Orientador: Flávio Ribeiro de Oliveira / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-24T03:35:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cabral_LuizAlbertoMachado_D.pdf: 1547375 bytes, checksum: a0b009115fe122a26f2169fba6f1742b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 / Resumo: A Biblioteca é um compêndio em Grego antigo de mitos e lendas heroicas dispostos em três livros e foi denominado "a mais valiosa obra mitográfica dos tempos antigos que chegou até nós", mas não se sabe absolutamente quem é o seu autor. A obra que temos em mãos é atribuída a Apolodoro, o Gramático, ou seja, Apolodoro de Atenas, um erudito do século II a. C. e autor da obra Sobre os Deuses (Perì Theôn). O texto que possuímos, no entanto, menciona um autor romano, o cronista Cástor, um contemporâneo de Cícero do século I a. C. Os eruditos que se seguiram a Fócio se equivocaram na atribuição da obra. Uma vez que Apolodoro de Atenas não poderia ter escrito a obra, o autor da Biblioteca é convencionalmente denominado o "Pseudo Apolodoro" por aqueles que almejam ser estritamente precisos. As referências tradicionais mencionam apenas "a Biblioteca e Epítome". Sua primeira menção na literatura grega ocorre em 858 d. C. pelo erudito bizantino Fócio, que teve acesso à obra na íntegra, tal como ele menciona no seu "relato de livros lidos", que ela continha histórias dos heróis da Guerra de Troia e dos nóstoi (Retornos) que faltam nos manuscritos que restaram. Infelizmente, a Biblioteca chegou-nos incompleta. Nos manuscritos ela se encontra indivisa, mas por convenção, foi dividida em três livros. Parte do Livro III, que é interrompido abruptamente no meio das aventuras de Teseu, foi perdida. No século XII d. C., no entanto, John Tzetzes possuía o texto completo, e em 1885, R. Wagner constatou que um manuscrito da Biblioteca do Vaticano, que continha trechos de uma obra de Tzetzes, continha também um longo trecho resumido, extraído de todo o conteúdo da Biblioteca, incluindo o seu final perdido. Essa versão resumida (ou epítome) é conhecida atualmente como Epítome do Vaticano. Coincidentemente, poucos anos depois, A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus descobriu em Jerusalém um manuscrito que continha um conjunto de excertos resumidos, todos do Livro III e da parte conhecida apenas pela epítome de Tzetzes. Este manuscrito ficou conhecido como Epítome Sabaítica (devido ao monastério de São Sabbas, onde o manuscrito foi descoberto); Portanto, embora a Biblioteca tenha sido impressa pela primeira vez em uma edição moderna em 1555, foi somente com a edição de R. Wagner, de 1894, que tivemos acesso ao texto completo, ou pelo menos próximo disso. Estas duas epítomes são inestimáveis para nós por serem nossos únicos testemunhos da parte do livro que se perdeu e foram compostas em tempos diferentes, por diferentes eruditos ou copistas, e quando são contrastadas, nem sempre conservam o mesmo material ou detalhe. Este é o motivo pelo qual escolhemos traduzir uma versão combinada delas, criada por J. G. Frazer, que une as duas epítomes para criar um relato mais completo e coerente. Em nossa tradução da obra, tentamos manter a clareza e a objetividade sem pretender "embelezar", quando nosso autor não teve a intenção de fazê-lo. Compilada fielmente, embora de maneira acrítica, a partir das melhores fontes literárias disponíveis para o Pseudo Apolodoro, em sua época, a importância da Biblioteca deriva sobretudo da fidelidade com a qual ele reproduz ou resume os relatos de escritores cujas obras nos são acessíveis e nos inspira a aceitar suas afirmações também com relação a outros autores, cujos escritos desapareceram. Daí a extrema importância documental desse livro como um registro meticuloso sobre o que os gregos acreditavam a respeito da origem do mundo e da antiga história de sua raça, pois é o único testemunho de tradições perdidas de que dispomos. Os relatos breves e desprovidos de adornos dos mitos na Biblioteca levaram alguns comentadores a sugerir que mesmos as suas seções completas são um resumo de uma obra perdida. / Resumo: A Biblioteca é um compêndio em Grego antigo de mitos e lendas heroicas dispostos em três livros e foi denominado "a mais valiosa obra mitográfica dos tempos antigos que chegou até nós", mas não se sabe absolutamente quem é o seu autor. A obra que temos em mãos é atribuída a Apolodoro, o Gramático, ou seja, Apolodoro de Atenas, um erudito do século II a. C. e autor da obra Sobre os Deuses (Perì Theôn). O texto