Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Derrida Jacques Glas 1986

    Transféré par

    Alonso0148341
    31 vues265 pages
    Libro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Libro

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    31 vues265 pages

    Derrida Jacques Glas 1986

    Transféré par

    Alonso0148341
    Libro

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 265
    University of Nebraska Pras Lincoln and London %, Jacques Derrida English Translation by Jobn P. Leavey, Jr, and Richard Rand Prepartion of this volume was made posible in pare by «gras From the Progra fr Tansaions ‘ofthe National Endowment fo the Humanities, an independent federal agency, Publication was also supporce by a grant from the Nesonal Endowment forthe Humanities ‘Copyrighe 1986 by the Universicy of Nebraska Press. All ighes eseved Manufactured in the Uniced Sates of America Fics published in France as Gla, « Editions Ga 1974 “The paper ia this book meets the minimum require ments of American National Stands fot Information Seiences~ Permanence of Paper fr Priced Library Marerias, ANS 239.48-1984.@ Libary of Congres Ctaloging-n-Publicatioe Daca Derrida, Jacques Gia, ‘Trandation of: Gls 1 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm redrch, 1770-1831 2, Genet, Jean, 1910-86. 1. Tile 82948.04613 1986 19385-28877 'S@N 8032-1667. (alaline paper) Note to the Translation ‘The translation of Glas was a joint efor. Richard Rand provided ‘he fre draft translation of the column on Jean Genet and I of che column on Hegel. [chen ineegrated and reworked both columas for accuracy, continuity of anguage, and sylistcs For che critical apparatus co the translation, thac is, explana- soos of pacticula terms and their cranslaions, commentary oa individual lines, nd che location ofall cited passages, 25 wel as incoductory stays, the ceader is referred to Glasary, by Jobo P Leavey, Je, with an esay by Gregory L. Ulmer anda foreword by Jacques Derrida. Glasary, also published by the University of ‘Nebrasia Pres, is the complement ofthis translation and indicaces alleferences cit by page and line number. ‘The translation follows cheseexrual principles: German terms within parentheses are Derrida’ citaions or emphases. German terms with translation alteraatives or explanations wiehin square brackets are Derrida’. German terms alone within square brackets are the eranslators' addition for clarity. French terms within square brackees ae likewise the translators { would like to thank che fllowing: Dr. Susan Mango and the “Translations Program of che National Endowment for the Humani- ‘ies for a granc tha allowed full-time work during 19808; the University of Florida's Division of Sponsored Research, College of Liberal Ars and Sciences, and English Department for thei sup- port of cher pats ofthis project; Clark Butler for aking available (© me his translation of the Hegel lecers before publication by Indiana University Pres; Indiana University Press for permission co cite fen Hoge: The Later, crans. Clark Buslet and Cheistane Seiler, with commentary by Clack Butler (Indiana University ress, 1984); Barbara Fletcher for her help inthe early stages of the translation; and Marie A. Nelion fr hee time, good spirits, and patience in eying and correcting the entire manuscripe— without her this project would sill not be finished. T would also like co acknowledge the support that Paul de Man and John Sallis gave this translation from its inception. J. Hillis Miller has always been available and helpful with any problems ‘hat might aise. He made chis work possible. Gilbere Debusscher wwas kind enough 0 review parts of the cranslzion and answer questions on particular passages ia the French. Finally, 1 want 0 ‘hank Jacques Derrida himself. His friendship, patience, and gen- ‘rous answers co my many questions continually guided me in this translation. JL what, after all, of the cemain(s), roday, for us, here, now, of a Hegel? For us, here, now: from now on that is whac one will not have been able to think without him. Forus, here, now: these words are citations, already, always, we have learned chat from hien Who, him? His name is so strange. From the eagle it draws imperial or historic power. Those who still pronounce his name like the French (here are some) are ludicrous only up to a certain point: che restitution (semaneically infallible for chose who have read him a licele—but only a lick) of magiscerial coldness and impercurbable seriousness, the eagle caughc in ice and fost, glass and gel Le ehe emblanched femblon] philosopher beso congealed. ‘Who, him? The lead or gold, white o black eagle has not signed che text of savoir absolu, absolute knowledge. Even less has. ‘he nd sagt Boo, setomrenenitetestinetsnat water Sa 8 ths Simonewtiscaaiang ee vets SEAS IISSCASE, siento, wheter ‘maculate Concepcion. A property singular © written OF has CETTE CSS rine count wg. let SMUT ig Tet rcs Way coms srs Setanta tating, TE Thannsbords is cme, to ‘Whether it lets itself be evi borders assigned {eneign], signed, cnsigned is not yet known. Pechaps there is an incompatibility (eather than a dialectical contradiction) beeween che teaching and the signature, a schoolmaster and a signer. Perhaps, in any case, even when they let themselves be thoughe and signed, these ewo operations cannot overlap each ocher {1 ravuper). les/His {Sa} signacure, s thoughe of the remain(s, will en- ‘velop this corpus, bue no doubs will not be rer) $0 84 Contained heen eee Sp This is—a legend. tere now bur wil a: Nota fable: a legend. Nota novel, nora ready hare been puto family romance since that concerns Hegels Seer te ote family, bur alegend {orm more” ar lex The legend does noc pretend to afford a to the ast of wha reading of Hegels whole corpus, texts, and fe seareer SM 5 plans {decal}, just of cwo figures. More caro precisely, of ewo figures in che act of effacing themselves: two passages “what remained of a Rembrands torn into small, very regn- lar squares and rammed down the shithole” is divided in. cwo. As the remain(s) [reste]. Two unequal columns, they say distyle {divent-ils}, each of which — envelop(e)s) o sheath(es), incaleu- lably reverses, curns inside our, replaces, remarks, overlaps [recoupe] the other. The incalculable of what remained calculates itself, elaborates all che coups [strokes, blows, etc.], cwists or scaffolds chem in silence, you would wear yourself out ceven faster by counting them. Each little square is delimited, each column rises with an impassive self- sufficiency, and yet che element of contagion, the infinite circulation of general equivalence relates each sentence, each stump of writing (for example, “je me ”) co each other, within each column and from one column to the other of what remained infi- Of the remain(s), after all, there are, always, over- lapping each other, two functions ‘The first assures, guards, assimilates, interiorizes, idealizes, relieves the fall [chute] into the monument. There the fall maintains, embalms, and mummiifies itself, monumemorizes and names itself—falls (to the tomb(scone)) {tombe}. Therefore, buc as a fall, it cerects itself ehere. Two very determined, parcial, and particular passages, cwo examples. But pethaps the example rifles withthe essence. First passage: religion of lowes. In Phoomarlay of Spirit, the developmenc of nara religion always has che form of 3 logis the mediare moment, “plane and animal,” includes a religion of| flowers, Flower religion snot even a moment or station. Leal but exhausts itself in a passage (Uberehen), a disappearing movement, the efluvium dosting above a procession, the march from inno cence to guilt. Flower ligion would be innocent, animal religion culpable. Flower religion (a factual example of this would come from Africa, but above all from India) no longer, or hardly, re- ‘mains; proceeds co its own placement in culpability, very own animalization, co inocence becoming culpable (eupble] and thus serious. And this insofar as the same, the self (Seléit) has not yet taken piace, has given itself, still, only (in) its representa sion (Verlag). "The in- Die Unc derSkmenragion de mar cence of the Amer rei- ‘eos Holga Sete fon gon which ie merely the Ser tna te KojodenLoers in oe ar mel Oe Schaar Teranpn Ra ind Oh = Ina r acowede mantener, pases Inco the ‘Draven Farther” ousnes of warring lif, ico the guilt of ain! reigns; the quiet and impotence of contemplative indviduaicy pas into Aescructive being forsele” avy lok sewn toward nda inorder Second passage: the io" folow ths engrave pases eh phallic column ef Indi. passes very badly berweenthe Far Westand “The Agsthetics describes its Seta tne nda Erop rer Chra A Kind of here sompiany socom. form inthe chaprer on Connaredu Girnar aueriondcony “Independent or Symbolic kr ps of Herade who NE Architecture.” It is sid ~ maperti somewhat shifting channel the East‘West- to have spread toward ExXturan pute ane urowssA Phrygia, Syia, and Greece porcelbecsmrg whee, inthe coure ofthe Fre voy porns ohan changed rane, SHE: renetiea The pronecary as been Dionyiac celebrations (ac- Sct Hom Cae Nore Dineirfoe, cording 0 Herodocas as Bion Tk (Sera) cited by Hegel) che women ‘were palling che thread of phallus chat thus stood inthe air, “alowe as big a the es ofthe body." At the beginning, then, the phallic columns of India, The other — lets the remain(s) fall. Running the risk of coming down to the same. Falls (co the tomb(stone)) — cwo times the columns, the waterspouts{#rom- bes] — cemain(s). Pethaps the case (Eall) ofthe sing. Jf Fall marks the case, the fall, deca- dence, failure or fis- sure, Falleequals trap, snare, springe, che machine that grabs you by the neck {cou}. The seing falls (co the romb(stone)) ‘The remain(s)is in- describable, or almost so: not by virtue of an empiric approxi- mation, but rigor- ously undecidable. “Gatochresis...m. 1. Trope wherein a ‘word is diverted from its proper sense and is taken up in commen language to sesignace another thing with some anal- Oty tothe obectintialy expressed: for ‘example, a tongue [langue], since the tongue is che chief organ of spoken lan- sage: a looking glass ... 2 leaf of Paper... Iiralzoacatachrenis to ay: Ironclad with gold: 10 ride a hobby- horse... 2. Musical term. Harsh and tnfamilar dissonance. “TE. Kararypnars, abuse, from xa, against, xpis, wsge.” *Cotoflque ... n. Phorm raed as an honor, in the middle of 2 church, to receive the coffin or efigy of & scented "Ele. catofole; Low Latin ctaotus, cadefaldus, codofole, codapals, coda Phallus, chofels. According to Du ‘Cange, cata drives from the Low Latin cous, a war machine called catafeer the aniral: and, cording to Diez, from cntare, to see, to regard: afer all [du reste, finaly, these two etymologies merge, since cots, cat, and cote, £0 regard, share the same root. There re- sais fle, which, given the variants of the Low Lacin where p appear, can be only the German word balk (see 8a ony). Cotfalque is the same word as Soff (ee that word [échafeud}. “Cataplottim ...n,Term from ancient eerature. The use of abstruse words. "HE Karayhurniouss, trom Kar, indicating abstruse, and yAoova, word, ‘tongue, language (tee toss Upfose})* Litre “The ALCs sound, clack, explode [éclo- tent} reflect and (return themselves in every sense and direction, count and ddscount. themselves, opening —here (ci) in the stone of each column 3 ve riety of ina judas holes, crenels, Vene- tian shutters [fous loopholes, to 80 to I not to be imprisoned in the enormous formations, pillars, rowers, larger at the base than a che op. Now ac the ourset —bucasa serting out are. bated he a cha alteady departed fom icsel— these col- tet die a oH mns were intact, vobreached {inewamés), smooth, And oniy later (eat spd) are notches, excavations, openings (Ojfmnger ind Ausboblungen) ade in the columns, in the Hank, sfsuch canbe said. These hollowings, holes, chese lateral marks in depeh would be ike accidents coming ‘over the phallic columns at fist unperforated of apparendy unper- foratable. Images of gods (Giterblde) were set, niched, inserted, embedded, driven in, eattoved on the columns. just as chese small caverns or lateral pockers onthe fank of che phallus announced the small portable and hermetic Greek temples, so they broached! breached the model ofthe pagods, noc yet altogether a habicaion and stil distinguished by che separation becween shell and kernel (Sthaleund Kern). A middle ground hard to determine beeweea the “Howpadchichn inden un gingen vn deer At der Verebrung er Zeupungsroft oder Frm der Zesgungspede? auch Domerke in dest Gestalt und Bedeutung a engeheureSou- fenarige Geb, 20 Sci we Tame asi feet, tren beet os abn. Se wore uspelnglech fr sh seler “Zneck, Gepestande der Verhrang anders ste! fig mer on ‘Ofrungen tnd Aushonngen doin 2u machen und Goto Ianemaustelen, wes ch noch inden grchschen Herman Dor tauren Tempebouichen, erhalten het Den Asgengsunkt be biden nen ee anausgehiten Pholsalen, de Sch speer ttn Scale und Ken teen and 34 Popoden warden” CCorrespondences the moment immedael folowing ot) the flower religion and the pale cohenns 2 moment at Felevrthrnforrwith art were, it Mernnon, te Ferran Cooma sec (alse longs) tae producer Kong tnder the incidence ofthe sun's ray The Keng ammounces ‘he end ofthe ower raigion and he ple columns, be not yet voice of language: Ths engi, sonorous igh rever- Beratung as on stone bl [che] already no longer ute, bt no yee speaking (ou Klang und nie Space). These Strucural correspondences can be verfiedwnong all the de- Serpcns of Klong n de Aesth, the Phenomenology of Spt he Philosphy of Nour et. columa and the house, sculpture and architecure. ‘So.n0 one can live there. Whether dead or alive. Ic is acther a house nor a burial place. Who contemplates sucha structure, who cando so, one wonders. And how can an altar, habitat, ora burial ‘monument, town planning [arbaniime] or a mausoleum, the fam- ily and the State, find their origins there. Lee me admit —a theow of the die) [cup de dé}—thac {have already chosen ehese ewo very compressed passages, this angle or todd channel in order to introduce, strictly, in/eo Hegel’ name. cols atcsin heeded sh fa Pre boy a sneer eg encpe Tang tre genase oe tier of balny or Se bree Femineats tothe cof pout rage dou ro yec cafe Mergesl te trol He pote ages rovigbagerndoeger tore yu Es vecem osal fk BeBe palin he pick ot texture” whee hcl op Eimear upYouve px secre os blr ory pron {Ges Eryn evry rer Nqet ou don need me toa Foca rel reas ly We (dedicat youu (crac hs era you td taco Mbp coved ree wor Ws ready he age at Sun tary wa ted othe 2 forcus pape rig be tend Sere are o Roper eps esanaes anes edge toinc owe The ah at author's rights: “that eee kat ae ‘that you sonic (4) comes (back) to Your mma rercundswsfinity yn he me,” the seing belongs “stones” that “say.” “famiary.” death upright, the bordel [le claque}, the tome. i rut [epes he pees ‘The stake of the we womb petra [act oe ma , OL Me ism pecs mc oh signature — does the Supe [etgnpoee the nae signature take place? = Compton anon te ewes trd sep [rch por For where? how? why? fran lst te and a exe for whom? — chat bereyouazestl ferenrnedty ths tex sca heed decomposes will be treated prac- Se'adure’ ofthe word ne ae tically, in passing: an clatter (él), gas, etc) in every sense. indie mele Yr ie tote non dre inary to the explana- tion of (for example ‘icerary") formality with all the muscled ‘rins.on your ow, and accuse Youre, 2 does be, a the one who writen in Your own tongow. Atlas “Pero judges who interrogate it from apparently extrinsic instances (question about the classified —biographi- cal, historical, economic, political, and so on—sub- Between the words, between the word it- self as it divides itself in two (noun and verb, cadence or erec- tion, hole and stone), (to) insinuate the deli- cate, barely visible stem, an almost im- perceptible cold lever, scalpel, or stylus, so as to enervate, then dilapidate, enormous discourses that always end, though more or less denying it, in attributing an wonted to eccuse myself in my own tongue.” You wil aso have to work the ‘word tongue like an organist 3 Einfibrerg, as Getman philosophers say, introduction into He ‘gel. Einftdrang demands the accusative and s indicates the active ‘movement of penetration. Not to stay here at or be content here with the skire of che Hegelian thicket. Not ro stop immediarly in all the dificaeies, inesinsic o excrnsc,intinsically extinsic— and supplementary—that the decision of such a stroke (cap) inscigates. There have been many introductions to Hegel forsale and generally available. And the problem of the introduction in/to Hegel’ philesophy is al! of Hegel philosophy: (he) alnady posed throughout, especially in his prefaces and forewords, introductions and preliminary concepts. So, already, one would be found en- eaned in che circle ofthe Hegelian beginning, sliding or endlessly axrip cher. I mark the decision aod interrupt che vecigo with 2 Gexive rule {rig this operation —che glas of Sa, las as Sa—is addressed to chase who have noc yet read, heard, or understood Hegel; chs pechaps is the mose general sicuaion, in any case mine hereand now. In order to work on/in Hegel's name, in order to erect it, the ‘ime of ceremony, Ihave chosen to draw on one ehread. Ics going 10 seem roo fine, odd, and fragile. Ic is the law of the family: of Hegel’ family, of the family in Hegel, of the concept family according to Hegel. In the major exposition of che Emyclipedia or the {Elonent of ‘te| Philaophy of Rig, ee “objecive spies developed in cree moments: abstace right (Rat), morality (Morlitit), and Sit lice —x cer eranslated in various ways (ethics, ethical lif, objective mocaiey, omne macs), but wont ry to teansateit in my curn. (One day, elsewhere, Il ell why [love this Getman word.) Now within Siticblit, che thied term and the moment of syn- thesis berween rights formal objectivity and monly’ abstract subjectivity, a syllogism in cua is developed, Ics firs cetm isthe family. ‘The second, civil or bourgeois society (birgeliche Galichafi) ‘The third, the State or the constitution of the State (Staaisver- fas). Even before analyzing these dialectical syllogisms and the ar- chiteceonics to which they give tise, we see the stake and che incerest of this familial moment. Ies interpretation directly en- ‘gages the whole Hegelian determination of right on one side, of politics on the other. Irs place in the systems structure and develop- 4 ject). As for general textuality, perhaps the seing represents the case, the place for (topically and tropi- cally) overlapping the intrinsic and the extrinsic. Inicialing che margin, che incessant operation: signing in che margin, exchanging the name against a revenue, paring down, trying to reduce the margin and letting oneself be rushed into the angles— daedalian frame. Case and scrap [recoupe]. What remains of a signature? First case: the signature belongs to the inside of that (picture, relievo, discourse, and so on) which it is presumed to sign. It is in the text, no longer signs, operates as an effect within the objecc, plays as a piece in what ic claims to appropriate or to lead back to its origin. The filiation is lost. The seing is defalcated. Second case: the signature holds itself, as is gener- ally believed, outside the text. The signature eman- cipaces as well che product that dispenses with the signature, with the name of the father or of the mother the product no longer needs to function. The filiation again gives itself up, is always betrayed by what remarks it. In this double case che secreted loss of the re- main(s) overlaps itself. There would be only excre- ment. If one wanted to press, the whole cext (for example, when it signs itself Genet) would gather itself in such a “vertical coffin" (Minuce of the Rose) as the erection of a seing. The text re(mains)—falls (co the tomb), the signature re(mains)—falls ‘ment, in the encyclopedia, the logic, and che Hegelian ontotheol- ‘gy, is such thar the displacements or the disimplicacions of which i will be the objece would noc know how to have a simply local characte. Befoce arcempting an active interpetaion, verily a critical displacement (supposing thac is rigorously posible), we mus yet patiendly decipher chis dificule and obscure text. However pre- Timinary, such a deciphering cannot be neutral, neuter, oF passive Ie violendy intervenes, at leat in.a minimal form: he choice ofthis, pice and this moment, the family, inthe Hegelian systematics ‘This choice is fa kom being innocent. Noc only does ie result from theoretical ltecior moxives(arritpensés], undoubcely also from tome unconscious motivations chat must be puc in play and to work wichoue any preliminary theorizing about i being posible The concepe family very rigorously inscribesiself in the sys- tem: within dhe Enccopedia andthe Philspby of Right, hose fnal forms that are subsequent to che great Lape. Must che analysis be limite to this final and systematic placement? ‘The analysis can be limited in two ways. One could be satisfied with making che most of hese last texts, one could consider chat wwe can read everything preceding a a development teleologically oriented, without rupture, without essential displacement, (0- wwatd this nal accomplishment ‘One can dream of a channel beeween these evo lms that asa smarcer of fact are only one. Bur there is no pure solution, no solucion in principle (de prncpe] to sacha problem. Whac always remains irresoluble, impracticable, connoemal, ‘or nonnormalizable is whac interests and by demu, fis and constrains us here. Without paralyzing us rare, iol tle Se buc while forcing us on che cause [dé tSecing erwperme Marche): zigzagging, oblique to boot, wah the borders jostled by the bank {rie] o be avoided, like a machine during a dificult maneuver We cannoe feign to begin with the chtonological beginning, pretty much with The Lif of Jou: there's no sense in privileging here the law of temporal or naracive unfolding that precisely has a0 internal and conceprual sense. This already has a resonance with Hegel teaching. And at che limit, even if we accepted proceeding in tac way, somewhere we would have co anccipate, even were it the end ofthe frst sentence of he Bs ext. (combs)—the text. The signature remain(s) resides and falls (co the tomb), the signature remain(s) house and comb. The text labors to give the signa- ture up as lost {en faire son deuil}. And reciprocally. Unending overlap [recoupe] of noun and verb, of che proper name and the common noun in the case of the cast-off {rebut}. The great stake of literary discourse—I do say discourse: the patient, crafty, quasi animal or vege- table, untiring, monumental, derisory too, but on the whole holding itself up co derision, transfor- mation of his proper name, rebws, into things, inco the name of things. The thing, here, would be the looking glass [glace], the ice [glace] in which the song sets, the heat of an appellation that bands itself erect [se bande} in the name. Genet has often feigned to define the “magnify- ing” operation of his writing by the act of nomina- tion. The allegation seems frequent enough chat we could suspect ie of a certain refrain-effect {effet de rengaine). ‘What is a refrain? Of what does the ace of “magnifying” nomination consist? OF giving the form of a common noun to a proper name? Or of the inverse? In both cases one (un)names, but is this, in both cases, to appropriate, expropriate, reappropriate? What? What is a thing? Whar is the name of a thing? ‘Genealogy cannor begin wich ee father. ‘Anticipation of precipitancy (he risk ofthe precipice and the fall (hue) isan ireducible structure of reading. And celeology does noc only or always have che appeasing character one Wants {0 sive it Tecan be questioned, denounced asa lure ofan effect, but its near cannoc be reduced. ‘With ee ls ean also be found the cif pi). Where one can ‘et foothold oF fal (co the tomb). In positing the teleological ncessicy in effet we are aleady io(co) Hegel. He did nothing buc powerfully unfold the conse- {quence ofthis proposition. So we can neither avoid nor accept as rule ot principle eleo- logical ancicipation, neither accepe nor avoid as rule of principle the empitco-chronological delay ofthe narrative, the rc. A bastard course. Is there a place for the bastard in ontotheology of in the He- {gelan family? Thatisa question tobe lef oo0e side, cobe hed on the margin ora leash when enering a true family ofthe family of tch, No doube the question isnot so exterior ro chat of he Klang; at least, without corresponding. with the Hegelian concepe of ‘exterorcy, its exterionty prestes another excerorcy coward the ‘question scence. ‘bastard pth, then, that will have o feign to follow narualy the circle of the family, in order to enter it, or parcel ie out [peragr 0 partake of (partager] i a5 one takes parti acommu- ‘ity, holy communion, the ast supper scene, or pat (aartage] it as cone does by dissociating. 1 shall say no more about procession or method. As Hegel ‘would say, they will speak of for) hemselves while masching begin with love. ‘This concept does not leave much room, despite appearances, for chitchar, of for declaration Ic is conseructed in the ehied part ofthe Philsophy of Right, the pare treating Sittichheit, after the frst ewo parts had treated respec- tively abscract right and mocaliey. Sitlchbes relieves [rlév}, in departing from, Monulitét. These cwo words are dfficule eo erans- late and even as words, if not as concepts, dificult co distinguish. “Hegel explains himself here on a certain arbiteasiness. And he does so by way of showing: (1) chat he adhered to distinguishing the signifier from the concept, (2) thac he did not entrust eo erymology 6 For the moment, lee’s drop {laissons tom ber} his personal case. When Genet gives ‘names, he both bap- tizes and denounces. He gives the most: che name is not, as it seems on the fist ap- proach, a thing en- countered in nature or acquired in com- merce. The name seems produced, one time only, by an act without a past. There iso purer present, no generosity more inau- gural, But a gift of nothing, of no thing, such a gife appropri- ates itself violently, harpoons, “arraigns” Larraisonne} what ic seems to engender, penetrates and para- lyzes with one stroke [coup] the recipient thusconsecrated. Mag- nified, the recipient becomes somewhat the thing of che one who names of sur- ‘names him, above all if this is done with a ame of a thing. has chaste “Armand was away ona trp. Although | heard that he was sometimes called by other names, we shall keep thisone. Am | nypetf noe up to my ffzenth or six- ‘teench name, including Jean Galen, my current one!” fe will be necessary t0 hallow out the arbitrariness of this ‘ame-—Gallen—if not of this sium [JG And what this random peeudonyrn formed something like che matricl frst ame of the text! ‘As for the sighim in Funeral Rites ic}. Jean D. “The excutcheon with capital D embroidered in iver had been for day, che family’s blazon.” "My contact ‘with the concrete wounds my sen- lity crully the black escutcheon adorned with the siver-embroidered “D' that saw on the hearse..." The ‘capital D, to which falls representing the family name, does not perforce re- vere to the father. In any case, it cone {erne the mother, and she isthe one to benefit from i tl, “the mother wat ‘ennobled by this escutcheon on which the capital D was embroidered in silver” As for the one who organizes the Funerol—ie, Iterary—Rees of JD. is one to say is the author, the narrator, the narratee, the reader, but (of what! He tat once the double ofthe dead (colossos), the one who remains alive after him, his son, but also his fa ther and his mother. "The sar of my friendship rose up larger and rounder Inco ny Sky. | was pregnant witha feel- ing that could, without my being sur prised, make me give birch {eccoucher] fo. strange bue vable and cercaly [2 ‘coup sr] beaueul being, Jean's beings father vouched for that” He has always ben afraid that someone would steal his death, and since this could not fail to happen to someone ‘who has only one of them, he has in ‘vance, occipied all the places where that (ga des Wel played? Who makes, ‘who says the dead better the righe co regulate a concept’ content. What a word propery smeans (0 say) cannot be know by refering back co some would- bepcimicviey orauchencc primordialcy. This