|Abstract: ||「時間」與「歷史」向來是瑪格麗特‧尤瑟娜(Marguerite Yourcenar, 1903-1987)創作世界中的兩大重要主題。她的多部代表作，無論是描寫西元二世紀的羅馬皇帝，或探究自身家族史的三部曲，都反映了她對人類歷史的永恆詰問與反思，而這種不斷追溯過去的寫作傾向，更讓人覺得她始終身處時間概念上的「他處」。然而，在尤瑟娜的所有小說中，發行於1934年的《夢想的十里拉》(Denier du rêve)具有相當的特殊性，因這部描繪1933年的羅馬之作品，正是當時經常旅居義大利並目睹法西斯政權崛起的作者，面對其當下時代所做的見證。此外，尤瑟娜自己也指出，這部以一次失敗的刺殺墨索里尼行動為中心的小說，是該年代最早反映反法西斯立場的法國小說之一，而她的這番話，亦透露了某種「文學介入」(engagement littéraire)之企圖。正是這點令人感到吃驚，因為尤瑟娜向來被視為是不關心政治的(apolitique)，而且，若以其同時代文人展現出的「介入行動」來看，她的確不能算得上是典型的「介入作家」(écrivains engages)。這也是為何，一些文學評論家並不同意作者有在此書寫中展現政治立場之說法，甚至否定這本小說中的政治面向。這個爭論正是本篇論文的思考起點，因為事實上，我們在尤瑟娜對法西斯義大利的描繪中，發現了許多政治性的隱喻與對此獨裁政權的揭露。我們不禁想問：為何作者在此所展現的「政治介入」未能被看出或理解？對於此提問，我們的假設是，這大概與「介入」一詞所涉及的定義與給予人的普遍印象有很大的關聯。|
為了對「文學介入」此一問題有更好的掌握，我們將研究分為兩大主軸，一是「文學介入」的概念流變，二則是針對尤瑟娜的「介入」進行評析。在本文的第一部分，我們檢視了自十九世紀末德雷弗斯事件以來，在法國文壇普遍盛行的各種文學介入政治之例子，目的是想知道這些作家們如何對其所處時代的重大事件做出回應，以及他們如何見證該時代(témoin du temps)。透過不同作者的「介入」，我們努力想了解「介入文學」的概念是如何漸進地形成，進而在二戰後被理論化並達到高峰。從左拉(Zola)到沙特(Sartre)，尤其是在戰間期法國文人的例子中，我們可看到不同形式的「文學介入」之可能，這讓我們因此相信，「文學介入」並非只是如沙特與其同儕所定義、實行的那般。
;Time and History are two major themes in the creative universe of Marguerite Yourcenar (1903-1987). Many of her most renowned works, whether it be the life of the 2nd-century Roman emperor or her family history trilogy, demonstrate her endless questioning and meditations on human history. This tendency to have a retrospective look in her writing often gives us an impression that she is always “elsewhere” temporally. However, among all Yourcenarian novels, Denier du rêve (English title: A Coin in Nine Hands), published in 1934, has a noticeable singularity, because this work that depicts Rome in 1933 is a testimony of the present time facing the auther, who then often had a long stay in Italy and who was a witness to the rise of Italian Fascism. Besides, as Yourcenar indicates herself, this novel, which centers on the story of a failed attack on Mussolini, is one of the first French novels to manifest an anti-fascist political position at that time, and such a statement reveals a kind of attempt at “literary engagement.” This may be surprising to many readers, since Yourcenar is generally considered to be apolitical. In addition, given the “engagements” practiced by her contemporaries, she doesn’t really qualify as a typical “engaged writer.” That is why some literary critics don’t agree that she took a political stance through her writing of the novel, and they even deny its political dimension. Such a debate is the starting point for our reflection, because, in fact, we have found in Yourcenar’s description of Fascist Italy many political allegories and revelations of this dictatorship. We can’t help wondering why our author’s “political engagement” in this case was neither perceived nor understood. As to this question, our hypothesis is that it has much to do with the definition of “engagement” and a general impression that it has on us.
In order to have a better grasp of the question of “literary engagement,” we divide our research into two major parts. One is the evolution of the concept of “literary engagement,” and the other is an analysis of Yourcenar’s “engagement.” In the first part of this thesis, we examine various examples of how literature intervenes in the politics, which has prevailed in the French literary world since the Dreyfus Affair occurring in the late nineteenth century. Our purpose is to know how certain writers reacted to the great events of their time and how they bore witness to their era. Through different authors’ “engagements,” we try to understand how the notion of “engaged literature” has been progressively determined, and then theorized, reaching its peak after World War II. From Émile Zola to Jean-Paul Sartre, especially in the cases of some French authors during the interwar period, we can see the possibility of different forms of “literary engagement,” which thus makes us believe that “literary engagement” is not just as defined and practiced by Sartre and his colleagues.
Next, the second part of this thesis intends to prove that the Yourcenarian (re)presentation of Fascist Italy could be one of the possible forms of “literary engagement.” We mainly study the final version (1959) and the theatrical version (1961) of the novel mentioned above, with an eye to discovering the political meanings of the works. By analyzing the symbolic elements in the narrative, we find that our author’s method of using a lot of myths aims to reveal a Fascist regime which was working on its mythification, in the hope of demystifying the myth of Fascism, and this constitutes one of the pillars of her “literary engagement.” We want to further indicate that such an “engagement” is not only related to the politics, but it is also based on Yourcenar’s humanist preoccupation and her vison of History. With these two parts which seem autonomous but actually inseparable, our thesis ends with Yourcenar’s views on several authors already mentioned in the first part and a comparison between Sartrean and Yourcenarian “literary engagement.”