que possuímos, no entanto, menciona um autor romano, o cronista Cástor, um contemporâneo de Cícero do século I a. C. Os eruditos que se seguiram a Fócio se equivocaram na atribuição da obra. Uma vez que Apolodoro de Atenas não poderia ter escrito a obra, o autor da Biblioteca é convencionalmente denominado o "Pseudo Apolodoro" por aqueles que almejam ser estritamente precisos. As referências tradicionais mencionam apenas "a Biblioteca e Epítome". Sua primeira menção na literatura grega ocorre em 858 d. C. pelo erudito bizantino Fócio, que teve acesso à obra na íntegra, tal como ele menciona no seu "relato de livros lidos", que ela continha histórias dos heróis da Guerra de Troia e dos nóstoi (Retornos) que faltam nos manuscritos que restaram. Infelizmente, a Biblioteca chegou-nos incompleta. Nos manuscritos ela se encontra indivisa, mas por convenção, foi dividida em três livros. Parte do Livro III, que é interrompido abruptamente no meio das aventuras de Teseu, foi perdida. No século XII d. C., no entanto, John Tzetzes possuía o texto completo, e em 1885, R. Wagner constatou que um manuscrito da Biblioteca do Vaticano, que continha trechos de uma obra de Tzetzes, continha também um longo trecho resumido, extraído de todo o conteúdo da Biblioteca, incluindo o seu final perdido. Essa versão resumida (ou epítome) é conhecida atualmente como Epítome do Vaticano. Coincidentemente, poucos anos depois, A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus descobriu em Jerusalém um manuscrito que continha um conjunto de excertos resumidos, todos do Livro III e da parte conhecida apenas pela epítome de Tzetzes. Este manuscrito ficou conhecido como Epítome Sabaítica (devido ao monastério de São Sabbas, onde o manuscrito foi descoberto); Portanto, embora a Biblioteca tenha sido impressa pela primeira vez em uma edição moderna em 1555, foi somente com a edição de R. Wagner, de 1894, que tivemos acesso ao texto completo, ou pelo menos próximo disso. Estas duas epítomes são inestimáveis para nós por serem nossos únicos testemunhos da parte do livro que se perdeu e foram compostas em tempos diferentes, por diferentes eruditos ou copistas, e quando são contrastadas, nem sempre conservam o mesmo material ou detalhe. Este é o motivo pelo qual escolhemos traduzir uma versão combinada delas, criada por J. G. Frazer, que une as duas epítomes para criar um relato mais completo e coerente. Em nossa tradução da obra, tentamos manter a clareza e a objetividade sem pretender "embelezar", quando nosso autor não teve a intenção de fazê-lo. Compilada fielmente, embora de maneira acrítica, a partir das melhores fontes literárias disponíveis para o Pseudo Apolodoro, em sua época, a importância da Biblioteca deriva sobretudo da fidelidade com a qual ele reproduz ou resume os relatos de escritores cujas obras nos são acessíveis e nos inspira a aceitar suas afirmações também com relação a outros autores, cujos escritos desapareceram. Daí a extrema importância documental desse livro como um registro meticuloso sobre o que os gregos acreditavam a respeito da origem do mundo e da antiga história de sua raça, pois é o único testemunho de tradições perdidas de que dispomos. Os relatos breves e desprovidos de adornos dos mitos na Biblioteca levaram alguns comentadores a sugerir que mesmos as suas seções completas são um resumo de uma obra perdida. / Abstract: The Bibliotheke is an ancient Greek compendium of myths and heroic legends, arranged in three books and it has been called "the most valuable mythographical work that has come down from ancient times", but his author is completely unknown to us. The work has come down to us attributed to Apollodorus the Grammarian, that is, Apollodorus of Athens, a second-century BC scholar and author of On the Gods (Peri Theon). The text that we possess, however, cites a Roman author: Castor the Annalist, a contemporary of Cicero in the 1st century BC. The mistaken attribution was made by scholars from Photius onwards. Since for chronological reasons Apollodorus of Athens could not have written the book, the author of the Bibliotheke is conventionally called the "Pseudo-Apollodorus" by those wishing to be scrupulously correct. Traditional references simply instance "the Library and Epitome". The first mention of the work in the Greek literature is in AD 858 by the Byzantine scholar Photius, who had the full work before him, as he mentions in his "account of books read" that it contained stories of the heroes of the Trojan War and