Mériméenne Ou L‟Art De Transformer Le Coup De Griffe En Coup De Maître
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
L‟Ironie Mériméenne ou l‟art de transformer le coup de griffe en coup de maître DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anaïs L. Wise, MA Graduate Program in French and Italian The Ohio State University 2012 Dissertation Committee: Professor Louisa Shea, Adviser Professor Karlis Račevskis Professor Patrick Bray vi Copyright by Anaïs L. Wise 2012 vii Abstract My research discusses the characteristics of ironic acts found in the works of Prosper Mérimée, author of the world-renowned masterpiece Carmen. The fundamental question that fuels my project stems from a visible discrepancy between the significant interest that the French share for irony and for Mérimée, and the fact that Mérimée‟s unique conception and demonstration of ironic acts has been for the most part dismissed by both literary critics and researchers of irony. More specifically, my project studies the question of victimization, that is, the representation of entities that fall victim to ironists‟ ploys. I compare victims of irony in short stories written by Mérimée with similar entities found in the works of other prominent nineteenth-century writers such as Maupassant, Flaubert and Baudelaire. I show that Mérimée, in an unconventional mood for the period, treats his victims respectfully, as if he sought to preserve their dignity. My research on Mérimée‟s conception and uses of irony offers theoreticians of irony an opportunity to reexamine their accepted notion that successful irony systematically entails an aggressive, if not violent act. Additionally, I seek to demonstrate that Mérimée‟s unique demonstration of irony in the 1820s must be perceived as the first manifestation of “modern irony”, contrary to scholars‟ traditional location of this phenomenon in Baudelaire‟s publication of Les Fleurs du mal in 1857. ii For you Father, with much love and endless gratitude iii Acknowledgments I am extremely grateful to those who have helped me through my academic journey and more particularly through the last few months, when the ironist in me probably shared more similarities with Baudelaire than Mérimée. The Department of French and Italian at the Ohio State University fostered a truly collegial intellectual environment. I have greatly enjoyed benefiting from everyone‟s unique knowledge and talents over the years, from professors to lecturers, teaching associates and staff. I owe a considerable debt of gratitude to my adviser, Professor Louisa Shea, who exceeded each of my expectations through this entire process. Her confidence in my abilities and her openness to my interpretations allowed me to pursue my research in this topic, while her perspective as a comparative and eighteenth-century French literature researcher helped me strengthen my work. I am also thankful to Professor Karlis Račevskis for the six wonderful classes I had with him, especially the one on irony in Autumn, 2006. While I enjoyed every part of that class, I now feel free to admit that the theoretical language of the course description intimidated me so much before the quarter started that I thought more than once about dismissing Professor Heller‟s suggestion and taking another class. My gratitude extends to Professors Patrick Bray, Dennis Minahen, Judith Mayne, Wynne Wong, Sarah-Grace Heller, Jennifer Willging, Diane Birckbichler, iv Bernadette Höfer, Morgan Liu and Mihaela Marin for their dedication to teaching and research. This dissertation would not have existed without the support of my husband, Charles Michael Wise, J.D., who proved to be the most knowledgeable and well-rounded intellectual mentor I ever had. I am especially thankful for the many hours he spent showing me how to parse sentences as lawyers do, as well as for often reminding me that precise writers eschew the use of parenthetical comments (lesson learned, dear!). My gratitude also goes to my wonderful colleagues Attorney Doug Roberts, Jaleh Sharif, Clare Balombin, Adrianne Barbo and Caroline Noble, as well as to friends and relatives outside the Ohio State University. Attorneys Don and Diane Brey‟s generosity and thoughtful intellectual and legal advice have enabled me to concentrate on this dissertation. My relative, Georges Balitrand, read all four chapters and provided me with no less than ten single-spaced pages of suggestions. Attorney George Michael Green kindly came to the rescue every time I had a problem with my computer during my graduate studies. My sister-in-law, Terry Eyears, presented an outstanding example of humility and sacrifice that helped me keep a healthy sense of perspective. The same applies to my relatives and friends overseas, who refrained from demonstrating curiosity towards my work, yet kept me updated with their activities and lives. All of these good people helped me follow my colleague Dr. Julie Parson‟s critical advice on the dissertation process: “Get over yourself!” v Vita 1996 to 1998………………………………...Ecole Supérieure de Traduction et Relations Internationales, Université Catholique de Lyon 1996 to 1998……………………………...