Les antinaturalistes ! Ce terme fait jaillir les figures de critiques du XIXe siècle, dont les noms sont demeurés plus ou moins gravés dans la mémoire et dans l’histoire littéraire : Barbey d’Aurevilly, Léon Bloy, Léon Daudet, mais aussi Pontmartin, Remy de Gourmont ou Jean-Marie Guyau... auteurs fascinants par leur virulence, leur refus de la modernité, leurs positions philosophiques hors-norme ou novatrices... La présente étude tend à montrer la diversité qui peut animer ce groupe, qui se définit par la négative comme « ceux qui s’opposent à la littérature de Zola ». Cette alliance des contraires leur permet de se constituer en force à part entière sur l’échiquier littéraire.Pour appréhender cette tension entre la pluralité des figures et la force d’un groupe dont l’unité se fracasse sur l’affaire Dreyfus, une première partie proposera quelques parcours dans la sociologie et la philosophie de l’époque, qui mettent en évidence un paysage complexe, traversées par d’étranges phénomènes de ruptures et de continuité. Puis, en questionnant la manière dont les antinaturalistes mettent en forme un discours critique. Un chapitre consacré aux rhétoriques antinaturalistes ne fera que renforcer l’idée de multiplicité au sein de ce groupe. Un double-mouvement de construction et de déconstruction de ce concept, conduira à réévaluer quelques griefs adressés à Zola par ses ennemis pour mettre en lumière des phénomènes de ré-emprunts et des positions singulières et paradoxales, qui témoignent de l’importance de l’auteur naturaliste dans le champ littéraire de la fin du XIXe siècle, tant sur le plan littéraire que sur le plan politique. / Antinaturalists! This term brings out the figures of critics of the nineteenth century, whose names have remained more or less engraved in memory and in literary history: Barbey d'Aurevilly, Leon Bloy, Leon Daudet, but also Pontmartin, Remy de Gourmont or Jean-Marie Guyau ... fascinating authors by their virulence, their rejection of modernity, their philosophical positions out of norm or innovative ... The present study tends to show the diversity that can animate this group, which is defined by the negative as "those who oppose Zola's literature". This alliance of opposites allows them to constitute themselves in full force on the literary chessboard.To apprehend this tension between the plurality of figures and the strength of a group whose unity is shattered on the Dreyfus affair, a first part will propose some pathways in the sociology and philosophy of the time, which highlight a complex landscape, traversed by strange phenomena of breaks and continuity. Then, questioning the way in which antinaturalists form a critical discourse. A chapter devoted to antinaturalist rhetoric will only reinforce the idea of ​​multiplicity within this group. A double-movement of construction and deconstruction of this concept, will lead to reevaluate some grievances addressed to Zola by his enemies to highlight phenomena of re-borrowing and singular and paradoxical positions, which testify to the importance of the naturalist author in the literary field of the late nineteenth century, both literary and political.