the nostoi, missing in surviving manuscripts. Unfortunately the Bibliotheca has come down to us incomplete. It is undivided in the manuscripts but conventionally divided in three books. Part of the third book, which breaks off abruptly in the middle of Theseus' adventures, has been lost. In the twelfth century AD, however, John Tzetzes, had a complete text too, and in 1885 R. Wagner realized that a manuscript in the Vatican Library containing excerpts of some Tzetzes' work also contained large abridged excerpts drawn from across the whole of the Bibliotheke - including the lost ending. This abridged version (or epitome) is known as the Vatican Epitome. Coincidentally, a few years later, A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus discovered in Jerusalem a manuscript that contained another set of abridged excerpts, all from the third book and the portion known only from Tzetzes' epitome. This became known as the Sabbaitic Epitome (from the monastery of St. Sabbas, where the manuscript was discovered); Thus, although the Bibliotheke was first printed in a modern edition in 1555, it was only with Wagner's edition of 1894 the we had a complete, or at least nearly complete, text. The two epitomes are invaluable for us because they are our witness to the last part of the book and were made at different times by different copyists and scholars, and when they overlap they do not always preserve the same material or detail. That is the reason why we have chosen to translate a combined version of them, created by J. G. Frazer; with stitches the separate epitomes together to create a fuller and more connect account. In our translation of the work we have tried to be clear and straightforward, without "prettying up" our author into something he is not. Compiled faithfully, if uncritically, from the best literary sources open to the Pseudo- Apollodorus, the Bibliotheke debt its importance above all to the fidelity with which he reproduced or summarized the accounts of writers whose works are accessible to us and inspires us with confidence in accepting his statements concerning others whose writings are lost. Hence his book possesses a documentary value as an accurate record of what the Greeks in general believed about the origin and early history of the world and of their race. The brief and unadorned accounts of myth in the Bibliotheca have led some commentators to suggest that even its complete sections are an epitome of a lost work. / Abstract: The Bibliotheke is an ancient Greek compendium of myths and heroic legends, arranged in three books and it has been called "the most valuable mythographical work that has come down from ancient times", but his author is completely unknown to us. The work has come down to us attributed to Apollodorus the Grammarian, that is, Apollodorus of Athens, a second-century BC scholar and author of On the Gods (Peri Theon). The text that we possess, however, cites a Roman author: Castor the Annalist, a contemporary of Cicero in the 1st century BC. The mistaken attribution was made by scholars from Photius onwards. Since for chronological reasons Apollodorus of Athens could not have written the book, the author of the Bibliotheke is conventionally called the "Pseudo-Apollodorus" by those wishing to be scrupulously correct. Traditional references simply instance "the Library and Epitome". The first mention of the work in the Greek literature is in AD 858 by the Byzantine scholar Photius, who had the full work before him, as he mentions in his "account of books read" that it contained stories of the heroes of the Trojan War and the nostoi, missing in surviving manuscripts. Unfortunately the Bibliotheca has come down to us incomplete. It is undivided in the manuscripts but conventionally divided in three books. Part of the third book, which breaks off abruptly in the middle of Theseus' adventures, has been lost. In the twelfth century AD, however, John Tzetzes, had a complete text too, and in 1885 R. Wagner realized that a manuscript in the Vatican Library containing excerpts of some Tzetzes' work also contained large abridged excerpts drawn from across the whole of the Bibliotheke - including the lost ending. This abridged version (or epitome) is known as the Vatican Epitome. Coincidentally, a few years later, A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus discovered in Jerusalem a manuscript that contained another set of abridged excerpts, all from the third book and the portion known only from