À partir du projet d’écriture d’une chronique que Céline met en avant lorsqu’il parle de son œuvre dans l’après-guerre, ce mémoire examine l’hypothèse selon laquelle le genre des chroniques médiévales fait, dans Nord, l’objet d’une réécriture permanente et déterminante pour la version de la Seconde Guerre mondiale de Céline. La notion d’horizon d’attente de Jauss permet d’abord de démontrer comment Nord reconstruit le discours testimonial et l’éthos de la vérité qui fondent la légitimité de chroniqueurs comme Villehardouin ou Clari afin d’accréditer une version illégitime des événements de 39-45. Au récit magnifié de la « Libération », Céline oppose en effet une chronique de l’épuration et un témoignage sur la vie quotidienne dans l’Allemagne de 1944. Idéologiquement nationalistes, les chroniques médiévales forment une lignée de la francité à partir de laquelle Céline crée une fiction politique passéiste qui projette sur les événements de 39-45 la géopolitique d’une Europe médiévale afin de cautionner les partis pris d’extrême droite de l’auteur. Par ailleurs, Nord accentue la propension autobiographique de certaines chroniques et la confond avec une lignée de mémorialistes disgraciés. Ceux-ci lui fournissent le plaidoyer pro domo qui orchestre toute la rhétorique d’autojustification de l’écrivain dans l’après-guerre : s’autoproclamer victime de l’histoire afin de justifier a posteriori les pamphlets antisémites et ainsi s’exonérer de tout aveu de culpabilité. Enfin, Céline qualifie Nord de « roman » par référence à la part d’affabulation des chroniqueurs. Pour représenter l’histoire en une Apocalypse advenue sans justice divine et sans héros, Nord procède en effet à une réactivation des genres fictionnels comme la légende, l’épique et le chevaleresque qui s’entremêlaient à l’histoire dans les Chroniques de Froissart. Cette réécriture entre fabula et historia est donc d’abord une création de romancier qui, dans le contexte de crise de la fiction de l’après-guerre, procède à un épuisement du roman par l’histoire. / Rooted in the chronicle writing exercise that Céline upholds when speaking about his post-war work, this memoire examines the hypothesis that the genre of medieval chronicles establish, in Nord, a permanent and definitive rewriting of Céline’s version of the Second World War. Jauss’ reception theory permits a demonstration of how Nord reconstructs the testimonial discourse and the ethos of truth, which are the foundation of the chroniclers Villehardouin or Clari, in order to give credence to an illegitimate version of the events of 1939-1945. In the magnified narrative of “Liberation”, Celine in fact opposes a chronicle of the épuration and an eyewitness account of daily life in Germany, 1944. Nationalist in ideology, medieval chronicles trace a French tradition from which Celine creates a pacifist political fiction and projects the geopolitics of medieval Europe upon the events of 1939-1945 in order to legitimize the author’s extreme right political leanings. Nord accentuates the autobiographical propensities of certain chronicles and merges them with a tradition of disgraced memorialists. This provides the pro domo plea instrumental in orchestrating the rhetoric of self-justification in the writer’s post-war works : to proclaim himself a victim of history in order to justify a posteriori the anti-semite pamphlets and therefore to self-exonerate of all admission of guilt. Finally, Céline qualifies North as a novel as a reference towards the fabrication of the chroniclers. To represent history as the coming Apocalypse without divine justice and without heroes, North proceeds to reactivate fictional genres such as legend, epic, and chivalry which become entangled with history in the Chroniques of Froissart. This rewriting between fabula and historia is therefore a creation of a novelist who, within the context of the post-war fiction crisis, proceeds to deconstruct the novel through history.

No description available.

The Construction of Historical Reality in Jean Froissart's Chronicles Jean Froissart, one of the most famous chroniclers of the Middle Ages, is generally recognized for the literary qualities of his work, less so for the credibility of his account. In my research I have endeavoured to follow those scholars whose aim has been to rehabilitate the author by studying him not on the basis of principles which govern our contemporary understanding of history as an academic discipline, but rather on the basis of conceptual movements which conditioned historical writing in the 14th century, taking into account the traditions upon which medieval conception of history was built. Put differently, this work seeks to examine closely the "historical forge" of Jean Froissart. Clearly, Froissart's historical project falls within a specific discourse on historical genres, on relationships between form and truth which an account of deeds is expected to convey, on the manner in which the authority of a story being told is constructed. It is on the very intersection of this context, on the one hand, and the individuality of the author, on the other, that I based my search for the chronicler's perspectives on the writing of history. Froissart was from the outset concerned with the issues of impartiality and credibility...

Jean Froissart’s Chroniques, composed of four Books, relate the first stages of the Anglo-French conflict later known as the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453). This thesis explores Froissart’s textual journey(s) to Gascon lands (south-west of modern-day France) and history/stories. Relying on Gérard Genette’s and Mikhail Bakhtin’s narrative theories, it uses literary and narratological tools to analyse three passages from Book I and III concerned with Gascony: the Earl of Derby’s Gascon campaigns (Chapter 1); the Black Prince’s Gascon campaigns and the principality of Aquitaine (Chapter 2); Froissart’s personal journey to and stay at the court of Gaston Fébus, count of Foix-Béarn (Chapter 3). One aim of the study is to investigate the representation of the region but it also argues that the Gascon passages have wider implications for the Chroniques, Froissart’s work as a whole, and the writing of history in the fourteenth century. At the turn of the twentieth century, Froissart’s ‘history’ was often disparagingly discussed by scholars due to factual inaccuracy and literary embellishments: such a ‘historical narrative’, it was felt, fell short of history and was nothing more than an entertaining story presenting outdated chivalric ideals. Although this approach has been partly revised, some critics still view the Chroniques’ earlier Books as being a narratively straightforward reflection of such a chivalric ideology, lacking critical hindsight on fourteenth-century events and society, and thus presenting paradoxical and irreconcilable tensions with later Books to the extent that they are occasionally deemed to be an entirely different kind of work than their later counterparts. The narrative thread of Froissart’s Gascon (hi)story explored here allows the revision of such views and shows that Froissart’s narrative is far from narratively and ideologically straightforward. This complexity is present as early as the first versions of the Book I, which should be envisaged in parallel, not in opposition, with the ‘later’ Chroniques. Similarly, the various tensions (e.g. fiction/history; ideal/real) underpinning the whole work, manifested in the portrayal of Gascony/the Gascons, are best approached in terms of co-existence, not antagonism. Such a multi-faceted work (a mirror and/or product of the fourteenth century?), à mi-chemin between history and fiction, between conflicting yet co-existing perspectives, is precisely what makes Froissart’s Chroniques valuable to literary critics, philologists, and historians alike.

Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished