Louis Hay, Le Texte Nexiste Pas

7/27/2019 Louis Hay, Le Texte Nexiste Pas

1/14

Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia

Does "Text" Exist?Author(s): Louis HayReviewed work(s):Source: Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 41 (1988), pp. 64-76Published by: Bibliographical Society of the University of VirginiaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40371877 .

Accessed: 08/01/2013 12:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Studies in Bibliography.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:47:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsuvhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40371877?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40371877?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsuv


2/14

Does "Text" Exist?by

LOUIS HAY*

44"1^ ~T"o it doesn't" on thisnote, acquespetit oncluded he1^^^ I first ebatedealingwith heproductionfthetext ndI ^^1 with iterary anuscripts,enyearsgo.1 ooking ack,X ^| what trikess about his omments not o much tspro-vocativenessorratheresignation?)ssimplytsdate.From his ointonwards,hetext tartedeneratingewquestions. t the ame imeappeared textualpproach,alledtoday eneticriticism"critiquegnetique"),ndit is interestingotake closer ook at therapportbetweenhese wo vents. ut nordero peak fboth enesisndtext,weneedfirstf ll toredefinehese erms,rratherounderstandheiroriginalmeaning. nd owe must obackmuch urtherhan enyears.Historically,henotion ftexthasundergoneratheremarkabledevelopment,eginning ith longperiod f tabilityhichwasfol-lowedrecentlyya brief eriod fmultiplemutations.he formerperiod akes s backto themonastic iddleAges,whenbythe13thcenturynallEuropeananguagesheword extus, eaningabric,e-came extwith hepresentcceptedmeaningor hat erm. tthebe-ginningfthemodernge, tsmeaning ad remainednchanged.nthe1786 ditionf heFrench cademyictionary,t s defineds: "anauthor'swnwords,sopposedonotes,ommentariesrglosses""lespropres aroles 'un auteur, onsidereesar rapportux notes, uxcommentaires,uxgloses"),nd thefollowingxamplesgiven: Thetext fHolyScripture.t is thepure, ormalext. o restore text."("Le texte el'Ecritureainte. 'est e text ur tformel.estituerntexte.")2wo contrastingotions rethus harplyistinguished:hetext"the uthor'swnwords")sopposedothe loss"notes,ommen-taries"). achofthese otions aspreciselyefined unctions.he text

* This essaywas a contribution ora Symposium n textual criticism nd editingthattook place from20th to 23rd April 1985 in Charlottesville,Va. A version in French hasappeared as "Le texte n'existepas. Reflexions ur la critique ge"ne*tique."oetique 62 (1985),147-158.The translation s byMatthewJocelyn, evisedbyHans WalterGabler.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/14

DOES "TEXT" EXIST? 65is"pure ndformal"-tsveryormuaranteeshepurenessf tsmean-ing, nd the onditionsf ocial ransmissionnsurets piritualegiti-macy.At the same ime hefunctionsfgloss re defined: hilologyguards ver he iteral ccuracy,thasto "restorehetext"; hecom-mentarys incharge fmeaning.he referenceoHolyScripturee-minds sthatwhat s impliednsuch n arrangementsa distinctionbetweenhe acredndtheprofane.he criticaldition,ven ecular-ised,hasalwaysemainedaithfulo tsoriginalalling-to his ay tclaimsocarryheword f ighteousness,ndtoreinforcehe egitimacyof ext.Thedefinitionsere ll themore irmlyooted, iven hat or en-turies hey ormedheaccepted raditionn all European ultures.The German delung ictionarychoestscontemporary,heFrenchAcademyictionary:The words f an author s distinctromheirinterpretation. . .) in thisway hepassagesf theBibleunderlyingthe ermonremost pecificallyonsideredexts"."Die Worte inesSchriftstellers,umUnterschiedeu derAuslegungerselben. . .) inwelchem erstandeesondersie biblischentelleniberwelche e-predigt ird, exteheissen.").3harles ichardson'sictionaryn GreatBritain,hough f aterdate,maintainshedefinitionithout ote-worthyhange: A compositionn writing,pposed o the notes rannotations."nexamplesgiven rom haucer: inplain ext,with-outennedeofglose",ndthe uthorspecify:Text stechnicallyp-pliedtoanypassageuotedfromhetext fScripture,s a subject fdiscourser ermon."4hiscanonicalnderstandingersistsnchangedthroughoutlongperiod f cultural evolution. ore han centuryafterheFrench cademyictionary,ierre arousse ses virtuallyunchangedefinition,espite hegenerallyistinctiveerspectivefhisdictionary:Anauthor'swnwritings opposed o thecommen-taries. . .) The text fHolyScripture. . .) To restorehetext."("Propresaroles 'un uteur ar ppositionuxcommentaires. . .) Letexte e 'Ecritureainte. .)Restituerntexte.")5sthe nly igns fthe imes,s twere,tcites the ext fPlato" longsideheBible, ndmentionstranslations"ncontrastothe ext. t roundhe ame ime,themonumentalrimmrother's orterbuchiveshe efinition:theoriginal,undamental,ur'-text,sopposed o the ranslation. . .) thesubstantiveords fa pieceofwritings opposed ocommentariesrinterpretations:n the trictense erse eferenceBiblical ext) romsermonr peech.""derOriginal-Grund-UrtextmGegensatzurOber-setzung. )dieHauptworteiner chriftmGegensatzu denErlauter-ungen ndAnmerkungen,mengereninnederGrundspruchBibel-text) iner redigtderRede.")6And eapingheadonemore entury



4/14

66 STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHYtothe resentay,he ame trictramef eferenceemainednchangedupuntil decade go. An uthor'swnwords, law as opposedo thecommentaries)""Propresermesu'on itdansunauteur,ne oi paroppositionuxcommentaires)")-hus hedefinitionnthe1964 ditionof heGrand arousse.7 nd n1973,n theBrockhaus:thewordsfpieceofwritingra lecture; iblicalpassage nderlyingsermon."("Wortlautines chriftwerkes,inesVortrags;iederPredigtugrundegelegte ibelstelle.")8To thebest fmy nowledge,he irstictionaryomark changesLe Robert, heresearlys1966 literaryork""oeuvreitteraire")sincludedn thedefinition,nd "a well-writtenext""texte ien crit")is used s anexample.9uchuses recarefullydentifiedsneologisms,however. goodndicationf he apid ubsequentevelopmentanbeseenbycomparinghetimidityf this ntry ithJuliaKristeva'sm-perioustatementarelyixyearsater: Wecanno ongerpeak f it-erature*ngeneral,ut f he ext."10owever he ntrynLe Robertsinterestingecausef ts ate:1966 lso aw he ppearancef tructuralSemanticsSemantiquetructurale)yA. L. Greimas, eorge oulet'sThree ssaysTrois ssais)ndGerard enette'sigures. It isremark-able, too, ince hisnewdictionaryas thework fa team fyounglinguistsndsemioticians,ndthe nfluencefthe heorieshey epre-sentedwasto be themotor fimpending evelopments.s RolandBarthesater emarked:It wasat theheightf structuralinguistics(around 960)thatnewresearchers,hemselvesften heproductfalinguisticraining,egan o formulatecriticalpproachothe ignand a newtheoryfthe ext."11tthe ame ime,hedirectionfre-search as ovary romountryocountry,hus ausinghe ense fthetermofragment.twasnolonger ossibleodiscussthe ext"naninternationalorum ithoutirststablishingne'sowndefinitionfthe erm.In Germany,ndto a lesser xtentn the United tates, novelassessmentrose round ditorialnterprises.ttentionhiftedromhegloss othetextwhen ditors aced heproblemsftextual enesisymeansf he pparatusfvariants.twasfromhisngle hat riticsikeBedaAllemanndespeciallyeter zondinGermany,rVinton ear-ing n theUnited tates ndPhilipGaskell n GreatBritain,urnedtheir nteresto theproblemsftext roduction.utatthe ime herewasnoexchange ith therheoreticalpproaches-eitherheAnglo-Americannew riticism"or heGermanTextlinguistik".nFrance,mattersook somewhatifferenturn,ince new urrentf riticismdevelopedasedargelyn inguistic odels. sBarthesut t: "Awideliteraryield asgone ver o inguisticsnder heheadingfpoeticsa



