Alors que la doctrine juridique française ne semble porter qu’un intérêt relatif pour les droits étrangers entre 1815 et 1869, elle recourt au contraire de façon intensive au droit comparé entre 1869 et 1914. Comment expliquer ce basculement ? La première période est marquée par le silence d’une large partie de la doctrine relativement aux droits étrangers : ayant à sa disposition de véritables modèles juridiques (les codes napoléoniens), celle-ci ne ressent effectivement pas le besoin de porter son regard au-delà des frontières nationales mais se concentre presque exclusivement sur les seuls textes de ces codes nouveaux. En matière d’enseignement, cela se traduit notamment par l’adoption de la méthode exégétique ; d’ailleurs encouragée par l’Etat… Bien qu’une poignée de juristes français s’élève rapidement contre cette méthode qu’ils jugent insatisfaisante, les pionniers de la comparaison juridique ne forment alors que le cercle restreint des membres de la doctrine française. Mais ils annoncent et préparent leurs successeurs à l’ « ère comparative ». C’est en effet en 1869 qu’est fondée la Société de législation comparée, ses fondateurs pressentant en réalité dès cette date un « retard français », sur le plan juridique mais aussi dans les autres domaines (économie, enseignement, armée, sciences, etc.), qu’il sera difficile selon eux de combler. L’année suivante, la défaite de Sedan ne fait que confirmer leurs craintes. Surtout, elle pousse les jurisconsultes français à s’intéresser activement aux droits étrangers, en particulier celui du vainqueur. D’après eux, la comparaison juridique peut participer au « redressement français ». Du point de vue juridique, elle vise en effet à rénover le droit français et ses codes vieillissants. Ainsi s’explique, en définitive, l’intérêt grandissant porté par les plus célèbres juristes français de la fin du XIXe siècle et du début du XXe siècle au droit comparé. Certains auront même pour ambition de l’ériger en science. / While the French legal doctrine seems to be barely concerned about foreign laws between 1815 and 1869, it appeals intensively to comparative law between 1869 and 1914. How to explain this swing ? The first period was marked by the silence of a large part of the doctrine in respect of foreign laws : having at its disposal genuine legal models (the Napoleonic codes), the doctrine actually does not feel the need to look across national borders but almost exclusively focuses on the texts of these new codes. In terms of education, this is reflected by the adoption of the exegetical method ; incidentally encouraged by the state... Although a handful of French lawyers quickly rise against this method they consider unsatisfying, the pioneers of legal comparison then constitute the limited circle of members of the French doctrine. But they announce and prepare their successors for the "comparative era." It is indeed in 1869 that the Société de legislation comparée is founded, the founders actually foreseeing since then a "French delay" in legal terms but also in other fields (economy, education, military, science, etc.), that it will be difficult to fill. The following year, the defeat of Sedan confirmed their fears. Above all, it pushes the French jurisconsults to take an active interest in foreign laws, especially the one of the winner. According to them, the legal comparison can contribute to the "French recovery." From a legal perspective, it is indeed to restore French law and its aging code. This explains, ultimately, the growing interest by the most famous French jurists of the late XIXth and early XXth century for comparative law. Some will even have the ambition to erect it in science.

