exercitoria actione o f the Digest there are three texts that refer to this matter: D. 14,1,1,25; D. 14,1,4 pr. and D. 14,1,4,1. The first and the last one refer to a situation in which the shipowners appointed a captain (magister navis) as their agent and thus were held liable in solidum for contracts made by him with third parties. In these cases their joint and several liability had ground in the joint appointm ent of an agent (praepositio). The second text D. 14,1,4 pr. is not very clear and refers to shipowners that were managing the same ship per se, and in this case they could be sued pro portionibus exercitionis. Such a model of liability was justified by the reservation that they cannot be deemed as being each other’s captain (neque enim invicem sui magistri videbuntur). This text was widely discussed among romanists and gave ground to various interpretations. The main questions concerned were the following: whether shipowners dealt with the third parties personally or appointed an agent (magister navis), whether a contract was stipulated by all shipowners jointly or only one o f them, whether they were partners in a partnership or conducted their business independently. According to the most common interpretation the text refers to a situation in which the shipowners conducted their activity personally in the partnership. Having accepted the above view, to justify their liability pro portionibus exercitionis one must admit that they all acted as a party in a contract or, supposing a contract was stipulated by one of them, a partnership between shipowners was a particular kind of partnership in which a contract concluded by only one of the partners resulted in the liability of the others. N one of these interpretations seems to be convincing.First of all, one must take into consideration that the word exercitor was a technical term used to define someone conducting an economic activity through his agent (magister navis) so it was normally used in the context of the whole structure of exercitio navis that was based on the scheme exercitor — magister navis. Thus it seems more likely that exercere per se means not conducting an activity personally but rather „on one’s own account”, „independently”. Besides, the reservation neque enim invicem sui magistri videbuntur suggesting that plures exercitores conducted their activity personally is dubious since it refers to a concept of mutual praepositio, which was used by glossators and commentators to justify joint and several liability of partners and it may be possible that this reservation constituted a part of the gloss or was added to the original context later by some interpreter that did not understand Ulpian’s intention.A similar conclusion arises from the comparison of the text of D. 14,1,4 pr. with texts concerning the liability of several persons on the basis of actio institoria. From the text of D. 14,3,14 it appears that if no legal relationship that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse existed among several persons liable for the act of the agent, none o f them could be sued for the full am ount (in solidum) but they were held liable pro parte. In the case of actio institoria the fact of a joint appointm ent was probably treated as a manifestation of animus societatis that made it possible to treat the persons that had nom inated jointly the institor as partners and thus held them liable in solidum for contracts made by this agent. Hence the fact that in the text o f D. 14,1,4 pr. the shipowners did not appoint jointly their agent and were held liable pro portionibus exercitionis suggests that they were not partners but each of them managed a ship on his own account.If we adm it that plures exercitores that per se navem exerceant were the shipowners that did not conduct their business together we could indicate two situations in which they could be sued pro portionibus exercitionis. The first would be the case in which each o f the shipowners appointed his own agent on the ship and the contract with the third party was stipulated by all agents acting together. The second would be the case in which the shipowners appointed the same person as their agent but the praepositio was given by each o f them separately. in both cases each o f the shipowners could be sued with actio exercitoria only for his proper part since they could not be deemed to be partners and they could not sue each other with any action for a recourse.

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.