Tzetzes' epitome. This became known as the Sabbaitic Epitome (from the monastery of St. Sabbas, where the manuscript was discovered); Thus, although the Bibliotheke was first printed in a modern edition in 1555, it was only with Wagner's edition of 1894 the we had a complete, or at least nearly complete, text. The two epitomes are invaluable for us because they are our witness to the last part of the book and were made at different times by different copyists and scholars, and when they overlap they do not always preserve the same material or detail. That is the reason why we have chosen to translate a combined version of them, created by J. G. Frazer; with stitches the separate epitomes together to create a fuller and more connect account. In our translation of the work we have tried to be clear and straightforward, without "prettying up" our author into something he is not. Compiled faithfully, if uncritically, from the best literary sources open to the Pseudo- Apollodorus, the Bibliotheke debt its importance above all to the fidelity with which he reproduced or summarized the accounts of writers whose works are accessible to us and inspires us with confidence in accepting his statements concerning others whose writings are lost. Hence his book possesses a documentary value as an accurate record of what the Greeks in general believed about the origin and early history of the world and of their race. The brief and unadorned accounts of myth in the Bibliotheca have led some commentators to suggest that even its complete sections are an epitome of a lost work. / Doutorado / Linguistica / Doutor em Linguística

La mixité raciale, caractéristique de la physionomie et de la culture des Mexicains, est rarement représentée dans la publicité de ce pays. La recherche proposée ici aborde le métissage biologique et culturel, en tant que figure sensible au sein de l'imaginaire, l'imagerie et plus particulièrement l'affiche publicitaire au Mexique. Cela procède d'une grille de significations constitutives d'un système d'identités collectives. Il faut, pour comprendre ce système, revenir aux origines des stéréotypes et des isotopies visuelles contribuant à maintenir un point de vue dépréciateur sur la population métisse à travers le langage mythographique de la publicité. Dans une perspective multidisciplinaire, sous l'obédience des sciences de l'information et de la communication, sont étudiées aussi les entités et les moyens de communication ayant contribué, dès la colonisation du Mexique au XVIe siècle, au renouvellement des croyances exprimant le rejet des personnes métisses et indiennes. La prééminence du verbal, imposée souvent comme une forme de rationalité à l'étude des langages figuratifs, rend particulièrement complexe l'étude du rapport entre l'écriture des images et l'imaginaire politique. Nous procédons ici à une description historique et communicationnelle de la formation iconique et sémiotique de la figure du métissage au Mexique. À travers les productions discursives les plus notables de chaque période, s'opère l'émergence du sens par l'investissement des régimes de signification dans la figure métisse et ses occurrences sensibles. / Mixed race physiognomy and native culture of mexican population are rarely exposed in advertising in that country. This research deals with biological and cultural mestizaje as a visual figure. Presented in mexican advertising, it takes part of the grid of meanings behind the collective identities system. This work tackles the origins of stereotypes and visual isotopies leading to maintain, through the mythographic language of images, an unfavorable opinion on the mixed race population. Entities and Media having contributed to maintian in place these beliefs since the colonization of Mexico in the sixteenth century, are studied in a multidisciplinary, communication defined perspective.The rule of verbal, often imposed as a form of rationality in the study of figurative language, as well as the strategies performed by the Establishment to refuse any questioning about its legitimacy, make particularly complex the study of the relationship between images setting and political imaginary. We therefore propose a historic observation of the construction of the mestizaje's figure in Mexico, through the most significant visual productions of each period. This observation should lead to understand the emergence of sens as the investment that meaning systems have on mestizaje figure and its sensitive recurrences.

