On a souvent considéré qu’au cours du XVIIIe siècle s’opérait une mutation dans l’histoire du genre biographique, qui se manifestait par le passage des « Vies » aux « biographies ». Pourtant d’importantes transformations affectent la manière de raconter la vie dès la fin du XVIe siècle. Ces changements sont particulièrement sensibles dans un sous-genre de la biographie, la Vie d’écrivain. En effet, outre l’affaiblissement de la pression rhétorique qui touche les pratiques narratives dans leur ensemble, celle-ci est modifiée par une nouvelle habitude éditoriale qui consiste à inclure une Vie de l’auteur en avant-propos de l’oeuvre et par l’évolution du statut de l’écrivain qui commence à se différencier des autres hommes de lettres. Pour comprendre la spécificité du genre, il convient de définir les conditions de production de la Vie d’écrivain, liées aux nouvelles exigences de l’historiographie et au développement de la culture mondaine, en particulier de l’art de la conversation. La Vie d’écrivain permet, par ailleurs, de mesurer l’évolution du régime de l’exemplarité, à travers la régression des modèles éthiques traditionnels, l’apparition de nouveaux modèles, mais aussi la recherche de plus en plus affirmée d’une singularité de l’auteur. Il faudra enfin s’interroger sur l’apport particulier des Vies d’écrivains à l’histoire littéraire, en relation avec la place accordée à la narration, qui constitue l’évolution majeure du genre au XVIIIe siècle. Ces différentes questions, rencontrées au fil de notre travail, nous aideront à mieux comprendre les ressorts d’une démarche inhérente à la biographie d’écrivain : le va-et-vient entre la vie et l’oeuvre. / It has often been considered that, throughout the 18th century, there took place a profound change in the history of biographical genre, expressed by the shift from “Lives” to “biographies”. However, important transformations have affected the way of telling life as far back as the end of the 17th century. The changes are particularly noticeable in one subgenre of biography, the Lives of writers. Actually, besides the weakening of the rhetorical pressure which concerns the narrative practices, as a whole, it is altered by a new editorial habit which consists in including a Life of the author as a preface to the works and by the evolution of the status of the writer who, then, starts differing from other men of letters. So as to understand the specificity of the genre, it is advisable to define the conditions of production of the Lives of writers, linked to the new demands of historiography and to the development of society culture, particularly the art of conversation. Furthermore, the Lives of writers allows to assess the evolution of the system of exemplarity, through the regression of traditional ethical models, the appearance of new models, but also the search – more and more emphasized – for the writer’s peculiarity. At last, we shall have to wonder about the particular contribution made by the Lives of writers to literary history, in relation to the place granted to narration, which constitutes the major evolution of the genre in the 18th century.These different questions, raised throughout our work, will help understand the motives of a process inherent in biographies of writers, namely, going back and forth between life and works.

This study examines the constructions and uses of the figure of Ovid in French writing of the second half of the seventeenth century, and explores how they were modulated by contemporary aesthetic and cultural concerns. As the influence of Ovid’s poetry made itself felt in various ways – in the mythopoeia of the Sun-King and the fashionable galant salons – interest in the story of Ovid’s life blossomed. This, I argue, was facilitated by new forms of ‘life-writing’, the nouvelle historique and histoire galante, and fuelled in unexpected ways by the escalating querelle des Anciens et des Modernes. Research has been done on the reception and influence of Ovid’s poetry in this period, but little attention has been paid to the figure of Ovid. This thesis offers a new perspective and, informed by recent renewed interest in life-writing, argues that analysis of biographical depictions is vital for establishing a coherent picture of the uses of Ovid in the ‘Grand Siècle’. I explore a diverse range of textual descriptions of Ovid (Vies; prefatory material attached to translations and editions of his work; correspondence; dialogues des morts; biographical dictionaries and historical novels), organized according to their different, though intersecting, ways of writing about this poet. He was constructed as a historical figure, an author, a fictional character and a ‘parallèle’ – a point of identification or contrast for contemporary writers. Through close analysis of a multi-authored corpus, this thesis identifies and examines two instances of paradox: though an ancient poet, Ovid became emblematic of 'Moderne' movements and was used to explore aspects of galanterie; and, though his creative work was mobilized in the service of royal propaganda, Ovid, as a figure for the exiled poet, was also used to express anxieties about the sway of power and the machinations and pitfalls of the world of the court.

Cette thèse remet en question le soupçon pesant sur les catégories de « classique » et « classicisme ». Centrales dans les manuels, ces notions sont pourtant renvoyées par les spécialistes à de purs anachronismes, et jugées impertinentes pour caractériser le XVIIe siècle et sa littérature. Marqués par la rhétorique et la sociologie historique, les travaux actuels écartent l’opposition idéologique entre classicisme et modernité. Mais l’analyse de l’antagonisme chez Barthes, et l’étude des querelles impliquant les Classiques de 1898 à 1966, permettent de donner un contenu inattendu au classicisme, très éloigné de l’irénisme dont on l’a accusé.La notion, son antonyme et ses parasynonymes (antimodernisme et post-classicisme) circonscrivent d’abord, pour la littérature, différents « régimes d’historicité » dont débattent les polémistes. Le terme reste également associé à l’élaboration d’un « dispositif » utopique, où écrire, critiquer et enseigner iraient de pair : cette configuration, essentielle au XVIIe siècle, est sans cesse « remise sur le métier » dans les querelles postérieures entre Anciens et Modernes. De 1666 à 1694, semblent surgir en réalité la plupart des questions que les critiques continueront de poser à la littérature. C’est le cas, notamment, chez Barthes, Gide et Valéry, quand ils cherchent à en déterminer les fonctions et les prérogatives. Parce que le concept d’autonomie n’est pas pour eux détaché de toute exemplarité, il s’avère utile, bien qu’anachronique, pour lire les textes du XVIIe siècle. L’art de la « disponibilité », que Barthes reconnaissait chez Racine, serait alors l’autre nom de la littérarité, le nom d’une littérarité autre – non formaliste – que les Classiques auraient bel et bien inventée et qui autoriserait leur lecture « vivante, concernée ». / This dissertation interrogates the scepticism that falls on the categories of “classics” and “classicism”. Though they are considered key concepts in textbooks, these notions are viewed by many specialists as pure anachronisms, and declared irrelevant in defining the 17th century and its literature. Drawing influences from rhetoric and historical sociology, recent work dismisses the ideological divide between classicism and modernity, but an analysis of this opposition in Barthes’s corpus, supported by a study of the quarrels involving the Classics from 1898 to 1966, endows classicism with an unheralded substance, far from the irenicism for which it has been condemned. The notion of classicism, its antonym, and its parasynonyms (anti-modernism and post-classicism) first and foremost delineate, as far as literature is concerned, different regimes of historicity that are debated by the polemicists. The term ‘classicism’ is continuously associated with the establishment of a utopian apparatus within which writing, criticism and teaching go hand in hand. This blueprint was essential in the 17th century and is revisited again and again in the subsequent quarrels between Ancients and Moderns. In fact, most of the questions that critics continue to ask literature seem to arise between 1666 and 1694. Case in point, Barthes, Gide and Valéry all sought answers to these age-old questions in their attempts to determine both the functions and the prerogatives of literature. According to them, the concept of autonomy in literature cannot be separated from exemplarity. Thus, it proves useful, although anachronistic, in the reading of 17th-century texts. The art of “availability”, which Barthes recognized in the works of Racine, would then be the other name of literariness, a distinct – non formalist – literariness that the Classics have invented which allows their “vital, concerned” reading.