<p>The dissertation describes a crucial step in the development of a modern writer's identity in Sweden. It applies the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of the autonomous ”literary field” to the development in eighteen-eighties, one of the most important periods in Swedish literary history.</p><p>During this decade a large group of authors appeared, with August Strindberg in the front. In accordance with the dominating esthetical view of the nineteenth century, ”ideal realism”, the writers had an ethical responsibility. But they differed from their predecessors by not being loyal to the bourgeois society and its values, as codified in the concept of ”decency”, that contained, among other things, rules for what could be said in public. On the contrary, the new generation of authors attacked the bourgeoisie in novels, dramas and articles, especially in the singularly most controversial area, the regulation of sexuality and the ideals of bourgeois women.</p><p>This study argues that the new authors in their radical criticism aimed at the position of power in society traditionally upheld by the State church, which supervised education and ethical values. They did this by creating a role for themselves as young and oppressed, something that made it possible to deny any responsibility for the present state and furthermore to speak up, despite their own bourgeois background, for other oppressed groups like the working classes, the poor and women. But this also meant that they could not be successful in their ambitions to gain influence without loosing their identity. This was especially the consequence of the fact that an autonomous ”literary field” did not yet exist. That is, there were no internal literary institutions that, seemingly independent of the rest of society, decided what was ”good literature.” Instead, the singularly most important judge of interesting literature was the bourgeois public. Strindberg seems to have realised this early, and achieved an identity as ”uncontrolled”. He thereby lost his intellectual credibility, but gained a much bigger freedom to write and also got the attention of the large audience. At the same time, his writing undermined the values of decency by breaking the bourgeois society’s fundamental wall between the private and the public sphere, not least by writing what was regarded as facts about his own private life. </p><p>The conservative reaction accelerated towards the end of the decade while the authors grew more and more bitter about the public’s lack of understanding. At this point the author Verner von Heidenstam took the opportunity to declare a new literary era, dissociating his aesthetics from the one of the Eighties and proclaiming the necessity of an aristocratic, ethically indifferent literature (with himself as its leader). </p><p>Confronted with the new concept of what ought to be regarded as “modern”, the established male authors were generally quick to separate themselves from the female authors, and to identify the attacked literature solely with the one that critically discussed the situation of women in society - a description that has been largely adopted in the history of literature. A number of male authors also wrote novels separating themselves from the Eighties. Thus, they could continue into the new period, while female authors in general were silenced or forced to write in less esteemed genres (”popular literature”, children’s books). </p><p>Ultimately the result was a more distinct male domination coupled with a growing contempt for the large audience. This, in turn, created a need for internal institutions that could interpret, value and support literature - scholarships, elitist critics, and a writers’ union. These institutions subsequently were founded or developed during the nineties – all of them steps towards autonomy.</p>

The dissertation describes a crucial step in the development of a modern writer's identity in Sweden. It applies the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of the autonomous ”literary field” to the development in eighteen-eighties, one of the most important periods in Swedish literary history. During this decade a large group of authors appeared, with August Strindberg in the front. In accordance with the dominating esthetical view of the nineteenth century, ”ideal realism”, the writers had an ethical responsibility. But they differed from their predecessors by not being loyal to the bourgeois society and its values, as codified in the concept of ”decency”, that contained, among other things, rules for what could be said in public. On the contrary, the new generation of authors attacked the bourgeoisie in novels, dramas and articles, especially in the singularly most controversial area, the regulation of sexuality and the ideals of bourgeois women. This study argues that the new authors in their radical criticism aimed at the position of power in society traditionally upheld by the State church, which supervised education and ethical values. They did this by creating a role for themselves as young and oppressed, something that made it possible to deny any responsibility for the present state and furthermore to speak up, despite their own bourgeois background, for other oppressed groups like the working classes, the poor and women. But this also meant that they could not be successful in their ambitions to gain influence without loosing their identity. This was especially the consequence of the fact that an autonomous ”literary field” did not yet exist. That is, there were no internal literary institutions that, seemingly independent of the rest of society, decided what was ”good literature.” Instead, the singularly most important judge of interesting literature was the bourgeois public. Strindberg seems to have realised this early, and achieved an identity as ”uncontrolled”. He thereby lost his intellectual credibility, but gained a much bigger freedom to write and also got the attention of the large audience. At the same time, his writing undermined the values of decency by breaking the bourgeois society’s fundamental wall between the private and the public sphere, not least by writing what was regarded as facts about his own private life. The conservative reaction accelerated towards the end of the decade while the authors grew more and more bitter about the public’s lack of understanding. At this point the author Verner von Heidenstam took the opportunity to declare a new literary era, dissociating his aesthetics from the one of the Eighties and proclaiming the necessity of an aristocratic, ethically indifferent literature (with himself as its leader). Confronted with the new concept of what ought to be regarded as “modern”, the established male authors were generally quick to separate themselves from the female authors, and to identify the attacked literature solely with the one that critically discussed the situation of women in society - a description that has been largely adopted in the history of literature. A number of male authors also wrote novels separating themselves from the Eighties. Thus, they could continue into the new period, while female authors in general were silenced or forced to write in less esteemed genres (”popular literature”, children’s books). Ultimately the result was a more distinct male domination coupled with a growing contempt for the large audience. This, in turn, created a need for internal institutions that could interpret, value and support literature - scholarships, elitist critics, and a writers’ union. These institutions subsequently were founded or developed during the nineties – all of them steps towards autonomy.