5/14

DOES "TEXT" EXIST? 67displacementhich alery adrecognisedsnecessary)."12n this riti-cal approach,hetext tselfs thefocus fattention,ituated etween"the uthor'swnwords" nd theeyes fthereader, utconsideredabove ll asanautonomousbject. he aimofthe riticsto buildupthetext s a scientificbject oanalysewithprecisiontsconstitutivesystemf orms,ignificationsndfunctions.espitets elativelyimitedlifespanessentiallyromhe atefiftiesothe arlyeventies),his nno-vative riticalmovement as to have ong-feltonsequences.nd al-though,nthe evel fdiscourse,ystemsftextualyntaxrsemanticscouldnotbe establishedn the nalogyfmodels evelopedyformallinguistics,certainumber f oncepts,uch ssign,tructurerfunc-tion, ecamencreasinglyrticulaten theoreticalorkshatbroughtabout n rreversibleenewaln iteraryriticism.Yet omehowhiswidespread ovementemainedloselyied o tsfirstrigins,lmostsby n umbilical ord. he new riticalheorytillassumedhe lassical otion f ext,he pure, ormalext",ncommen-surablendopposedoanythingot tself,lbeit his ppositionasnolonger ounded na religiousraditionuton an epistemologicalx-igency:he losuref he ext. s MichelArriv6emarkedin1978,ndthuswith certainistance):Instructuralism,he ext sconsideredsa finishedroduct. . .) categoricallyistinctrom hepre-textndthepost-texthich emain eripheralthoughhey re both obe foundwithinheworkwhichhus eems o nclude he ext,hepre-textndthepost-text)."e alsopointedutamongsthenumerousmbiguitiesof uch postulatehe intricateuestionf he elationsetweenuchtermssdiscourse,ext ndnarrative".13ntoday'sightt seasy o dis-cover he ndicationf fundamentalroblem ithinhis erminologi-cal ambiguity:hat stosay he pplicationf a newtheoryo an oldobject.OnceagainRolandBarthes asfirstorecogniseheneedforsecond heoreticaltep esignedo reatenew bject.nthe arlyeven-ties, hiswas hegoalof he heoryf he ext, hichakesnto ccountthe ocial imensionymeans fhistorical aterialism,ndtheperson-ality, ymeans fpsychoanalysis.he interchangeetweenhese wofieldsreates vast heoreticaletworkhose atternannot e exam-ined nthispaper.One result owever asthe mergencef thedou-blenotion fpheno-text/geno-text,orrowedromovietinguistsyFrenchemioticians.n 1972JuliaKristeva asthefirstopresenthepheno-texts "a finishedroduct:n utterance ith meaning". ssuch t s the mpirical anifestationfthegeno-text,an nfiniteyn-tacticnd/oremanticeneration. . .)which annot ereduced othegeneratedtructure."14n this onstruction,hedeepest ealityfthetext ies n itsproductivity,the imitlessossible perations",ot n



6/14

68 STUDIESIN BIBLIOGRAPHYtheproduct tself.With Barthes'neat comment The Work s in yourhand,the text n the anguage", he terms s originallyanonizedwerecompletelynverted. he boundaries isappeared, otonlybetween re-text, extand post-text,ut also betweenwriting nd criticism. othbecame ubject o nfiniteignifications.ue perhaps o this ircularity,thetheoryfthe textprovoked newproblematicather hanconcreteapplications,ince t no longer ssigned specific unctionocriticism.#This situations n sharp ontrast ith second ritical pproachwhichalso tookform t thebeginning ftheseventies,nown s genetic riti-cism.This secondcurrent s contemporaryiththetheory fthetext,and alike dealswith therelationship etween he text nd itsgenesis,and withthemechanics f textproduction,heactivityfthewritingsubject.Butthere,ll resemblance nds.Boththemethod nd theobjectof tudy fgenetic riticismrequitedistinct.tsmethods theresult fextensivempiricalwork edicated oauthors'manuscripts.t appearedprogressivelyhat hesedocuments,nder ertain onditions,llowedtoreconstructhegenesis fwriting. enetic riticismetains rom tsori-gins n inductivepproach,which uildsupgeneralmodels rom seriesof concrete bservations. s for tsobject, thasa dual status: t isbotha material iven, s a document f tudy,ndan intellectualonstruction,asa pre-text.rom hegraphic atternfwritingmmobilised ythepenand scattered ver thepage it is possibleto reconstructheprocess fcreation nd thought hrough fully onceived equenceof analyticoperations: eciphering,stablishinghe hronology,eizing hewritinginitsmoves.15n thisway, enetic riticism astoconsider irsthemanu-script,hen hewriting,efore inallyetting ack to the text n a newlevel.The principalmerit fmanuscriptss that hey emonstratehe imi-tations nd possibilitiesfgenetic riticism.romtheoutset here reimportantmaterial imitations:t is impossible o study nonexistentmanuscript.n thisregard,Monsieurde la Palice remindsus of thefragile rocess f texttransmission hichtodaywe tend to overlook.Our notion fEuropean iterature ouldbe radically ifferentoweverwere t not for the fortuitousurvival f suchunique manuscriptssPascal'sThoughtsPensees)or theUrfaust yGoethe,Lucien Leuwenor Kafka'sgreatnovels.Likewise,how different ould itbe had we in-herited hegreatworkswhichhavedisappeared,whoseghost-liste canbarely stablish? oupled withthecapricesofhistoryre the impon-derables fthehumanmind.Eventhemostdetailed ndwell-conserveddocumentationeveals ut fraction fthe omplicatedmental rocesses



7/14

DOES"TEXT"EXIST? 69towhicht bearswitness.he inkonthepage snot hewritingtself.One need nlymeet contemporaryriter, ith videncenhand romhismanuscriptshat nehashad chanceo tudy,obeeffectivelyuredof ny resumptionsnemay avehadtothe ontrary.Butmanuscriptslsogive newpowero iteraryritics.heymakeitpossibleoexamine ow he enworksn ts rrefutableaterialres-ence. nthisway heymanifestlevel frealityo which ospeculativeinterpretationanpenetratendpossessmaterialichnesshat o effortofanalysisanhopeto exhaust. his becomesvenclearerwhenwerealise hatmanuscriptsytheiringularropertiesorce s tochangeourhabitsf hought.heyforce sto takento ccountheunpredict-able, ince urknowledgehanges veryime n importantocumentis discoveredra newtechnologyives ccess opreviouslynknowninformation.ikewise emust ome ogripswith heir eterogeneity,since heyrediverseynature:ometimesheyrethe estimonyf heoriginaltimulation,ometimesherecordf theremotememoryikenotes, otebooksrdiaries;ometimeshey ocumentarly perationslikeprojects,orkplansr cenarios,ometimesheyre he nstrumentsofrevisionuch ssketches,arly ersionsnd most ften ough rafts.Theirpolymorphtructuresyetnotherhallenge,smanuscriptsavenorespector he onventionf inearity,verflowinghepage ntomul-tiple paces. he waysn which hetext s laidouton thepage,withmarginalotations,dditions,ross-references,eletions,lterations,ndifferentandwritingtyles,ndwith rawingsnd ymbols,exturehediscourse,ncreasehe ignificationsndmultiplyhepossibleeadings.In extremeases, singlewordsolated y hewritingJean evaillantcalled hemkeystones"nreferenceo themanuscriptsfPaulValery:to ook, hine,ncest)16anattracthemeaningf n entire age.Orinthenotebooksor innegansWake, or xample, singleconicmarkmay eterminehetheme,he haracter,rthemythicalntity hichwillgovernhefunctionf certainet fwords.17t iseasy oseehowthoroughlyur nalyticabits re shaken ytheveryontact ith hematerialfgeneticriticism.This s evenmore he asewhenwepassfrom heoriginalmaterialtoan intellectualonstruction.he constitutionfthepre-textromhandwritinghichs both olidifiedndpolymorphousmplies newtypef eading hichmustake nto onsiderationhe otalityf eman-tic nd semioticignificationsobe foundn a pageofwriting.n thisway truly ialecticelationships establishedetweenhedocumentand thepre-text:achtranscriptionfthemanuscriptsshaped ythevision nehasof t,but tthe ame ime his ision asto bemodifiedby he ealityf he bject o beturnednto nadequate epresentation



8/14

7O STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHYof t.Thisrelationshipndthis olarityreevidentnthediversityfthemethodssed o make extual enesiseadable.HenriBonnetndBernard run, n dealingwithProust'smanuscripts,ry oclearthegroundor continuouseading,hus fferingspectrumfpre-textsncontiguity.18n the ther and, ietrich attlerttemptsoreconstructthe epthffieldfgenesisnHolderlin's anuscripts,ndpresentshewitnessesothe tagesfrevisionntheirhronologicalequence.19orJoycerKafka, ans WalterGabler rGerhard eumann oth ryoembracehese wo spectsimultaneously,huspublishinghegenesisinitsprocessndthefinaltate fthe ext ideby ideoralternately.20Each ofthesehoicesestifiesothediversityfmanuscriptsswell sto that fthe heoreticalptionsfthe ditor. uttheyll mark heirdistanceromhe raditionalpparatusfvariants,bandoninghe iew-point fpure ruditionor heproblematicf hepre-text.Thisproblematicsobviously ulti-faceted.ndefininghepre-textas a constructedbject, ne must ccept heexistencefa varietyfpossibleonstructions-fact rue oth orwritingheoriesnd for di-torial ractices.nexaminationfthe cope fsuch heoreticalossi-bilities ouldnecessitategeneralverviewfgenetictudies, hichsnot he bject f his aper.Rather,norder oclarifyhe tatusfthetext,lone nquestion ere,we will atisfyurselves ith look tthetwoprimenalyticmodelswhich eal with he wo spectsfwriting,productionndproduct.Textproductionringsorthwonew ypesf pproach.he firstsstrictlynalytic,ttemptingo dentifynddescribehe ombinationftransfers,ubstitutions,xtensionsndreductions anifestn manu-scripts,norder o pprehendhewhole amutfgeneticperationsndput hemnto system:rogrammation,extualisation,ransformation.The secondpproachs inductive.ts aim stotrace ack hese pera-tions othe ynamicorces hichctuate hem:ffectivempulses,epre-sentationsf magination,inguisticrrhythmicalues. . . The studyof he roductasmoreubstantialupport.ach nturn, ew riticism,werkimmanententerpretationndFrenchtructuralismaveofferedmodelsorxamininghe orms,ignificationsnd ffectsf he ext. henewproblem,he mplicationsfwhich emainnknown,oncernsherelationshipetweenhegeneticpproachndthe extualpproach,problemwhichwe willdealwith s modestlys possible, eginningwith returnoterminology.

In 1974Jean ellemin-Noelreated he mmediatelyuccessfulerm"avant-texte",r pre-text",oencompasshe reat arietyfdocumentswhich ntil henhadhadnospecificomenclature.21eing nfull c-



9/14

DOES "TEXT" EXIST? 71cordance ith he reativeingularityf heFrenchanguage,his ermgavebirth, ysymmetry,o a number fsubsequenterms,ncludingthe till urvivingapres-texte",r"post-text".utby reatinghepair"text" nd"pre-text",he ldbinaryppositionetween ext nd non-textwas ekindled,nda theoreticalroblemrticulated.ryingode-finehis roblem,ean ellemin-Noelommentedn hisEssaysnGen-erative riticismEssais ecritique enetique1979)):"The differencebetweenheText finished,n other ords: ublished)ndthepretextis that heformerfferstself s an entitypellboundn itsdestiny,whereasheatter oldsndrevealsts wnhistory."22t s clear hat hisdefinition,oth ense nd ubtle,avoursbjectiveefinitions:he extis consideredchievedwhenpublished,nd itsown determination-meaningothntegritynddurability-sthe esultf hisocial estiny.Other actorsan alsobedistinguishednthebackground:he uthor'sintention hich ecomesmanifestn the actofpublication,nd theinternaloherencef hework,ts unity".Wemightimplyddthe ctofreading hichach ime ringshe ext o existence-nd nsodoingwerediscoverhe riteriaccordingowhichhe extsnormallyefined:the uthor,hework,hereader,he ociety.achofthese lementssthe bject fmuch ebate, hich shallnot ttemptoreproduceere.Butthedifficultyf scribing general unctionoany ftheman beunderstoody briefook tcertainangesf vidence.Invokinghe ocial spect f he extmeans lacingtwithinnhis-toricalontext,hichtthe ame ime ringsnto uestionhefluctua-tion fcultural ormsndthevariationsfourown riteria.Wenowaccept stextsmanyworks hichn the19th enturyr even t thebe-ginningf his enturyouldhavebeenregardeds mere ilessuch sthework fArno chmidt),ough raftsthewritingfFrancis onge,forxample),r ollagesf uotationssuchsthe arly orkfPhilippeSollers)- ottomentionhearchetypefFinnegansWakewhichwascalled "cross-worduzzle anatic's ible"by ts ontemporarieseforebecomingprototypeor resent-dayriting.nd t s clear hat lookatperiodstherhan urownwould ive imilaresults.Next o considerhefunctionfreadings evenmore elling,inceit doesnot xclusivelyestn the ccidentsfhistory.y tsvery ature,the ctofreadingonvertstsobject nto text.t iswell-knownowMallarm6onceivedfreadingn absoluteerms,onsideringny isualfocal ointstextncludinghe ountrysidenemightee n iftingne'seyes romne'sbook.Butremainingithinhewrittenorld, eeasilymarkhatt s the ctofreading hichllows stogofrom hemanu-scriptothepre-text,ndwhichometimeseakenshedistinctione-



