The main aim of this thesis "Satire, puns and metaphor in Quevedo's works" is to contextualize the author in the historical and the literary context. We outlined the situation of Spain in the 17th century and the economic and social conditions in its territory. Furthermore, we specified the art movements, which influenced Spain during the 17th century, a Baroque and Mannerism. Within the Mannerism, we specified two dominating Spanish literary movements, "culteranismo" and "conceptismo". We characterized their essence and we presented two leaders of both these two movements. That is Góngora as a leading author of culteranismo and Quevedo representing conceptismo. Especially in case of conceptismo we also focused on clarifying concepts and we explained the basic tendencies and terminology with the help of one of the greatest leaders of Baroque rhetoric, Baltasar Gracián. Then we proceeded to the definition of satire, and we focused on the origins and development related to Quevedo's satire. We mentioned Menippean satire, which has been a springboard for many of later modern satirists and we also mentioned satire within culture of humour especially in relation to the concept of Bakhtin and Carnival. Then we continued with a typology of characters that should be kind of explanation for reading...

Le vieux différend entre le philosophe et le poète, entre logos et mythos, peut être converti en accord à condition de changer de point de vue. Alors que Platon n’a voulu voir dans leurs différences qu’une source de discorde et de division, Aristote en a tiré une poétique et une rhétorique, les poètes de la Renaissance une philosophie poétique et Vico une anthropologie du langage et une archéologie de la pensée. Ce qui est pour les modernes une « pensée sauvage » a longtemps été considéré par les anciens comme une sagesse archaïque, qui s’exprimait par figures et « traduisait en langue des dieux » les voix de la nature.On se propose ici de réévaluer les notions de pensée poétique et de pensée mythique en adoptantle point de vue des poètes de la Renaissance et de l’âge baroque, qui identifièrent l’une et l’autre à la pensée ingénieuse productrice de métaphores, de figures et de fictions. Mais il faut remonter aux sources antiques pour pouvoir rendre compte de l’active polysémie des anciennes méthodes d’interprétation des mythes qui, loin de séparer les points de vue de la physique, de la morale et de la théologie, les associaient en une « science poétique » qui faisait la synthèse de tous les savoirs du monde, et qui est désormais une science fossile. / The old dispute between the Philosopher and the Poet, which leads to the dichotomy betweenLogos and Mythos, can be turned into a settlement as long as one changes one’s viewpoint. WhilePlato only considered their difference as a source of discord and division, Aristotle drew from it aPoetic and a Rhetoric, the Renaissance poets a Poetical Philosophy, and Vico a language’sAnthropology and an Archeology of the Thought. What is considered by the Moderns to be a « wildthinking » was seen by the Ancients as an archaic wisdom, expressed through figures and« translating the voices of nature into the language of gods ».The purpose here is to reassess the concepts of Poetic and Mythic thought by adopting theviewpoint of the poets of the Renaissance and the Baroque era. Those cleary identified these twospecific thinkings with the wit’s power to produce metaphors, figures and fictions. In order to achievethis research, it is important to revisit the antic sources, so as to enlight the effective polysemysupporting the ancient ways used to interpret myths. Far from categorising the stance of the physics,the morals and the theology, the Ancients used to gather them into a comprehensive « poeticscience » : it reunited the synthesis of all knowledge but has become a fossilised science