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

This dissertation examines the place of Hellenism in nineteenth-century literature as a background to my discussion of Algernon Charles Swinburne’s poetic treatment of Apollo, the Greek god of poetry and of the sun. My point of departure is the common view that sees the Victorians’ fascination with Hellenism as representing a collective sense of dissatisfaction with Christian culture, its politics, and morality. Raised High Anglican, Swinburne was an avid and devoted believer throughout his early life. However, a spiritual crisis which he experienced during his years in Oxford in the late 1850s caused him to grow extremely critical of Christianity and eventually forsake his faith by his mid-twenties. Yet Swinburne’s rejection of Christianity did not result in his rejection of spirituality. And indeed, throughout his poetic career, Swinburne searches for alternative deities that would replace the Christian God. One such deity is Apollo, who becomes a pivotal figure in Swinburne poetry starting with the 1878 publication of Poems and Ballads and in the collections that follow. Focusing on seven major poems written during a period of almost three decades, I show how Apollo serves as the main deity in an emerging Swinburnean mythology. Swinburne’s Apollonian myth, I show, consists of three stages: the invocation and conceptualization of Apollo as a new god by manipulating Biblical and Classical notions of divinity; the formation of a unique Apollonian theology; and the shift toward a nihilistic agnostic vision of spirituality. Each stage, I argue, presents the development of Swinburne’s thought, as well as his deep engagement with nineteenth-century debates about religion, mythography, and the reformative function of poetry. As such, my dissertation has two main purposes: first, expanding the scope of Swinburne scholarship by providing a new thematic context for his later poetry; and second, reclaiming Swinburne’s place in nineteenth-century intellectual history by showing his contribution and involvement in discussions about some of the period’s most central issues.

Le mythe de Médée, reçu par la première modernité comme un paradigme complet depuis la Conquête de la Toison d’or jusqu’à son retour sur le trône de Colchide, compose un prisme à multiples facettes : « Médée-tueenfant » (La Péruse), le personnage légué par la tragédie attique et devenu archétype d’une violence contrenature, y croise Médée magicienne, qui bouleverse le lignage et la ligne du temps, mais aussi la princesse orientale éprise d’un héros civilisateur. Pétrie par la culture chrétienne et admise au répertoire des arts officiels, cette figure ambivalente se rend perméable aux recherches esthétiques et aux débats éthiques des Temps modernes, en vue de l’expression de l’horreur, de l’allégorisation de la gloire, comme dans la représentation des passions.Or, la fondation de l’Ordre de chevalerie de la Toison d’or au duché de Bourgogne, en 1430, jusqu’à la fin de la Guerre de succession d’Espagne où se redessine la carte des puissances européennes, fait de la fable un miroir fictionnel privilégié des jeux de pouvoir entre les grandes dynasties européennes, en tant qu’instrument du discours programmatique du Prince. Dans le paysage culturel d’influences communes que forment les Cités-États de l’Italie et le royaume de France, cette étude montre, par la réunion de l’iconographie de Médée, l’analyse de saprésence dans les imprimés et de ses réécritures à la scène d’après l’antique, comment les échanges entre les arts visuels et les arts du texte oeuvrent à l’établissement d’un motif héroïque paradoxal. Ou comment Médée « devient Médée », renouvelant le serment que lui avait fait jurer Sénèque : « Fiam ». / The exceptional scope provided by the myth of Medea, which spans from the Conquest of the Golden Fleece to her return to