The participation of Partners in Travel Expenses and Losses. impensa in societatem and propter societatem According to Labeo and JulianSummaryThe problem discussed in this paper regards the participation of partners in travel expenses and losses suffered during a business trip. In the title pro socio of the Digest there are three texts that refer to this question: D. 17,2,52,4 and D. 17,2,52,15 and D. 17,2,60,1. The first one refers to sagaria negotiatio conducted in a form of a partnership and analyses the case of a partner who during a business trip was attacked by robbers who stole his property and injured his slaves. According to Julian (cited by Ulpian) all those losses (even all what was paid to a doctor for the treatment of the slaves) should be shared by all partners. The second text also refers to the expenses incurred by one of the partners during a business trip that should be shared with the other partner. The third one concerns the problem of sharing the expenses incurred for the medical treatment by one of the partners that had been wounded while trying to prevent the slaves, who were their common property, intended for sale from escaping. According to Labeo, in this case the part of the money spent on a doctor could not be claimed from the other partner as it was not spent in societatem but propter societatem.The main question discussed in relation to the above mentioned texts concerns the disagreement between Julian and Labeo in the matter of sharing the expenses incurred for the medical treatment in a partnership. This question has been widely discussed and analysed from various points of view among the Romanists (Gandolfi, Santucci, Meissel) who tried to explain the concept of impensa in and propter societatem and thus found some reasonable justification for the negative decision made by Labeo.In my opinion the case discussed by Labeo should be analised in relation to other texts focused on the problem of determining the limits of a common activity or a common patrimony in a partnership other than a societas omnium bonorum, as for example the texts of D. 17,2,58 pr.-1 or D. 17,2,52,4. Those texts clearly show the problems discussed by Roman jurists at the moment of the evolution from the traditional form of partnership societas omnium bonorum (based on the total community of all partners’ patrimonies) into a more limited form of partnership treated as an instrument of conducting an economic activity. Particularly in D. 17,2,58 pr., Celsus made a clear distinction between a partnership established for the purpose of “having” goods in common and “selling” goods in common which corresponds to the distinction between „società di mero godimento” based on the schema of societas omnium bonorum (and thus total community of all profits and losses) and „società questuarie” aimed to gain profits from some kind of an economic activity in which only the profits and losses resulted from conducting the common business were to be shared among partners). Consequently in a partnership established for the purpose of “having” goods in common all the losses that regarded the common patrimony were to be shared while in a commercial partnership losses not resulting from a partnership’s activity (even regarding the common patrimony) were not shared.From the analysis of those texts we could also deduce that in case of a partnership with a limited scope in order to determine whether some losses suffered by one of the partners should be shared it was crucial whether they would not have been suffered if the partnership had not existed. We could suppose that Labeo in D. 17,2,60,1 analysing the case of a wounded partner, used a similar scheme of thinking. In the case discussed by this jurist the slaves were the property of the partners but the aim of the partnership was to sell them and not to posses them. That is why even if the partnership had not existed their owner would have tried to impede their escape and as a consequence would have had to pay a the doctor’s fees. Thus one could not say that the loss suffered by the injured partner would not have been suffered if the contract of partnership had not been concluded and for this reason Labeo did not permit to claim its reimbursement from the other partner.The hypotheses that the problem discussed by Labeo should be interpreted from the point of view of the distinction between a universal type of a partnership and a partnership with a limited scope is also confirmed by the final part of the text of D. 17,2,60. Labeo, for making the distinction between the costs defined as spent in societatem and propter societatem clearer, mentioned other kinds of profits and losses that were to be shared only in a partnership omnium bonorum aimed to possess and administer goods in common, but were not shared in a partnership with a limited scope established for a purpose of buying and selling goods.

When recording titles in vernacular Chinese characters or in their Romanized form, either a monosyllabic pattern or a polysyllabic pattern can be followed. Previous research has shown that polysyllabic transcription helps reduce ambiguity and tends to increase precision in retrieval. As there are no clear cut rules as to how syllables should be aggregated into lexical units, polysyllabic entries are a potential source of inconsistency in a bibliographic database. The aim of this study is to investigate the inconsistencies in the aggregation of Chinese characters (i.e., syllables) into lexical words in the bibliographic records of two library catalogues. Over 5,000 records from the East Asian Library at Université de Montréal (CETASE) and 5,000 records from the Library of Congress (LC) were analysed and tested for aggregation consistency. Detailed analysis reveals fairly high consistency levels in both sets.Lors de l’enregistrement des titres en caractères chinois vernaculaires ou sous leur forme romanisée, un modèle monosyllabique ou polysyllabique peut être utilisé. Des recherches antérieures ont démontré que la transcription en polysyllabes atténue les ambiguïtés et tend à améliorer la précision lors du repérage. Puisqu’il n’existe aucune règle fermement établie sur la manière avec laquelle les syllabes doivent être agrégées en unités lexicales, la transcription polysyllabique est une source potentielle d’inconsistance dans les bases de données bibliographiques. Le but de cette étude est d’examiner l’inconsistance dans l’agrégation des caractères chinois (c’est-à-dire des syllabes) des mots lexicaux contenus dans les notices bibliographiques de deux catalogues de bibliothèques. Plus de 5 000 notices du Centre d’études de l’Asie de l’Est de l’Université de Montréal (CETASE) et 5 000 notices de la Library of Congress (LC) ont été analysées et la consistance de l’agrégation a été vérifiée. Une analyse détaillée révèle des niveaux de consistance élevés pour les deux ensembles.

The oeuvre of Elemér Balogh, who played an essential role in founding the Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé (International Academy of Comparative Law), is almost unknown by generations of lawyers nowadays. In spite of the fact that regarding his scientific motivation and the greater part of his publications Professor Balogh (who had to emigrate from his homeland, Hungary) was a scholar of Roman law, the parts of his scientific career dealing with Roman law and other ancient legal systems are also unknown for many legal scholars. In the following, we will present the most important stages of his life and then his scientific oeuvre dealing with Roman law and comparative law. The mere fact that he was invited to attend the fourteenth centenary celebration of the promulgation of Justinian's Digest - where he delivered a lecture titled La procédure civile sous Justinien - is an evidence of his high reputation as a Romanist.