did noc prevent him from playing with dictionaries ina productive and genetic, verily poetic, way. Thar che same word ot swo words of analogous roc can have two conceptually diferent, verily oppesite, significations proves that a word is never a concepe.. Which immediately disqualifies the etymological instance, atleast as philosophical, logical, concepeual recourse. Hegel says this a the end of che Ineroduction, when according to the proceeding of all his system atic expositions, he presents the schema of che incernal division, of self-difereaiation as self-deteemination and sel-production ofthe concept. When the Eilciune (introduction) becomes Einelang (division). Then he explains che passage from Moralitit to Sit lis ae cies co justify the almost abicrary choice ofthese ewo words. Because chis choice is arbitrary, the translations uceuate. “ Moralct and Sittichkeit, which pethaps usually pass current 38 syaonyms (die geusblich erua als glechbedend glen), axe caken, here inessentalydiferene senses ind bern wesetich verschiedenen Sinne genonnen). Yer even commonplace thinking (Vortellmg) seems co be distinguishing Kents creque of praca ptinophy or. SE aoe eth Wren them; Kane genecally pre- ‘Sores te panage Irom Morcitt fo se (rs cO use che word Marl Tekket Foc Hepes Kare cannot does not zat and, since the principles Tihtecct orate orreuomeese 0 2ti0n ia his philosophy Payed (thor wahou Hoge) nuns ate always limited co this ‘sot moment Saket Uae te am- concept, they make the ie So there would rot be ay Kenan vies Cecopetthetenipanyphirhciceg- tandpoine of Silichh Shy teacble md rysrasiy mapese completly impossible, in ‘concept that escapes the chitchat of an em- fact hey explicitly [aus i mevopaogy Tere no Rar formally} ull Diswsowetactereategstrnirwnn, itch, formally) nally Ge laser inplerlove, (ronoganoss) and spurn it. Bur even erage andiboweatthece—cu be Morlit and Sincbht eanctnble Kr Sve by pine a84meane the sme ching ithe wa otis reg risotto a (lihbdatend) by deriva raturd von come to be sdnowidged | tion (ibrr Etymelgic nach), tow Id ad emenig 10 4 wih your char wouldin no way hinder tir but prevouly I was the sede ‘ing now fam eaten them, once they hed be- come different woeds, fom being used for diferent concepes.” Is the question of vocabulary heze marginal? Hegel as noe skirted the problem of philosophical language, of philosophy’ tongue. Is ita naurat language (tongue) or a for mal one? Here the important ching is that Hegel has not separated this “question from a family question. ‘The thing: magnificent and classed, at once raised above all caxonomy, all nomenclature, and already identifiable in an order. To give a name is always, like any birth (certificate), to sublimate a singularity and to inform against it, co hand it over to the po- lice. All the police forces in the world can be routed bya surname, but even before they know ic, a secret computer, at the moment of baptism, will have kepe them up to date. To “arraiga’ is co ask for identity papers, for an origin and a destination. Ic is to claim eo recognize a pfoper name. How do you name without arraign- ing? Is that possible? When Genet gives his characters proper names, kinds of singularities chat are capitalized common nouns, what is he doing? What does he give us to read beneath the visible cicatrix of a decapicalization that is forever threatening to open up again? If he calls Mimosa, Querelle, Divine, Green-Eyes, Culafroy, Our-Lady-of-the-Flowers, Divers, Sibyl affect of arbitrariness in the immaculate choice, inthe conception of syllables that rare and open glory. ‘The convention dethrones and crowns {couronne) at ‘once. The ablation ofthe rst name, the sursame alone doing the job, accumulates the powers ofthe overap, remarks and abolishes, tothe point of infty, oneness In the common, seaters i inthe ramelessness ofthe variable and dversifable, rom the moment the angular indivdual—a prisoner under common law—is named Divers A nomination more solemn, more inaugural and ako more instiutve, when the thesis of the name ‘erects the attribute, the adjective, the epithet, what is ‘ot yet even the name of the thing but the supervening ‘accident char unnecessarily adds ef to che substance 1 begin by accumulating the results of his analysis: che family speaks and doesnot speak; iis Family staring from che moment ic speaks-—pacsing from Kiang, if one likes, to Sprache, from reso- nance to language Uangue]—bue ie destroys itself a family che ‘moment ie speaks and abandons Klang. Like natural language, like language in general, i ceases to be what i isthe moment it posits itself a8 such; 1 denies itself as nacure in becoming what it is tatu, just ike (che nature isl (of the erains) afterall “The Jena cents describe the development of ee family within the Volbsgeist, the spiicof people. The family is essen- tally spiritual. And lan- guage too: “Only as the product or work (Werk) of people is speech the ideal Lidale) exit ofthe spirit.” So spiritual language is natural as well. Belonging othe people, the family then is always. speaking; there is no biological fam- iy. Buc the language it speaks isnot, at lease 50 it seems, formal or arbitary. Nevertheless, by reason of the seruceare of language's incernal development, what is elaborated here destroys itself in thar very elaborae Sion or athe submits itself to the process [pr] ofthe Aufberg, elieves. ese In posting itself as a system of natural signs, a existing io exteri- ore, language sss itself tothe concep (dea interior significa tion) and from then on denies islf asa system of nacural signs The thing (he referent) is elieved (rele, au/eeodve) in he sigo: nised, elevated, spisitualized, magnified, embalmed, inte- riorzed, idealized, narmed since the name accomplishes the sign In the siga, che (exterioe signifier is relieved by signification, by the (ideal Lil) signified sense, Badetung, the concepe. The con- cept relieves the sign cat relieves che thing. The signified relieves the signifier cae relives the referent. "In this way, then, speech is reconstructed (ensue) ina people, in chat although iti che ideal Cidade} nullification (Varnchen) ofthe exeral, ic is itself something outward (cin Ausseres) that must be nullified (seriht), relieved (aufehiler werden, in order to become meaningful lan- ‘guage (um ar bdeenden Space 2 werden), cowacd what i isin there tno family without Get. no Geit weno fami Cele eset spr 3¢ once ‘he posi of repetion (ration. hs tory) and of breath [sufi] holding Hee tack in the sonorous bration (mpeation, ‘expatin). Gest i abo consonant wiet ‘death according to Hegel spiritual fe with acura death fa order to heat co under Sand somethag according to the spre, ‘imal some expiration, Some. expiring repeution Lethe noc preven wing te sme words for eierere concepts, and order to be- ‘ray langage. homonyns and fsa ety Imolgies for analogous concepts “Tru word are unchnned. They drive the Aitionary wid Language [ange] tas noe ‘ahen pce fas no pac, Fas no sre place. Dacourae isthe ger of same, but a 8 |pidebook oF a former—comes to be: ay neowore Todo funds over, delvers (Gore, ere) the sere, but inorder to lowe che iateaton in the repeccon, The (Gc supper) scene of nguage mist sways bermade to depend on one ee mary [faut {tjours alert achne deo ange su an de ‘pl The oppostion (angage/ discourse) denounces sl and the others 8 and can always detach itself fcom the substance, in Corder to fall (o the tomb). Whats the epichet? What is ie seat other words, how is status conferred on ie! ‘And whae if loversly, all status were (rom the epi- ‘hese! “The fat that is name was Diver conferred on himan earthly and nocturnal dream quality sufficient to enchant me. For one isn't caled Georges Divers. or Jules or Joseph Divers, and that nomial singleness set im on. throne, af glory had recognized him when he ‘was stl in the children's hell The rame was almost a ‘Aickrame, royal bref, haughty convention. And soe _alloped in and took possesion ofthe world, hats, of ‘me. And he dwelt within me. Henceforth lenjoyed him a: i were pregnant with him” (Miracle of the Rose, “Nominal singleness”stifer, tightens the name. in one Single piece, coward the point or the infiite. This sSingleness reduces the clssiying gap [écat] between the name and che frst name. One's own proper, ub- lime, glorious body is gathered into an organess vo- ‘able. And is signed in 2 monogram. “The black ‘escutcheon adorned with the siver-embroidered 'D,"* the “vy monograms” ofthe Funeral Rites form the ideal ‘of che seing. Querelle de Brest “took his rife and cuta hiy stylized design of his inital inco the hurd bark ‘of an acacia... Querelle kept a double watch on him sal. thought offered up tothe Holy Virgin. Around bis own altar, Querele embroidered a protective vel, ‘with bis own monogram on i, equivalent to the gold: ‘thread on blue aks cloths the celebrated.” and so on, does he violently uproot a social identity, a right 0 absolute proprictorship? Is that the most effective political operation, the most significant revolution ary practice? Or else, but this is che refrain of con- traties ceaselessly overlapping, does he baptize them with the pomp and che sacredness—glory ‘the word glory he uses proportional, almost as often 2 the translator of the Gospel, of whom he iin sum ‘the most destructive parodying double. | see him work (over) the Gospels and all the mythological texts, of ‘which he a connoisseur and which he inhabits parve- Ukaly by name, tke 2 miner who is not sure of geting ‘out from the depths ofthe earth ale, and who, in he {aley, essays explosions, biastings. Gallery, however, rust be deciphered the galery speaks, writes. Onis legendary walls Writes to him says much co him, ‘Why (wha was he going todo there!) ise x0 fond of. _sleret! Notonly those tat keep you. orient you, and (inselfaccording its concepe (ex dem, was seam sch, rem Berrie nach ist); thus language i in che people, a toral other (alm fatal Anders) than itself, and becomes totality when i is relieved (aafgchoben) 2 other, and comes to fruition i ies concep.” ‘Language accomplishes itself, chus becomes signifying only by relieving within itself the (sensible, exterion signifier, traversing it and denying it with a view to che concepe. With a view also t0 its very own proper concepr of language. Language becomes language only by delering/conserving itself in the concept. Tradito is “Axfebung. Language reoins its own proper concept only by going tothe end of what induces it, by going tothe end of ts own proper ineernal negativity, according to a schema of che essence as nega- tivity that veifies itself and unceasingly elaborates ise. This becoming (naditia) of language, or rather ofthe linguistic, _procluces itself then in che heart Lie] ofa people, ofa people's spitie that would not be posited without this becoming. Linguistic nega- tivity is nor reduced eicher co the rooting oF the uprooting of a language with regard co the ground of the historical communi. Uprooting, denaturalization, explantation ofa language achieves the rooting essence of language. Language belongs oa people as finite cocaliry: thus it is "natural language,” a finite, particular, dlecerminate language. But ic ceases to be such as sooa as it posits itself as such; ic achieves its esence as “natural” language only by recovering from chis [er dawnt), by relieving