O objetivo desta pesquisa é estudar, de forma relacionada e comparada, quatro poetas de quatro diferentes países latino-americanos: César Vallejo, do Peru; Aimé Césaire, da Martinica (Antilhas Francesas); Jorge Luis Borges, da Argentina; e Carlos Drummond de Andrade, do Brasil. Cada um desses poetas é tido como poeta nacional de seu país, com relevância histórica e mundial incontestável. A perspectiva do trabalho é a comparação de como cada poeta resolve o problema de constituir uma lírica ao mesmo tempo moderna e nacional na periferia do capitalismo. Esses problemas serão discutidos do ponto de vista da crítica imanente, tal como foi desenvolvida pela tradição crítica brasileira, que estuda a formação e configuração da literatura nacional em países periféricos. / This research has the purpose of studying, in the connective and comparative way, four poets of four different Latin American countries: César Vallejo, from Peru; Aimé Césaire, from Martinica (French Caribbean); Jorge Luis Borges, from Argentina; and Carlos Drummond de Andrade, from Brazil. Each of these poets is known as a national poet of his own country, and all of them have unquestionable historical and international importance. The perspective of this work is to compare how each poet solves the problem of establishing a poetry at the same time modern and national in the periphery of capitalism. These problems will be discussed by the point of view of immanent criticism, as it was developed by the brazilian critical tradition, in his studies concerning the formation and configuration of literature in peripheral countries.

O objetivo desta pesquisa é estudar, de forma relacionada e comparada, quatro poetas de quatro diferentes países latino-americanos: César Vallejo, do Peru; Aimé Césaire, da Martinica (Antilhas Francesas); Jorge Luis Borges, da Argentina; e Carlos Drummond de Andrade, do Brasil. Cada um desses poetas é tido como poeta nacional de seu país, com relevância histórica e mundial incontestável. A perspectiva do trabalho é a comparação de como cada poeta resolve o problema de constituir uma lírica ao mesmo tempo moderna e nacional na periferia do capitalismo. Esses problemas serão discutidos do ponto de vista da crítica imanente, tal como foi desenvolvida pela tradição crítica brasileira, que estuda a formação e configuração da literatura nacional em países periféricos. / This research has the purpose of studying, in the connective and comparative way, four poets of four different Latin American countries: César Vallejo, from Peru; Aimé Césaire, from Martinica (French Caribbean); Jorge Luis Borges, from Argentina; and Carlos Drummond de Andrade, from Brazil. Each of these poets is known as a national poet of his own country, and all of them have unquestionable historical and international importance. The perspective of this work is to compare how each poet solves the problem of establishing a poetry at the same time modern and national in the periphery of capitalism. These problems will be discussed by the point of view of immanent criticism, as it was developed by the brazilian critical tradition, in his studies concerning the formation and configuration of literature in peripheral countries.