Cette étude vise à aborder la culture des clercs séculiers en Savoie du XVIIIe siècle à 1860, date du rattachement de la Savoie à la France. Une première partie s’intéresse à la circulation des livres des ecclésiastiques. Elle décrit l’utilisation des manuels lors des études au collège chappuisien d’Annecy, puis dans les séminaires et les différentes universités, mais encore lors des conférences et des retraites ecclésiastiques. Par ailleurs, les livres sont achetés, prêtés à des collègues ou à des laïques, comme l’attestent de trop rares livres de raison retrouvés. Ce sont les testaments qui montrent que les bibliothèques, longuement constituées par héritages, achats tout au long d’une vie, sont ensuite le plus souvent transmises à des membres de la famille également hommes d’Eglise ou dispersées au profit de l’évêque, d’un vicaire ou de différentes institutions, ce qui prouve l’existence de réseaux intellectuels. Les livres relient donc le monde des morts au monde des vivants. La deuxième partie montre qu’ils sont aussi au cœur des débats intellectuels, ce qui explique que leur diffusion soit contrôlée par les autorités religieuses. Les livres sont ainsi au centre des réflexions concernant le protestantisme, le jansénisme, le mouvement des Lumières, l’épisode révolutionnaire de 1792, puis des enjeux de la modernité du XIXe siècle. La Savoie, frontière de catholicité, apparaît alors comme un relais original dans les processus de maturation et de diffusion des idées entre le royaume d’Italie, la France et l’Europe. La troisième partie propose à partir d’un corpus de bibliothèques, essentiellement du XVIIIe siècle, complété par des legs faits au XIXe siècle au grand séminaire de Chambéry, une classification des lecteurs comprenant différents types de desservants, des chanoines et des évêques. En croisant les différents centres d’intérêts en rapport avec la théologie et les sciences profanes, des identités cléricales se dessinent, des facteurs de cohésion, des signes de curiosité intellectuelle apparaissent et montrent que le clergé séculier savoyard est à la fois dépositaire et diffuseur auprès des fidèles d’une culture élargie et qu’il n’est pas à l’écart des évolutions de son époque. / The aim of the following study is to tackle the notion of knowledge and culture among Savoie’s secular clergy, from the 18th century to 1860, when Savoie was annexed by France. The first part focuses on the circulation of clergymen’s books. It depicts the way books are used by scholars at the Collège Chappuisien of Annecy, then in seminaries and different universities, as well as for lectures or ecclesiastical retreats. Besides, books are bought, passed on to colleagues and laymen, as one can learn from the very few commonplace books left. One can read in wills how libraries, whose volumes have been inherited or purchased over the years, are , most of the time, subsequently transmitted to relatives that are men of the cloth too, or scattered to the benefit of bishops, vicars or different institutions, which tends to prove the existence of intellectual networks. Books can thus be said to connect the world of the dead to that of the living. The second part shows that they are also at the very heart of intellectual debates, which explains why their circulation was controlled by religious authorities. Books are thus central points of reflection over Protestantism, Jansenism, the Enlightenment, the 1792 revolutionary episode and eventually what is at stake in 19th century modernity. Savoie, as a catholic boarder, appears as some original basis in the maturing process of ideas as well as their circulation between the kingdom of Italy, France and Europe. The third part, based on a corpus of 18th century libraries mostly and 19th century legacies to Chambéry’s Grand Séminaire, offers a classification of readers, among whom various types of parish priests, canons and bishops. By confronting the different centers of interest related to theology and profane science, some clerical identities are taking shape, factors of cohesion and signs of intellectual curiosity appear, showing that to the believers, Savoie’s secular clergy both keeps and spreads a broader culture and that its members are in no way cut off from the evolutions of their time.