the throne of Colchis, was received in its entirety by the Early Modern Arts and offers a multi-faced prism : Medea “tue-enfant” (La Péruse), the character left by the Ancient ancient Greek tragedy that became an archetypal figure of monstrous violence, crosses the path of the oriental lover of a civilizing hero, and also the enchantress who scatters lineages and timelines. Sculpted by the Christian culture and allowed into the official artistic repertory, this ambivalent figure absorbs the aesthetics and ethical debates of modernity. Indeed, Her Medea’s myth can be used for the expression of horror, allegories of glory, as well as expression of the passions.In addition, from the establishment of the Order of the Golden Fleece, by the Duke of Burgundy in 1430, to the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (which redefined the entire map of major European powers), Medea’s myth becomes one of the most efficient fictional mirrors of the political disputes between the most influential families of Europe, as an instrument of the publication of the Prince programme. Into the landscape of the cultural influences shared by the States of Early Italy and the French Kingdom, this study intends to show, by analysingthe spread of iconography of Medea, her presence in printed material and her classical performance reception and rewriting, how the exchanges between visual and literary productions work towards the definition of a paradoxical heroic standard. Where Medea “becomes Medea” and renews the oath that Seneca made her take: “Fiam”.

This thesis offers an approach to the history of mythographical discourse through the figure of Theseus and his appearances in texts from England, Italy and France. Analysing a range of poetic, historical, and allegorical works that feature Theseus alongside their classical and contemporary intertexts, it is a study of the conceptions of Greco-Roman mythology prevalent in European literature from 1300-1600. Focusing on mythology’s pervasive presence as a background to medieval and early modern literary and intellectual culture, it draws attention to the fragmentary, fluid and polymorphous nature of mythology in relation to its use for different purposes in a wide range of texts. The first impact of this study is to draw attention to the distinction between mythology and mythography, as a means of focusing on the full range of interpretative processes associated with the ancient myths in their textual forms. Returning attention to the processes by which writers and readers came to know the Greco-Roman myths, it widens the commonly accepted critical definition of ‘mythography’ to include any writing of or on mythology, while restricting ‘mythology’ to its abstract sense, meaning a traditional collection of tales that exceeds any one text. This distinction allows the analyses of the study’s primary texts to display the full range of interpretative processes and possibilities involved in rewriting mythology, and to outline a spectrum of linked but distinctive mythographical genres that define those possibilities. Breaking down into two parts of three chapters each, the thesis examines Theseus’ appearances across these mythographical genres, first in the period from 1300 to the birth of print, and then from the birth of print up to 1600. Taking as its primary texts works by Giovanni Boccaccio, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Lydgate and William Shakespeare along with their classical intertexts, it situates each of them in regard to their multiple defining contexts. Paying close attention to the European traditions of commentary, translation and response to classical sources, it shows mythographical discourse as a vibrant aspect of medieval and early modern literary culture, equally embedded in classical traditions and contemporary traditions that transcended national and linguistic boundaries.