Thèse numérisée par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

This thesis argues that all literature is subject to ‘afterlife,’ a continual process of translation. From this starting point, this thesis seeks to answer two questions. Firstly, how texts demonstrate this continual translation; secondly, how texts should be read if they are understood as constantly within translation. To answer these questions, this thesis seeks to develop a model of textuality that holds afterlife as central, and a model of reading based on this concept of textuality. Chapter One explores how following through the implications of Walter Benjamin’s and Jacques Derrida’s usages of the term ‘afterlife’ in their writings on translation, language and history necessarily implies a model of textuality. The model of reading that this thesis seeks to develop focuses on language and history, as Benjamin and Derrida define these as the parameters within which translation takes place. This study emphasises textuality itself as a third parameter. Chapter One also describes how, following Benjamin and Derrida, language and history are conceived as inescapable, repressive systems. This, paradoxically, allows for the concept of ‘messianicity’ – the idea that all language, and every historical event, has the potential to herald an escape from language or history. By definition, because language and history are all-encompassing, this potential cannot be enacted, and remains potential. An innovation of this thesis is to understand textuality itself as having ‘messianic potential’; all texts have the potential to escape textuality and afterlife, by reaching a point where they could no longer be translated. Understanding texts as having messianic potential, but always being subject to afterlife, is the basis of the model of reading described at the end of this chapter. Due to the ways Benjamin and Derrida suggest we recognise messianic potential, texts are read with a dual focus on their singularity and their connections to other texts. This is achieved through the ‘text-in-afterlife,’ a concept this thesis develops that understands texts as inextricable from the texts they translate and the texts that translate them. Chapters Two, Three and Four test and complicate this model of reading in response to texts by James Joyce, Aimé Césaire and Jorge Luis Borges. Concepts of textuality and reading are therefore developed throughout the thesis. The three key texts are read with focus on their individual relationships with language, history and textuality, and their connections to the texts they translate. Critics have linked Joyce’s Ulysses to multiple other texts, making it seem exceptional. However, the concept of messianicity shows that Ulysses is important precisely because it is not exceptional. Césaire’s Une Tempête demonstrates how a text can interact with several translations of ‘the same’ text simultaneously, and also that, although language and history are structured by colonialism and are inescapable, there is a huge potential for translation within these terms. Borges’ ‘Pierre Menard, Autor del Quijote’ demonstrates the form of texts’ continual translation in afterlife by describing a text that is verbally identical to the text it ‘translates,’ yet is nevertheless different in ‘meaning’ from its original. Borges’ fiction also highlights the endless potential for translation that is inherent to all texts. Through four chapters, this thesis develops a model of textuality that understands literature as defined by an almost endless potential for translation. The value of reading texts in the terms of ‘afterlife’ is to emphasise literature’s immense potential: all texts are continually translated in relation to language, history and textuality, and continually reveal further texts.

El trabajo que a continuación se presenta es una aproximación al estudio de los discursos identitarios en América Latina, particularmente a elaboraciones realizadas durante el siglo XX por intelectuales que se autodefinen a partir de categorías raciales subordinadas y que contribuyen, a lo largo de su producción escrita, al desarrollo del pensamiento anticolonial. El estudio de la/las identidad/es latinoamericana/s es un ámbito prolífico y ampliamente cultivado desde diversas áreas del conocimiento, desarrollado con distintos intereses y por diferentes actores sociales, pasando por períodos en el que su discusión se activa y nuevas categorías salen a la luz -como sincretismo, mestizaje, hibridez, entre muchas otras- para intentar dar respuesta a la pregunta por quiénes somos. En esta materia, lo que se busca es aquello que nos da un sentido de pertenencia, como por ejemplo, lo que nos hace latinoamericanos.

This work is dedicated to francophone authors : Aimé Césaire and Mohammed Khaïr- Eddine, to their creation and to the epoch when it was written. Even though they were originated from different countries (Martinique and Morocco) and from different epochs (before and after the decolonization), their poetics are similar in many points. Even if their historical experiences are closely connected by phases of french colonialism. The goal of this work will be to compare their poetics and to analyse how the epoch influenced and interconnected those two authors, and how they reacted to it. In the first part the common will to renovate their national literature will be described and their means to achieve this goal will be explored. The following part will be concentrated on the work of those two writers, on the characteristic attributes, on the recurrent symbols in their works and on the significance of the place of birth. The last part will be dedicated to the context, in which the authors wrote, and will clarify how the context unit or divide them. In this work, we will continuously compare common aspects of their poetics and in the same time the modification of those aspects during the transition from the colonialism to post- colonialism. Then, we will explain how this passage of the regime changed the...

La controverse des écrivains étiquetés « francophones » en 2006 indique la fin du « paradigme national de littérature ». Ce paradigme se construit sur trois unités : la langue, le peuple et la littérature. Fortement centralisée, la France est l’État qui a le mieux réussi à souder la nation et la littérature ; cette liaison se réalise par la territorialisation. Ceci dit, pour penser au contraire la littérature sans territoire et en dehors du paradigme national, il faut l’examiner en termes de la dissémination et de la déterritorialisation, ce qui devient d’ailleurs de plus en plus visibles aujourd’hui. Cette thèse discute le monde et la littérature dans l’optique de la Relation d’Édouard Glissant. Il observe trois trajectoires tracées par les écrivains modernes. La première part du Centre vers la périphérie, qui s’inscrit dans le contexte de la colonisation européenne du monde. La deuxième va dans le sens opposé, de la périphérie vers le Centre, ce qui correspond à la montée des coloniaux en Métropole ainsi qu’à leurs pensées anticolonialistes. Or, ces deux trajectoires sont identiques tant qu’elles s’articulent autour de la dichotomie Centre/périphérie et donnant corps à la Relation concentrique du monde. En revanche, la troisième démolit la dichotomie Centre/périphérie, errant d’une périphérie à une autre et réalisant la Relation interpériphérique. Appuyé sur le couple conceptuel d’arborescence et de rhizome proposé par Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari, cette thèse cartographier ces deux sortes de Relations. Elle vise de révéler le devenir-rhizome du monde en étudiant les œuvres d’Aimé Césaire, de Kateb Yacine et d’Édouard Glissant. / The controversy of so-called “francophone” writers in 2006 indicates the end of “national paradigm of literature”. This paradigm consists of three unities: language, people and literature. Because of its highly centralized system, France is the State that succeeded the most in bundling its nation and literature. Their tight connection is assured by the principle of territorializaion. Then, in order to think about literature without territory and outside national paradigm, it is necessary to examine it in terms of dissemination and deterritorialization, which are becoming increasingly visible today. This dissertation discusses about the world and literature in perspective of Édouard Glissant’s concept of Relation. He observes three trajectories that modern writers have drawn. The first trajectory departs from the Center to periphery that conforms to European colonization over the world. The second trajectory goes from colonial periphery to the Center, which corresponds with the migration of colonized people to Metropolitan France as well as their anti-colonial thoughts. Though, these two trajectories seem identical so far as they are constructed by Center/periphery dichotomy, realizing a concentric Relation of the world. The third trajectory, however, demolishes such Center/periphery dichotomy, by wandering from a periphery to another periphery and realizing the inter-peripheral Relation. Applying Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s pair of concepts, Tree and Rhizome, this dissertation maps those two sorts of Relations. It reveals the becoming-rhizome of the world by studying the literary works of Aimé Césaire, Kateb Yacine, and Édouard Glissant.

A partir des années 1730 les succès des prévisions de la gravitation universelle assurent en France la pénétration de l’approche newtonienne de la physique, alors que les concepts cartésiens sont encore bien ancrés dans les esprits. Dans la seconde moitié du Siècle des Lumières, Aimé-Henri Paulian, professeur au collège des jésuites d’Avignon, décide de publier des ouvrages de physique pour un public d’amateurs et d’étudiants. Dans l’esprit du temps, il met en avant la physique de Newton dans un Dictionnaire de physique portatif (1758) puis dans un Dictionnaire de physique (1761) dont les nombreuses éditions durant près de trente ans indiquent le grand succès. Mais, dans un ouvrage plus personnel, il présente une physique impertinente dont on ne peut nier l’originalité : une physique «Newto-Cartésienne» - le Traité de paix entre Descartes et Newton (1763) - issu de son interprétation des physiques de Descartes et de Newton. La comparaison entre le Traité d’optique de Newton et la lecture qu’en fait Paulian révèle son infidélité. L’étude d’articles du Dictionnaire de physique sur la lumière et ses différents effets précise les conceptions souvent masquées de notre auteur. En fait, avec Paulian, l’optique newtonienne est remaniée pour le plus grand profit de sa physique "Newto-Cartésienne". / From the 1730s, successes of universal gravity expectations ensured the spreading of the Newtonian approach of physics in France, while Cartesian concepts were still well established. In the second half of the Age of Enlightenment, Aimé-Henri Paulian, ateacher of the Jesuit College in Avignon, decided to publish works of physics intended for amateurs and students. In line with his time, he highlighted Newton’s physics in the book Dictionnaire de physique portatif (1758) and then in Dictionnaire de physique (1761), whose numerous editions that followed during nearly thirty years point out the great success. However, in a more personalwork, he presented an irrelevant physics, the originality of which cannot be denied: a «Newto-Cartesian» physics – Traité de paix entre Descartes et Newton (1763) – which arose from his interpretation of Descartes’ and Newton’s physics. The comparison between Newton’s Traité d’optique and Paulian’s interpretation reveals his lack of accuracy. The study of articles from the Dictionnaire de physique about light and its different effects clarifies Paulian’s ideas, which are often concealed. Indeed, with Paulian, Newtonian optics is revised for the benefit of his own «Newto-Cartesian» physics.

L'expérience d'Aimé Bonpland invite à réfléchir sur les conditions nécessaires au transfert d'une science et sur l'idéologie qui le porte. Partisan de l'indépendance du Río de la Plata, imprégné d'une culture politique mettant au premier plan la nécessité d'un Etat fort permettant la stabilité et le rayonnement d'une nation, Bonpland se heurte à l'instabilité qui caractérise la construction politique de cette région. En suivant son parcours on assiste à la rencontre manquée entre un naturaliste porteur d'un projet fondé sur le modèle universaliste du centre scientifique européen et des élites qui, à la périphérie, souhaitent mettre en place une politique spécifique basée sur l'utilisation des ressources naturelles à des fins de développement interne. Cette expérience permet de mettre en évidence différents moments de la construction des nations rioplatenses et de les insérer dans une grille de lecture américaniste. La notion d'américanisme, abordée comme un ensemble d'idéologies en action ayant comme propriété essentielle le développement d'interactions culturelles, soulève le problème de la convergence des idéologies et de leur adaptation transatlantique. En effet, il faut attendre la mise en place de projets politiques et scientifiques rioplatenses fondés sur la production externalisée des connaissances pour que l'action scientifique menée par Bonpland, elle-même basée sur la recherche appliquée, devienne opératoire. L'expérience de Bonpland est à replacer dans cette continuité, depuis l'inadéquation entre l'offre et la demande scientifique jusqu'à la convergence des projets américanistes.

Dans cette étude nous avons choisi d’aborder la question de la filiation dans la société antillaise en mettant en concordance la psychanalyse et la littérature. Nous nous référons à trois auteurs : Aimé Césaire, Édouard Glissant et Patrick Chamoiseau qui ont marqué le XXe siècle par trois mouvements : la Négritude, l’Antillanité et la Créolité. L’approchepsychanalytique se réfère aux théories de Freud et de Lacan. À partir des oeuvres poétiques et romanesques nous remontons à l’origine et à ses mythes, nous explorons les traces de la filiation dans les noms, les lieux, les langues, nous visitons les généalogies de la Mère-Afrique aux Pères fondateurs : le Rebelle, le Marron primordial et le Conteur. Le dessein des trois auteurs est de permettre à tout un peuple de se réconcilier avec son Histoire dont la généalogie a été interrompue par la traite et l’esclavage. Les personnages des oeuvres théâtrales et romanesques prennent à leur charge le travail d’élaboration du traumatisme, de la remémoration et de la transmission. La psychanalyse nous montre que ce qui est transmis ce n’est pas seulement une histoire mais aussi des contenus inconscients. Les peuples antillais nés du système esclavagiste héritent d’une double filiation antagoniste représentée par les figures du maître et de l’esclave. L’économie de l’esclavage a mis la mère au centre de la structure familiale et a abandonné le père au rôle de géniteur. Nous avons examiné le drame oedipien dans cette organisation matrifocale. / In this study we chose to address the issue of filiation in Antillean society by matching psychoanalysis and literature. We refer to three authors: Aimé Césaire, Edouard Glissant and Patrick Chamoiseau that marked the twentieth century by three movements: the Negritude, the Caribeanness and the Creoleness. The psychoanalytic approach refers to theories of Freud and Lacan. From the poetry and fiction we go back to the origin and myths, we explore the traces of filiation in names, laces, languages, we visit the genealogies of Mother Africa to the Founding Fathers: the Rebel, the primordial Maroon and the Storyteller. The purpose of the three authors is to enable a people to come to terms with its history whose genealogy was interrupted by the slave trade and slavery. The characters and theatrical fiction shall bear the work of developing the trauma, of remembering and transmission. Psychoanalysis shows us that what is transmitted is not only history but also unconscious contents. The Antillean peoples born of the slave system inherit a double antagonist filiation represented by the figures of master and slave. The economics of slavery put the mother at the center of family structure and abandoned the father to the role of genitor. We examined the Oedipal drama in this matrifocal organization.