the nacural limits of its system, by delimiting, de-bordering, overflowing, itself toward the concept’ universality. Language then is immediately ‘universal language thar destroys within itself natural language “The dialectic of language, of the tongue [angel is dialec- cophagy ‘Wichouc this overflow of language, of the congue chat swallows itself and eats itself, cat is silen, tongue-tied, or dies, that also vomits a natural remain(s)— its own—ie can neither assimilate nor ‘make equal ro the universal power of the concept, language would not be language— a living language hears, understands itself. Language would aot be what iti in (ede, ways finds it wichin itself, and exists in itself and (close) by itself (dei sich). Matter has its Substance ouside if pi, cn the other hand, is being close byrisel (das Beil) which sche same thing a edo. For if am dependent, 1am beholden to something other than myself, and cannot exist without this exteral other thing. Lam free if I am (close) by myself (bei mir selbst bim)."” ‘Thus: spies. Alone, Its contrary, maccer, is only inasmuch as i is noc what ic is, inasmuch a5, in order co be what i is (falling ‘weight and the tendency of dispersion to unity), ie becomes what isnot: spirit Sprit is. Alone. Being is being (close)by self. Weight and dispersion, che essence of matter, could noe qualify an esence, “Marre has no essence its esence isis contrary, its essence is not having an essence. Dispersion, like weight (nonunity and_aon- ‘deaicy), has no essence. Thus isnot. Being is idea ‘Thus cobe, macter will-already-have-become spitit. Aad since matter will have been nothing before becoming spirit, spirit will always have preceded or accompanied itself up to the processions Nor that the mere nothing is. Perhaps we can say shereis [il ya} the mere nothing, (chat bands erect). No sooner than shere is [il n'y a], there bands erect (an impersonal complement) in a past that was never present (the signature — already {fia} — denied Inia] it always): i banded erect {il banda] (an imper- sonal to band (erect) bande aways to dose up [sere 22 ted (banded erect) o tigen, with 3 bard 4 irdle [goine), a cord, in a bond [len] (lana, ivy (irre), ‘or la). "Bond ns -.€. Wallon Baie: Nauran, bamde: ouch, bane: par, bene: Proven, and Te bende Spanish, vende frm the ald high Germ binds tod. Germ Binden, to bin Susie bond, £0 bind Compare the Gaelic ban, a band, bond." Higher “They nursed thei chidren without swadaing them tether bindag them up in band nor swadding Clothe’ Amot” Litre, whoxe whole article Fat to be fead, order a leat puto rele chereyrelere) that bands, printing tera, are "pieces f tron at- tached tothe ewo tongues nthe mide ofthe pest ‘rade, on which the trai rolls” Double contra sen, 3 leas of the word banded (erect). What i caled ‘bandaging [ponser] complement) is equal to it bound {il lia}. Lock [Serrure} A certain mere nothing, a certain void, then, ereces, ‘The bells [coches] were unleashed a moment ago [il yawn instant). Now reconstitute the chain chat sets all the glas machines in motion (you will fit all its pieces together later on), its annuli, its links: the erection (of the ccuttable-culpable flower), che liana’ undulation (or the ivy’s: here, the lashes), the rhetorical reading of lilies and of the bed (here, the coffin lying on the virgin mother {mére}), the unsheathed bell chat strikes a seing—and it all flows out like milky sperm, 23 fend. Matter precedes or re- £9 Gest anon repeat repeats own ee ee yas ‘pircing (away) (soe. halingehaing ly ‘eet EMvaom or sublmat,the repeton spit: in raising or erecting, of aprng (away) maintains tse above whar falls (co che tomb). sci. the pice of man (vr). The pure ctiy of the sprite spe produces swt (the tomb) owe mater Sich TRpsttonuvocs eiinereciomtan What isthe relation be- Siocon Getmeen af andacriptne ween this being-close)- Sere canbe wicca prevem he by lf another ay of y- tom repeat ‘an be iy being) and the family? SLUTS ater oh in and emily the pombe oon ad asrsecton one says hae limited, bat how coud Cent be prevented spitic is—alone—thac it tran reper Tu eperaton wich on wrowdeeekocwhowteceatewheder cg fat i own proper essence, ind ar el sporaness or cc-_it6 OWN proper center, and der & spits ht regen supreme its own proper unity in i- key eet vera conra sel, chat it not a timple eb peraionery wothng nd yt rrater mittee (tthe rwatsunnenr aNd taucological_afirma- SSeterul pac) bh fermen ne at cion. This. proposition is tn decomposts marr net yet. a> speculative in che Hegelian rear aespreprownd tbat re nee ofthe words it sates Sel mat fem Bec oft rt OO icra ideniey of ‘dentcy and_nonidentiy. Spires being close by-slf actively produces itself cheough an unlimited negatviey. Spirie becomes fr-itself, (close) by itself, only in actively denying all chat limits its freedom from the ouc side, ts essence is ative, dynamic, negative: “When the sprit stcives (srt) cowards is own center, i strives © perfect (vr- tullkermen) its own freedom; and this stivingisfundamencalroies nature. To say tac sprit exists would at ist seen co imply chats isa completed enti (eas Fertga). On the contrary, itis by nature active (Taig), and activity (Cagis iesescace; is Se CTE OS ice own produce (Pret), ‘Simon othe or who producer or and i therefore its own be- treshenel by debinghinsell sion la ginning and its own end. iy er my ton aod mal fy name Te freedom doesnot consist 2 my tar, Bac the Pong producing owleg haat seuntes ine te puns in static. being (rubede Sineyin ara dvi psy, n+ Sein), ut in a. constant (sc at cbcurlybesce/iouces th nepation ofall that that {Sher pera ed begs torn the

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi