I distinguish, for the purposes of this article, between ‘theory’ and ‘thesis’, along these lines: a theory is a set or more precisely a chain of concepts organized in such a way as to describe a phenomenon, and a thesis is an application of these concepts. My aim here is to reconsider the notion of the ‘literary field’.1 I am thus positioning myself in the perspective opened up by the work of Pierre Bourdieu, and subsequently developed by other investigators, such as Remy Ponton, Jacques Dubois, Christophe Charle, Gisele Sapiro, and, if I may say so, myself. I want to stress at the outset how great a debt research in literature owes Pierre Bourdieu. But one of the best ways to honour that debt is really to take his work seriously. By examining the scope of his theory of the literary field, and, should the need arise, questioning its applications, we shall do far more justice to what he has to offer in the way of tools (concepts) for understanding the real than by paying him a dogmatic, that is to say, sterile tribute. I therefore wish to reconsider a question of literary history, that of the historical emergence of the literary field. I begin by summarizing some of Bourdieu’s key positions as regards the definition of the literary field. Then I shall compare these with the views of a theorist of literature of the so-called ‘classical’ period, namely Boileau. In the light of this comparison, I shall conclude with a few suggestions concerning the literary market, the values of art, and modernity.