Cette thèse se propose d’analyser le fantastique littéraire en France et en Roumanie par une méthode double : l’histoire des influences et des transferts culturels (approche diachronique) et l’étude de certains aspects communs aux textes fantastiques identifiés dans la poétique de la (dé)construction (approche synchronique).Le corpus comprend des contes fantastiques provenus des espaces littéraires du XIXe siècle français (Mérimée, Gautier, Maupassant, Villiers de l’Isle-Adam ou Barbey d’Aurevilly) et roumain (Mihai Eminescu, Ion Luca Caragiale, Gala Galaction et Mateiu Caragiale). Bien que certains récits de ces derniers dépassent de peu le cadre strictement temporel du XIXe siècle, le choix est motivé par un certain décalage temporel entre les deux littératures, par l’appartenance de ces écrivains à une première étape du fantastique littéraire roumain et, dans le cas de Mateiu Caragiale, par l’intertextualité explicite avec Le rideau cramoisi de Barbeyd’Aurevilly.L’étude prend comme fil conducteur l’idée de (dé)construction, prise non pas dans le sens philosophique de la méthode déconstructionniste conçue par Derrida, mais dans la lignée de la thèse formulée par Irène Bessière, notamment le double mouvement qui traverse le récit fantastique, la construction et la déconstruction d’univers.Dans la première partie, la (dé)construction est rapportée au niveau de l’onomastique du fantastique (histoire du mot et de ses dénominations), car le terme « fantastique » est associé aux récits d’Hoffmann dans la traduction fautive de Loève-Veimars et un discours théorique et critique est construit à partir de Charles Nodier. La (dé)construction est aussi envisagée du point de vue de l’identité du fantastique en tant que genre littéraire. D’un côté, le fantastique puise ses sources, surtout thématiques, à la matière des mythes, des textes religieux, des croyances populaires, des légendes, des idéologies, des progrès scientifiques, etc. De l’autre côté, le remaniement fantastique (sa poétique) consiste à construire un « rapport fantastique » entre le réel et les autres éléments généralement considérés comme surnaturels, invraisemblables ou impossibles donnés pourtant comme sérieux, perceptibles et donc possibles.La deuxième partie déroule un panorama d’histoire littéraire comparée franco-roumaine, où sont mises en question deux figures étrangères, Hoffmann et Poe, ainsi que les particularités de l’émergence du fantastique dans la littérature française et dans la littérature roumaine, liées au romantisme dans les littératures ouest-européennes, et au légendaire et au magique dans la littérature roumaine. On parle de (dé)construction des modèles étrangers – jeu de traduction chez Ion Luca Caragiale, imitation chez Nicolae Gane, etc. – et de construction d’un discours fantastique autochtone.La troisième partie analyse quelques aspects qui caractérisent la rhétorique du fantastique, en soulignant les procédés par lesquels l’art de la persuasion se manifeste paradoxalement tant comme garantie que comme sape des stratégies textuelles : la littéralisation des figures au niveau de la fiction ; l’hypervisibilité des figures (l’hyperbole, l’hypotypose) ; le résidu littéral du discours figuré en tant que principe de suggestion du surnaturel, l’objet en tant qu’indice réaliste et support des « déviations » fantastiques / The present study is aimed at examining the fantastic as a literary genre by means of a twofold endeavour,which could be seen both as a diachronic (the history of cultural influences and transfers) and as a synchronicone (an investigation into several aspects that are related to a common modality of fantastic texts identified inthe poetics of (de)construction).The corpus of this paper is made up of fantastic stories created by several French writers that are traditionallyassociated with various trends or literary movements - Mérimée, Gautier, Maupassant, Villiers de l’Isle-Adam or Barbey d’Aurevilly – to whom we will add Romanian fantastic texts written by such various literaryfigures as Mihai Eminescu, Ioan Luca Caragiale, Gala Galaction and Mateiu Caragiale. Some of the worksproduced by the Romanian writers mentioned above surpass the strict temporal framework of the XIXthcentury, yet our choice is motivated by the fact that the texts under scrutiny are traditionally considered asbelonging to a first stage of the Romanian fantastic prose. As far as Mateiu Caragiale is concerned, we haveexceptionally chosen to deal with the short story entitled Remember from the perspective of the explicitintertextuality with Barbey d’Aurevilly’s Le rideau cramoisi.At the core of our investigation of the literary fantastic (in this context limited to short stories) we haveplaced the idea of (de)construction, which is to be followed on three levels: an onomastic level (the transitionfrom the term “fantastic” to the fantastic genre in literature), a diachronic level (the emergence of the fantastic as a literary genre and its identity, an issue to be addressed from the perspective of literary historyand the theory of reception) and a rhetorical level in its broad sense (a poetics of fantastic prose fiction). Wewill emphasize the fact that our intention is not to use the idea of (de)construction in the strict sense of thephilosophical concept launched by Jacques Derrida. The significance of (de)construction employed in thispaper is based on a thesis already formulated by Irene Bessière - the poetics of uncertainty that is related totwo projects that are opposite, but still coexist, i.e. the construction and deconstruction of the real.The first level of approaching (de)construction in the wider context of the fantastic prose coincides with thefirst part of our paper, which includes various definitions of the fantastic, different