10/14

72 STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHYtweenmanuscriptndtext. uch sespecially hecase whenroughdraftsarepresentedor eading- practicewhich,with herecent ublicationof iterarymanuscriptsn editions, owconcerns hegeneralpublic.In turn, he ontingenciesfhistorynd ofreading all intoquestionthestructuraloherence fthe text.This is an objective riterionn sofar s it is based on the aws whichgovern he anguage.Yet these aws,andevenproper rammar,re farbetter espectedntherough ketchesofFlaubert ndProust han n the final exts f Celine orJoyce. uchaconsiderationoes notnullifyhecriterion fcoherence, ut rather ctsas an incentive oplace it inrelation o the othervariabledeterminingfactors. he lastamongtheseto be questioned s thewritingubject,that s,theauthor,whosedecision t is tocut theumbilical ordofthegenesis, sheringhepre-textntothe text.The writingubject, fcourse, s the most vident nd perhaps hesurest f the criteria or extuality,n that tconjoins n individualde-terminationnd a social reality;n anycase it is theeasiest o handle.But it snot an absolute riterion.ts twoconstituentarts refarfrombeingalwaysrelated.Either theauthor's ntention s defeatedbyeco-nomic rpolitical bstacles"Awholebroodofbirdlingshirpingnmyhead/Booksgoodfor onfiscation",s Heinrich Heine put it,makinghimself hemouthpiece f manyof his contemporariesn Germany:A Winter'sTale), oron thecontrary,he work spublished gainst heauthor'sdesire, r posthumous esire s was thecase withKafka.Buteven whensuch s notthecase,therelationship etweenwhat s non-published ndwhat spublished sas diverse s are theways fwriting:fromClaude Simonwhodestroys ismanuscriptsfterpublication, oJulienGracqwhoguards hemunder ockand key;fromAragonwhogavehis manuscriptso researchers,o FrancisPongewho closesthecirclebypublishinghis roughdrafts,hustransforminghe pre-textintotext. #Clearlynone ofthecriteria f textualitys in itself constant ertainfactor,or ansuch ertaintyeestablishedyputtinghem ll together.The historyfthetext,ts nternal oherence,heact ofreading ndtheauthor's esigndo notconstitute system.We haveno four-facedrismwhich llowsus infalliblyoconsider given iterary ork s a text, ndthe earch or uch n instrumentouldundoubtedly e as futile swasthatfor heultimate riterionf iterariness. ustwe simply oncludethatthe textdoesnotexist? t seems o me that t should be sufficientto agreethat here s no absolutedefinition. nd theabove-mentionedcriteria emainoperative s longas we acceptthem s parametersn a



11/14

DOES "TEXT" EXIST? 73variable ield egisteringver-differingealisationsf he ctofwriting.NotTheText, ut exts. nd o preferomodifyhe onceptndvo-cabularynordero take new ook, ot tthe ppositionetweenre-text ndtext, ut t therelationshipetween ritingndthewrittenwork.Today, his elationshiptrikessasbeing rofoundlyontradictory,undoubtedlyecause f hedifficultyhichwestill ave nunderstand-ing t.Aswe haveust een,t s mpossibleoseparateategoricallyheact ofwritingromhewritten ork. ut ikewise,t is impossibleoconfusehemnewith he ther. etween reativerocess hich per-ates hroughepetition,ontiguity,xtensionsndretractions,nd thedeploymentf he ext,heresnopossibleorrespondence.nthe on-trary: xperienceas hownhat heprocessfwritingannot e con-jectured y tudyinghetext owhich t neverthelessavebirth. hetrip ackwards,romhe ext othemanuscript,sfull fdiscoveriesndoftenstonishment:ne's xpectationsrefoiled. heprocessfwritingisof differentaturehan hewrittenord.Thisdifferencesnotdisturbings long s one seeks implyo de-scribehe eneticrocess.uch napproachswell uitedodealing ithheterogeneousonditions,incetfunctionsrom base fdisplacements,substitutionsndtransformations,ot toppinghortt thetext tselfwhichsconsiderednlysa stage f he eneticrocess.t mattersittlethat he ext hould eseen s the utcomefprecedingtagesrconsid-eredmerelyithinset fmanylternativeersions.hedifficultyriseswhen netries ointegratehegenerativeimension ithinhe tudyof he ext.t seasynougho ay hat hewritingsalwaysctivewithinthewrittenork,hat theghostsf uccessiveooks",sJulienGracqputs t,continueoinhabit hefinished orkwhich emains ituated"in theiright".23uthowdoes hewritinghed ight n the ext? ndwhat anthe netellusabout he ther? acedwith his roblem,willonce gainmake slightetourymakingwo omments.The firstoncernsurreflection-rshould say ur ackofreflec-tion?-n the uestionf he uthor. hewritingubject as ittle laceinmodernriticism,allennto isreputeirstecause f hebanalityfbiographicalommentaries,ndsubsequentlyemovedrom hetextby he trictheoreticalpproachfformalnalysis.etheresurgesodayasthe ubject fnew uestioning.ndealingwithwriting,riticismn-evitablyncountershemomentf hewritingtself.t isstretchedutbetweenhe uthor'sife nd he heetfpaperike drumskinnwhichthepenbeats tsmessage.he echowe receives but ncomplete,etreveals he omplexityf he ct tself,ot omentionts ontradictions.Thesecontradictionsomenot nly rom hefact hatwritingends l-



