Ce travail de recherches dans divers centres d‟archives (Paris, Nantes, Bucarest, Genève) réalise une synthèse des relations culturelles franco-roumaines de 1878 à 1965. Il s‟agit de comprendre, comment la France affaiblie après 1870 est plus que jamais considérée par l‟élite roumaine comme sa « grande soeur latine ». Puis, forte de cette reconnaissance, comment elle institutionnalise sa propagande culturelle dans la Grande Roumanie (1919-1939) pour oeuvrer aux côtés des Roumains à la latinisation des territoires annexés, et parvient à la signature de l‟accord culturel de mars 1939 dans l‟environnement hostile des régimes fasciste et nazi. La dernière période de 1940 à 1965 traite des aléas de ces relations : maintien difficile des OEuvres françaises durant la guerre, renouveau espéré des échanges de 1944 à 1947, jusqu‟à la dénonciation de l‟accord en 1948 par la Roumanie sous tutelle soviétique. Suit une traversée du désert qui aboutit avec peine au nouvel accord de 1965. Tout au long de cette période, la culture française s‟enrichie au contact des intellectuels et artistes roumains dont les oeuvres entrent dans le patrimoine français. L‟auteure de la thèse fait découvrir son trisaïeul roumain, le peintre Mihai Simonidi (1872-1933), à partir des archives familiales. Arrivé en France en 1892, il acquiert une certaine renommée auprès du Tout-Paris à l‟occasion de l‟Exposition Universelle de 1900 ainsi qu‟auprès de l‟élite bucarestoise. Peintre de nus, de marines et de fresques magistrales dont certaines décorent encore l‟intérieur de bâtiments bucarestois, il réalise également des portraits de célébrités françaises du monde artistique et littéraire et de politiques roumains. / This study of Franco-Rumanian cultural relations between 1878 and 1965 is the fruit of research carried out in a number of archive centres (Paris, Nantes, Bucharest and Geneva). Its objective is to understand why France, in its weakened state after the 1870 war, was nevertheless considered by the Romanian elite as its „older sister‟. The author then examines how France used its position to institutionalise its cultural propaganda in „Grand Romania‟ (1919-1939), working alongside Romanians to spread its influence to the annexed territories, and how a cultural agreement was signed in March 1939 despite the hostile environment created by the fascist and Nazi regimes. Relations were unsettled during the final period (1940 to 1965), with the struggle to retain French works of art during the war, the promising exchanges in the immediate after-war years, and the termination of the agreement in 1948 by Soviet-controlled Romania. After a barren period a new agreement was signed in 1965. Throughout the period French culture was enriched by its contact with Romanian intellectuals and artists whose works were integrated into France‟s cultural heritage. The author uses family records to tell the story of her Romanian ancestor, the artist Mihai Simonidi (1872-1933). After arriving in France in 1892, he exhibited at the Universal Exhibition of 1900 and gained a certain reputation amongst the Paris and Bucharest elite. Well-known for his nudes, marine scenes and murals, some of which can still be seen in buildings in Bucharest, he also painted the portraits of famous French artists and writers and Romanian politicians of the time.

Cette thèse étudie le processus de variation continue comme une trame de fond de l’oeuvre complète de Gherasim Luca, afin de mettre en valeur ses aspects plastiques et phoniques, leur articulation ainsi que la façon dont la pictopoésie et l’ontophonie participent à l’autogénération textuelle. Considérant l’oeuvre à la croisée des arts, l’analyse souligne la structure des espaces textuel et iconique. Elle s’intéresse en outre aux figures (personae) émergeant d’une esthétique protéiforme et à l’espace figural du langage, mettant aussi à l’épreuve la théorie deleuzienne de la variation continue pour en montrer les ressorts et les dépassements. Enfin, la mise en oeuvre organique, phonique et linguistique del’ontophonie interroge les voix/voies nouvelles établies par la poésie orale et la médiopoétique, ménageant un accès vers l’analyse de la répétition et de la reformulation en tant que genèse infinie. / The aim of this PHD is to study the process of the continuous variation, as the guiding principle for the complete works of Gherasim Luca. The purpose is to highlight both its plastic and its phonic aspects, how they work together, and also the way pictopoésie and ontophonie help create a perpetual selfgenerated text. Since the works stand at the crossroads of several arts, this analysis underlines the structure of the iconic and textual spaces. One of the axis of research, that focuses on the persona, as it emerges from a protean aesthetics, and on the figurative space proper to language, calls thus intoquestion Deleuze’s theory of “continuous variation”, while showing its internal mechanism and its exceedance. Finally, the phonic, the linguistic and the physical performance, in staging the ontophonie, brings into question the voices and the media as a means, established by the oral poetry and the mediopoetics, granting access to an analysis based on endless repetition and reformulation.

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..