Dans la seconde moitié des années soixante naissent aux États-Unis le rock et la critique rock.Les participants de ces deux sphères s'unissent jusqu'à former une camaraderie, mais de cette rencontre surgit aussi un troisième champ. Ni vraiment musical, ni totalement critique, celui-ci est avant tout « littéraire ». Il nous met au défi de parler de critique rock pour mieux discuter de littérature et non de musique. C'est dans ce paradoxe apparent que Lester Bangs évolue par exemple. Génie tutélaire de ce petit groupe d'auteurs formés au sein des premiers fanzines et magazines rock, il ne décrit pas seulement les mythes rock ; il interroge aussi leur écriture. Plus avant, ce qui se dessine dans ses textes est le portrait du jeune écrivain « débutant » issu de la grande tradition du « journalisme littéraire ». Cela crée des liens entre les conditions d'accès à l'écriture dans la presse et le devenir « écrivain » en littérature. De même, trouve-t-on des annonces et des échos de ces discours dans le « cinéma direct » américain de l'époque, ainsi que dans la critique rock française. Le film Dont Look Back de Donn Alan Pennebaker par exemple montre déjà dès 1965 la nécessité de la création d'une critique non-journalistique sur le rock. Puis, Yves Adrien s'inspire de l'œuvre de Lester Bangs. Et enfin aujourd'hui à plus de quarante ans de distance, toujours Nick Tosches, Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus et Lenny Kaye reconstruisent en paroles cette première expérience d'écriture et de publication. Aussi, cette thèse étudiera la création inattendue d'un champ littéraire au sein de la critique rock sur un plan mythographique : bien qu'éphémère, celui-ci s'avèrera fécond / In the second half of the sixties, rock music and rock criticism emerge in the United States. The protagonists of the two spheres gather to create a sense of camaraderie, but a third field also arises from that encounter. It is first and foremost a literary one, neither really musical, nor completely criticism-oriented. As a result, it challenges us to discuss rock criticism in order to better understand literature rather than music. Lester Bangs in particular dwells within that apparent paradox. As the figurehead of this little group of authors formed in early rock fanzines and magazines, he not only describes the rock myths but also discusses the way they are written. The portrait of the “aspiring writer” originating from the tradition of “literary journalism” also appears in his texts. This links the conditions of writing in the press to the situation of the fresh writer-to-be in literature. Similarly, auguries and echoes of such discourses can be found during the same period in American “direct cinema” and French rock criticism. For instance Donn Alan Pennebaker already underlines in 1965 the need for a non-journalistic criticism on rock in his documentary Dont Look Back. Later, Yves Adrien follows Lester Bangs works. Finally, forty years on, Nick Tosches, Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus and Lenny Kaye continue today to reshape verbally this initial experience of writing and publishing. This thesis studies the unexpected birth of a new literary field through mythography. Though short-lived, it was nonetheless fecund

La Bibliothèque d’Apollodore, probablement composée au IIe ou au IIIe s. ap. J.-C., vise à rassembler les légendes et les mythes grecs en un système cohérent organisé selon un plan généalogique. Son auteur fonde son travail sur les écrits qui faisaient autorité en la matière, en particulier ceux des grands mythographes en prose du Ve s., parmi lesquels Phérécyde et Acousilaos sont les plus souvent nommés par Apollodore. Ce travail se propose d’analyser les rapports entre ces deux mythographes anciens et la Bibliothèque. Il examine chaque mention de leur nom dans cet ouvrage, et confronte tous leurs fragments au texte de la Bibliothèque, afin de comprendre pourquoi Apollodore choisit de les nommer ou, au contraire, de ne pas le faire ; pourquoi il les suit ou pourquoi il s’en écarte ; quelle place ils occupent réellement dans son traité. Plus largement, ce travail présente une réflexion sur les liens génériques entre la Bibliothèque et les mythographes anciens, en examinant en particulier la question de leur écriture, afin de comprendre comment Apollodore se situe par rapport aux premiers traités mythographiques grecs. / Apollodorus’ Library, probably written during the 2nd or 3rd century A. D., aims at gathering Greek legends and myths in a coherent system based upon a genealogical structure. Its author bases his work on the most authoritative sources, including prestigious 5th-century mythographers as Pherecydes and Acusilaus, whose names are the most mentioned ones in Apollodorus’ treatise, along with Hesiod’s. This work analyses the links between those two ancient mythographers and the Library. It takes a close look at every mention of their name, and compares all their fragments to Apollodorus’ text, in order to understand how and why he cites them or not ; why he draws on them or chooses other sources ; what is their real influence on his treatise. This study also offers a reflection about the links between the Library and the ancient mythographical tradition as a genre, mainly on the basis of their respective style.