12/14

74 STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHYternatelyandsometimesimultaneously)owardsommunicatingndholdingack, ut lsofromhe ontiguousseof maginationndmedi-tated alculation. hisdynamicppositionreates polarityonfigura-tionwhicheems obe inherentnwriting,statewhich nfluencessmuch he oncepts e usefor ealingwith he ext s itdoes urunder-standingf he exttself.To beginwith,ur onceptf hework. orKafka,or xample, epossess series fnotebooks,f"writing"nwhich e has ttemptedodelimitnd form ntities-notherwords,works"-etwith reat if-ficulty,udging ythe uccessiveresentationfaboutfifteentories,other nits f text hat emainednpublished,ndyet ther extualsegmentsorwhich esitationsven s totheirctual tatusnarrative?aphoristic?)re ndicated. omparably,houghndifferentays, oththefiles romwhich eiris omposes iswritingndthemanuscriptswhich ragonrrangednorder ocreate heatreRoman earwitnessto such conflictetweenheflow f thewritingndthefixityftheworktself.rom erewe anundoubtedlydvancenour onsiderationof he ohesivenessrfragmentationf n oeuvre-hat s to ay,he otalproductionf givenuthor. ndof oursehe onceptsf ntertextu-ality rhistoricityan lsobeevaluatedhroughnauthor's orkingnthatthelps stoelucidatehedocuments,bservationsndexperienceswhichedt.Neverthelesshis ialecticppearsneach uthorna differentay.Writingubjects re always nique, nd thisuniqueness onstantlycausesntanglementsnthegeneralisingendenciesf iteraryriticism.Whichmeans,ndoubtedly,hatwemust iversifyur pproachnor-der ounderstandur ubject etter-ot nlynorderotake he uthorinto onsiderationnce gain, ut lso norder oconsider iswritingin newway. his sthe oint fmyecondomment.The analysisfmeanings,ormsndeffectsends otreat hetextas a systemesultingromnesingleaw, nsuch way hatnoneofitspartsanbechanged ithoutffectinghewhole.With hisnmind,letustake look tPaulEluard's amousoem:

Sur mes cahiersd'ecolierSurmonpupitreet les arbresSurle sable sur a neigeJ'ecris onnomOn myschoolnotebooksOn mydeskand on thetreesOn the and andon the nowI writeyourname

It iseasy oseehow his extstriggeredffndkeptnmovement,l-mostmagnetisedyonewordwhichppearsnly s the ncipitnd ex-cipit f he ong oem f21stanzas:



13/14

DOES"TEXT"EXIST? 75Etpar epouvoirTunmot Andby he owerfonewordJerecommenceavie I beginmyife gainJe uisnepour econnaitre I wasborn oknow ouPour enommer To name ouLibert^. Liberty.Whathappens henwe earn rom hemanuscripthat hisword stheresultf late orrectionandthat he uthor eveals o us thename fhisbelovedwhichwas n tsplace)?Onceagain he nswer illvaryc-cordingo ur pproacho he ext. or hehistorian,othinghanges:twas he heme f ibertyhich ccountedor hepoem's ationaluccessat the ime f heLiberation,ndnomanuscriptould hangehephe-nomenonf ollectiventhusiasmhich owbelongso iteraryistory.FortheEluard pecialist,nterpretationf thiswork s clarifiedndverified.he substitutionf hewordsttestsothe elationshipetweenthe hemes-nd n this ase t s the apportetweenife ndpoliticalcommitmenthichwasto determinehecourse fthispoem.Fromtextual oint fview hingsre more omplex.t istrue hat he awsof structurereupheld:bychangingsingleword heentire oem s

