This thesis examines the preoccupation with the relationship between history and fiction present in the work of Leonardo Sciascia and Jorge Luis Borges. By means of different narrative strategies, both authors underscore the narrative elements that underpin any reconstruction of the past, and in this way they link the process of reconstruction of past events to the process of rewriting of a literary work. They emphasise, however, that whereas the literary work can be enriched by multiple rewritings, multiple reconstructions of the same real past event risk threatening its truthfulness. This thesis investigates the different ways in which Borges’s and Sciascia’s works intersect, across three narrative forms: the detective story, the historical essay (inchiesta or ‘enquiry’ for Sciascia) and the historical fiction. The analysis of Sciascia’s texts starts from a focus on the structural similarities with the work of Borges in the detective story, paying particular attention to Il contesto (1971), Todo modo (1974), and Il cavaliere e la morte (1988). It then moves on to Sciascia’s inclusion of fragments of Borges’s texts in two of his inchieste, L’affaire Moro (1978) and Il teatro della memoria (1981). The last chapter of the thesis proposes a metafictional reading of Sciascia’s historical novel Il Consiglio d’Egitto (1963), in the light of the comparisons with Borges’s work undertaken in the previous chapters. The two key aims of this thesis are to show (1) that studying the ways in which Sciascia integrates Borges’s texts in his own writing allows a deeper understanding of Sciascia’s texts, but also underscores traits in Borges’s which might have been downplayed by previous criticism of his work, and (2) that reconsidering in the light of this understanding a number of Sciascia’s other texts where Borges’s influence is not explicit allows us to identify a preoccupation with regards to the relationship between history and fiction shared between both authors.

De Roland Barthes à Pascal Quignard, ce que l’on observe c’est la recherche d’une hétérologie du savoir ; l’accentuation d’un discours « autre » sur le savoir ou plutôt la spectacularisation d’une forme hétérodoxe de l’écriture du savoir. Cela passe par le mélange des registres narratifs et argumentatifs, par le choix d’une forme plus fragmentaire que dissertative, par l’ouverture aux jeux énonciatifs comme par l’accueil de courts passages fictionnels dans les marges de la prose d’idées, par le souci enfin de la dimension figurale qui travaille en profondeur l’écriture du texte théorique. En engageant une comparaison entre ces deux générations d’écrivains, nous avons tenté une approche généalogique de cette ressaisie « hétérologique » des savoirs par la littérature. La question a été la suivante : qu’est-ce que l’insistance de la littérarisation du discours savant par les littéraires nous dit, en retour, de l’idée que la littérature se fait d’elle-même ? Derrière toutes ces annexions des disciplines savantes dans le domaine de la littérature – d’ailleurs exclusivement menées depuis la littérature, dans une indifférence quasi unanime de la « science » dont l’émancipation n’a plus à être revendiquée – n’y-a-t-il pas toute une stratégie de redressement symbolique du pouvoir et de la figure du littéraire ? Il ne s’agit pas ici d’une contribution à l’histoire de la littérature – dont le plan, souvent trop vaste, finit par essentialiser l’objet qu’elle se propose précisément d’historiciser –, mais plutôt d’une participation à l’histoire de l’idée de littérature ; et à l’intérieur de celle-ci, de façon plus resserrée encore, la tentative d’éclairer l’histoire de l’idée selon laquelle la littérature récente s’est voulue (de nouveau) souveraine dans l’ordre des discours. / The thing one observes moving from Roland Barthes to Pascal Quignard is the search for a sort of heterology of knowledge; the emphasis of an “other” discourse on knowledge or rather the spectacular display of a heterodox form for the writing of knowledge. This takes place by means of the intertwinement of both narrative and argumentative registers, as well as by the choice of a more fragmented rather than dissertational form, by a sort of openness to enunciation games but also by the incorporation of short fictional excerpts within the margins of such prose of ideas and finally by pondering the figural dimension deeply operating the writing of the theoretical text. The comparison initiated herewith between these two generations of writers has led us to put forward a genealogical approach of such “heterological” restoration of knowledge by literature. The question was outlined as follows: what does the insistence of the use by the literary of a scholar discourse literalization tell us, in its own way, concerning the very idea literature projects of itself? Underlying all the annexations of scholarly disciplines within the field of literature — indeed exclusively conducted from literature's point of view, in an almost unanimous indifference towards “science” whose emancipation no longer needs to be claimed — one asks whether there would not be a complete symbolic turnaround strategy of both the power and the figure of the literary. We do not aim at contributing to the history of literature — whose plan, often too wide, ends by essentializing the precise object it seeks to historicize — but rather to participating in the history of an idea of literature itself; and herewith, in a more strict manner, attempting to enlighten the history of the idea that recent literature has (once again) sought sovereignty within the order of discourse.