Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1975. / Typescript. Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 337-357).

Thesis (doctoral)--Université d'Orléans, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [474]-481) and indexes.

This work proposes a double analysis of the mundane society representations between 1885 and 1914, in the press and the novel. This analysis separates these two categories of media to insist on their particularities, and tries to think of them in terms of an interaction. / A first part explores the organisation of the topics and the main genre of the mundane society in the press, applying the social discourse theory. The analysis is based on the perusal of a set of representative daily newspapers (Le Gaulois, Le Figaro) and of weekly and monthly publications (Le Grand monde, La Vie parisienne, Femina notably, as well as around thirty other titles). It shows that the mundane society in the newspaper is constrained by a poetics stemming from the characteristics of press writing: collective writing, periodicity of the publication, text length limitation and reference to reality. Some texts are tempted by fiction, even though they keep a reality-based referential, whereas other texts that are openly fictitious, fit the mundane fiction into the newspaper. / The second part is based on the general conclusion of the first part: the mundane society in the newspaper is a represented society, made of for a distant and anonymous public. With the advent of the medias in the 19th century, the mundane society has entered into the era of mediations and "industrial writing". Some writers, from Bourget to Proust, take these upheavals into account and present the mundane society as a metaphor of the mass media society. This is done following three main axes: the temptation of withdrawal of the fiction into a closed world (psychological and mundane movement impulsed by Goncourt with Cherie, prolonged by Bourget and Hervieux notably); the games of exchange between the novel and the newspaper (Maupassant, Toulet, Legrand, amongst others); and finally, the isolation of the mundane world and the aesthetic work on mediations (Rolland, Colette, Mirbeau, Lorrain et Gide notably). All these writings address the question of sociability at the era of the triumph of mediations: what room is left for the mundane society, for direct encounter, for exchange, in a world of mediation and mass media coverage? for immediate connections in a society of mediated ties? The epilogue proposes a journalistic reading of A la recherche du temps perdu, synthesis-work which inaugurates a modern and sociological perception: it is in the world of the imagined mundane society, distant and represented in the mass media, that the narrator draws the resources for his observation of the world.

No description available.

vi, 405 leaves ; 30 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of History, 1980

Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux fut longtemps considéré comme l’initiateur de l’Europe à « l’idéal classique », le représentant de la précellence et du « génie de la langue française ». Incarnant la perfection de « l’esprit national », c’est par rapport à lui que sont jugés les auteurs des autres siècles avant qu’ils ne soient admis en tant que « classiques français ». Interroger les rouages de l’élaboration de la mythification de l’auteur de l’Art Poétique suppose l’examen des tenants et des aboutissants de la référence à Boileau. Notre propos est de mesurer l’usage qui en a été fait par l’institution scolaire et les formes éditoriales, afin de nous éclairer sur sa réception. L’analyse de cette figure emblématique du « canon classique français » montre que l’œuvre bolévienne a été investie d’une fonction fondatrice de la littérature nationale, dont elle définit les principes et l’excellence. Évaluer le rôle de ces discours dans la consécration de l’auteur et leur participation dans la diffusion de sa notoriété, permet de juger de leur impact sur la constitution d’un idéal esthétique, qui passe par la canonisation de l’œuvre bolévienne dans le but d’une édification nationale. De plus, si la légende de « Législateur » a trouvé ses assises dans des « lieux de mythification », notamment l’annotation et les discours biographique et iconographique, sa démythification s’élabore au lendemain même de la mort de l’auteur et à contre-courant de la légende elle-même. La concurrence qui s’opère entre les discours pro et anti-canonisation de Boileau permet de mesurer jusqu’à quel point la réception de l’auteur interfère dans le regard que pose le siècle des Lumières aussi bien que le XIXe siècle sur le « siècle de Louis le Grand ». / Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux was long considered as the initiator of Europe to the ‘classical ideal’, the representative of the preeminence and the ‘génie’ of the French language. As the representative of the ‘spirit of the French nation’, it is to him that authors of other centuries are compared before they are accepted as ‘French classics’. Questioning the inner workings of the mythologizing’s creation of Boileau, imply examining the ins and outs of the reference to him. Our purpose is to measure the use of the ‘French Legislator’ by school and editorial forms to enlighten us on his reception. The analysis of this emblematic figure of the ‘French classical canon’ shows that Boileau has been invested with the principles and excellence of the national literature. Our observations point out that edition as much as periodic and educational works had a major role in the consecration of the author. It is to them that we owe the author’s reputation and the creation of an aesthetic ideal of which the major purpose is nation building. Furthermore, if the ‘Legislator’s’ legend was built in Boileau’s works’ annotation and biographical and iconographic discourse, its demystification started just after the death of the author and against the legend itself. This contestation instructs us on the reception of the « Legislator of French Parnassus » as well as on how the 18e and 19e centuries perceived their predecessor.