types of approaches andboundaries that can be applied to it and the famous dichotomy between the fantastic and the miraculous. Theterm “fantastic” was proposed by the French through Loève-Veimars’s erroneous translation, as a label forHoffmann’s tales, while Nodier launches a theoretical and critical discourse on the fantastic. The attempts to define the fantastic from different perspectives reveal some common aspects that itpossesses, thus assuming the shape of a process of (de)construction. We mainly take into account twodirections, a general one whose stake is the supernatural, and a restrictive one trying to set boundaries. (De)construction is also discussed from the perspective of the identity of the fantastic genre. On the one hand, thefantastic resorts to external thematic sources (the mythical miraculous, the legendary, the religious, modernideologies, scientific progress etc.), on the other hand, the modern reconstruction of these sourcespresupposes a new poetics, which consists in building a “fantastic report” between a real world and thoseelements that are generally considered supernatural, implausible, impossible or illogical, presented in such amanner as to produce the illusion of reality.. / Lucrarea de faţă îşi propune o examinare a fantasticului ca gen literar printr-un demers dublu, diacronic(istoria influenţelor şi transferurilor culturale) şi sincronic (cercetarea câtorva aspecte care ţin de o modalitatecomună textelor fantastice identificată în poetica (de)construcţiei).Corpusul este constituit din povestiri fantastice ale mai multor scriitori francezi care sunt asociaţi unorcurente sau mişcări literare diferite – Mérimée, Gautier, Maupassant, Villiers de l’Isle-Adam sau Barbeyd’Aurevilly – cărora le adăugăm texte fantastice româneşti, aparţinând lui Mihai Eminescu, Ion LucaCaragiale, Gala Galaction şi Mateiu Caragiale. Câteva dintre operele scriitorilor români amintiţi depăşesccadrul strict temporal al secolului al XIX lea, alegerea noastră fiind motivată de faptul că textele la care nereferim sunt considerate ca făcând parte dintr-o primă etapă a prozei fantastice româneşti. În ceea ce îlpriveşte pe Mateiu Caragiale, am ales să analizăm în mod excepţional nuvela Remember, din perspectivaintertextualităţii explicite cu nuvela Le rideau cramoisi a lui Barbey d’Aurevilly.În centrul investigaţiei fantasticului literar (limitat aici la povestiri scurte), am pus ideea de (de)construcţie,pe care o urmărim la trei niveluri : un nivel onomastic (trecerea de la termenul « fantastic » la genul fantasticîn literatură), un nivel diacronic (apariţia fantasticului ca gen literar şi identitatea acestuia, o problemăabordată din perspetiva istoriei literare comparate şi a teoriei receptării) şi un nivel retoric, în accepţie largă(o poetică a prozei fantastice). Subliniem faptul că nu folosim ideea de (de)construcţie în sensul strict alconceptului filosofic lansat de Jacques Derrida. (De)construcţia, aşa cum este întrebuinţată în lucrarea faţă,are ca sursă o teză formulată deja de Irène Bessière: poetica incertitudinii care se raportează la două proiecteopuse, dar coexistente, construcţia şi deconstrucţia realului. Primul nivel de abordare a (de)construcţiei în proza fantastică coincide cu prima parte a lucrării: definiţiilefantasticului, diversele tipuri de abordări şi delimitări ale acestuia şi dicotomia fantastic / miraculos.Cuvântul „fantastic” este propus de francezi, prin traducerea eronată a lui Loève-Veimars, ca etichetă pentrupovestirile lui Hoffmann; în acelaşi timp, Nodier lansează un discurs teoretic şi critic asupra fantasticului.Încercările de definire a fantasticului, din perspective diverse pun în evidenţă aspecte comune ale acestuia,constituindu-se într-un proces de (de)construcţie conceptuală. Reţinem două direcţii, una generală a căreimiză este supranaturalul si una restrictivă care încearcă să fixeze graniţe. (De)construcţia este pusă în discuţieşi din perspectiva identităţii genului fantastic. Pe de o parte, fantasticul face apel la surse tematice externe(miraculosul mitic, legendar, religios; ideologiile moderne, progresul ştiinţific, etc.), pe de altă parte,reconstrucţia modernă a acestor surse tematice înseamnă o nouă poetică, care constă în construirea unui „raport fantastic” între un univers real şi acele elemente considerate în mod general supranaturale,neverosimile, imposibile, sau nelogice, prezentate în aşa fel încât lasă iluzia unei realităţi.Cea de a doua parte a tezei este consacrată unui parcurs istoric al fantasticului literar, printr-o abordarecomparatistă, punând în discuţie efectul receptării operei lui Hoffmann şi a lui Poe în spaţiul literar francez,rolul traducerilor-adaptări după Poe făcute de Ion Luca Caragiale, dar şi aspecte care apropie şi diferenţiazăexperienţa scriptică a fantasticului, legat de romantism în literatura occidentală, legat, mai degrabă, delegendar şi magic în literatura română. Vorbim despre (de)construcţia modelelor străine şi despre construireaunui discurs fantastic autohton..