altered.ibertesneithervariantor ven notherersionf hepoemcomposedorNusch-t sa differentoem. ut t the ame ime heper-spectivefgenesishows s that his irst,istinct orkwasoneofthepossibilitiesfthe ext,hought wasneitherntegratedor ubsumedin the econdwork.n otherwords,hewritingsnot implyonsum-matedn thewritten ork. erhapswe should onsider hetext s anecessaryossibility,s onemanifestationfa process hich s alwaysvirtuallyresentnthebackground,kind f third imensionfthewritten ork.n this pen orhalf-open)pace, heworks fatefullytossed etweenmpetuousorward ovementsndcalms f xhaustion,betweentammeringsnd lacunae, romnterruptionso unachieve-mentshat eep ringingsoff ourse. he textsnot nnihilatedy heweightf tspossibilitiesutrathertstandsut as anobjectwhich sfarmore omplexhan ur formeronceptionsndfarmore leatorythan urmodernnes.The effectsf theupheaval ausedbygeneticcriticismreonly eginningo befelt. heywillundoubtedlye con-sequentialoresearchntheyearsocome.NOTESi. "Les manuscrits:transcription, dition,signification", olloquium C.N.R.S.- Ecole

Normale Superieure,Paris, 1975 (Acta published by PENS, 1976).2. Dictionnatrede VAcademieFrangatse,new ed., vol. 2, Nismes,1786.3. Adelung (Johann Christoph): Versuch eines vollstandigen grammatisch-kritischenWorterbuchs er hochdeutschenMundart,vol. 5, Leipzig, 1786.



14/14

76 STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHY4. Richardson Charles): New dictionary f the englishlanguage (. . .), London, vol. 2,1837.5. Larousse (Pierre):Grand Dictionnaireuniverselledu XlXe. stecle,Pans, vol. 15,1876.6. Grimm Jakobu. Wilhelm): Deutsches Worterbuch, erlin,vol. 1891.7. Grand Larousse encyclopedique,vol. 10, Paris, 1964.8. Brockhaus-Enzyklopadie. 7th ed., vol. iq, Wiesbaden. 1Q73-9. Robert (Paul): Dictionnaire alphabitique et analogique de la langue frangaise, ol.6, Paris, 1966.10. Kristeva Julia): Semananalyse t productiondu sens, n Essais de Se"miotique odti-que, ed. byA. J.Greimas,Paris, 1972,p. 207.11. Barthes Roland): Theorie du texte n EncyclopediaUnwersalts, ol. 15,Paris, 1973,p. 1014.12. Ibid.13. Arrive*Michel): Grammaire et linguistique/Le texte in Grand Larousse de lalangue frangaise, ol. 7, Paris,1978,p. 6043.14. Kristeva Tulia): op. cit.,p. 216.15. Those techniquescannot be examinedhere.Referto: Les techniquesde laboratoiredans Vetude des manuscrits, aris, 1974,Ed. du C. N. R. S.; Avant-texte, exte, pres-texte,Paris & Budapest, 1982,Ed. du C. N. R. S. & Akademiai Kiado; Lebrave (Jean-Louis):Letraitementutomatique des brouillons,Paris, 1984,PSH.16. Levaillant (Jean): Ecriture et ginetique textuellein Valirya Voeuvre,Lille, 1982,p. 19.17. See the volume Genese de Babel /Joyce t la creation, o be published in the seriesTextes etManuscrits1985 Paris,Ed. du C. N. R. S.)18. Proust (Marcel): Matinee chez la Princesse de Guermantes/Cahiers du "Temps

Retrouv6",Paris, 1982.19. Holderlin (Friedrich):SdmtlicheWerke(Frankfurter usgabe),Frankfurt,ub. since1976.20. Kafka (Franz): Schrtften, agebucher,Brief , Frankfurt, ub. since 1982 and Joyce(Tames): Ulysses,New York and London, a vol., 1084.si. Bellemin-Noel Jean): Le texte et Vavant-texte, aris, 1972.22. Bellemin-Noel (Jean): Lecture psychanalytiqued'un brouillon de poeme in Essaisde critiquegenetique,Paris, 1979,p. 116.23. Gracq (Julien):Lettrines,Paris, 1967,p. 27 &

Louis Hay, Le Texte Nexiste Pas

Documents

Transcript of Louis Hay, Le Texte Nexiste Pas