…DEUG 1 LLCE, Université Lumière, Lyon 2007…………………………………………B.A. French, The Ohio State University 2009…………………………………………M.A. French, The Ohio State University 2007 to 2012……………………………..….Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of French and Italian, The Ohio State University 2008 to 2010..…………………….…………Graduate Research Assistant, Department of French and Italian, The Ohio State University 2010 to 2012……….………………..………Graduate Administrative Assistant, Department of French and Italian, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: French and Italian. vi Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………..……….…iii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….…iv Vita……………………………………………………………………………..…………vi Table of Contents………………………………………………………………...………vii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1 : La Manifestation de l‟ironie ……………………………………………..….18 Chapter 2 : Les Cibles et Victimes de l‟ironie ………………………………………......59 Chapter 3 : Les Limites de l‟ironie …………………………………………………….107 Chapter 4 : La Chute……………………………………………………………………149 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...……167 Bibliographie……………………………………………………………………………171 vii Introduction L’ironie Toute discussion sur l‟ironie doit commencer par une définition de ce concept. Malheureusement, la tentative de définir l‟ironie entraîne systématiquement la reconnaissance du caractère insaisissable de sa nature. Comment peut-on identifier avec exactitude l‟adoption par autrui d‟une attitude ironique ? La question du processus d‟identification de l‟ironie exige de reconnaître la problématique au cœur de la relation « perception-attribution » d‟une attitude ironique : comment peut-on percevoir qu‟un commentaire est ironique sans déterminer qu‟il est ironique et comment l‟attribution du caractère ironique d‟un commentaire peut-il émerger avant la perception de sa nature ironique ? Le processus d‟identification de l‟ironie est tellement complexe que Wayne Booth ne consacre pas moins de l‟intégralité de son œuvre A Rhetoric of Irony à tenter de clarifier cette question.1 Une autre difficulté s‟ajoute dès lors que l‟ironie s‟inscrit dans le cadre d‟un écart entre deux perceptions : ce que nous lisons ou que nous entendons et ce que nous sommes invités à imaginer. L‟ironie joue entre les modes de l‟implicite et de l‟explicite et se déploie dans la zone ambigüe qui les sépare. Dans un effort de simplification, Le Trésor de la Langue Française tente d‟ancrer la définition de l‟ironie dans un de ces deux modes 1 Malgré l’influence que ce fascinant ouvrage a eue auprès des théoriciens de l’ironie depuis sa publication en 1974, les limites de celui-ci tiennent, pour nous du moins, du fait que Booth n’y traite pas la question de l’agressivité inhérente à l’ironie. 1 pour le comparer ensuite à l‟autre. Ainsi, l‟ironie est une « figure de rhétorique par laquelle on dit le contraire de ce qu‟on veut faire comprendre » ainsi qu‟une « ignorance simulée, s‟exprimant en des interrogations naïves, que Socrate employait pour faire découvrir à ses interlocuteurs leur propre ignorance ». D‟après ces deux définitions, l‟ironie correspondrait donc à un décalage entre le sens explicite d‟un propos et la pensée du locuteur. Ces interprétations permettent d‟expliquer les figures de style que nous associons le plus souvent à l‟ironie, à savoir entre autres l‟antiphrase, qui consiste à dire le contraire de ce que l‟on veut faire comprendre2, mais aussi d‟autres figures de style telles que l‟assertion négative, la prétérition et l‟hyperbole3. Cette définition simple et fort pratique a cependant des effets réducteurs. L‟adoption d‟une attitude ironique peut par exemple se manifester non pas comme une simulation de naïveté pour révéler au grand jour celle d‟autrui, mais, comme c‟est parfois le cas en littérature, par la simulation de l‟auteur de l‟intelligence d‟un de ses personnages dans le but de mettre ensuite en valeur son arrogance ou sa vanité intellectuelle. Les théoriciens de l‟ironie renforcent quant à eux la complexité du concept de l‟ironie dans leurs tentatives de le définir. Comme le souligne Panagiota Karpouzou dans sa thèse intitulée « La Poétique de l‟Ironie dans la nouvelle du XIXe siècle » 4 , la conception de l‟ironie du point de vue de la recherche s‟effectue traditionnellement sous 2 Dans son ouvrage L’ironie publié en 2003, Mercier-Leca, maître de conférences à l’Université