The objective of this thesis is to do a comparative analysis of four Romany life-stories in prose from different parts of the world and identify features which may justly be called characteristic of Romany writing. The comparison of Victor Vishnevsky's Memories of a Gypsy, Mikey Walsh's Gypsy Boy and Gypsy Boy on the Run, Andrej Giňa's Paťiv. Ještě víme, co je úcta and Irena Eliášová's Naše osada yields valuable insights into how Romany writers construct their identity and to what extent their current work relates to the existing literary genres. Because of Romany studies' multidisciplinary nature, the extensive introduction lays the theoretical foundations for the analysis. I proceed from the characteristics of Romany studies in general in part 1.2 to the way it was practised during my undergraduate years in Prague as opposed to the Western tradition (part 1.3). Using a case study of the schism Romany studies are currently facing in the Czech Republic, in part 1.4 I attempt to illustrate the more general epistemological challenges the field has been grappling with between essentialist/primordialist and radical constructivist views. As there is a definite scarcity of theoretical literature conceptualising Romany writing, in part 1.5 of the introduction the existing body of work is assessed and found...

Ce travail porte sur le champ poétique dans les premières décennies de l’époque abbasside, en se concentrant non pas sur les trajectoires individuelles des poètes, mais sur les contraintes et les logiques collectives auxquelles ils sont soumis. Il s’appuie sur l’analyse de près de 70 notices du Livre des chansons d’al-Iṣbahānī (m. ca. 360/970). La première partie porte sur la contrainte la plus évidente et la plus étudiée : le rapport du poète au prince. Elle postule que la force du verbe poétique dérive d’un lien plus vaste, celui du walā’, qui implique des devoirs réciproques, inscrits dans le temps. La parole poétique n’est dès lors qu’une modalité particulière de la négociation de la distance entre le patron et son protégé. Cette négociation permanente influe sur les déplacements et les modes d’expression du poète.La seconde partie examine comment les poètes se positionnent face à la multitude d’acteurs qui prétendent dire ce que la poésie doit être. Elle analyse comment les rapports des poètes avec leurs pairs ou avec les savants sont déterminés par l’histoire cumulée du champ. L’accent est ensuite mis sur les modalités de ces multiples positionnements : comportements précodés, mise en scène et en texte de l’être social et charnel du poète, autant de coups dont le Livre des chansons est non seulement le témoin mais aussi le théâtre. / This study deals with the poetic field in the first decades of the Abbassid era. It does not focus on the poets’ individual biographies but on the logics they obey and the constraints that weigh on them as a group. It is based on the analysis of about 70 chapters taken from the Book of Songs by al-Iṣbahānī (d. ca 360/970). The first part examines the most conspicuous and most studied constraint: the connection between the poet and the prince. It assumes that the strength of the poetic word derives from a wider relation: the walā’, which implies enduring mutual obligations. Poetic speech is therefore just a particular aspect of a negotiation of the distance between the patron and his protégé. This negotiation affects the poets’ moves and modes of expression.The second part investigates how poets position themselves when interacting with the multitude of protagonists that claim the right to say what poetry should be. It analyses how the poets’ relations with their peers or with scholars are determined by the cumulated history of the field. Emphasis is then laid on how poets position themselves in the field by playing precoded roles, by “staging” their personae and giving the episodes of their lives a textual expression. As a result, the Book of Songs cannot be seen as a neutral record of these struggles ; it is also the battlefield where they take place.