ملاحظات ومراجع
الفصل الأول: رجل الأدوار
(1)
Wayne Booth, Critical
Understanding (University of Chicago Press, 1979), p.
69.
(2)
John Sturrock, ‘Roland Barthes’, in Structuralism and Since (Oxford University Press, 1979), p.
52.
الفصل الثاني: المؤرخ الأدبي
(1)
Jean-Paul Sartre, Qu’est-ce que la
littérature? (Gallimard, 1948), pp. 334, 345, 341;
What is Literature? (Methuen,
1970), pp. 206, 212-13, 210.
(2)
In Essais critiques Barthes
replaces Sartre’s distinction between poet and prose writer by a distinction
between écrivain and écrivant. The écrivain is engaged in an exploration of language, while the
écrivant uses it to write up or write
out his message. For Barthes, all interesting writers are écrivains.
(3)
In a 1971 interview (‘Réponses’, pp. 92-3) Barthes says he was
attempting in Le Degré zéro to
‘Marxianize the Sartrean commitment’. Unfortunately, one cannot wholly trust
his recollections here, since he also claims that in 1953 he had never heard
of Maurice Blanchot, who in fact appears prominently in Le Degré zéro: a statement of his on Kafka is
quoted and his work on Mallarmé is cited as the source of Barthes’s own
views.
الفصل الثالث: عالِم الأساطير
(1)
Barthes, ‘Maîtres et esclaves’, Lettres
nouvelles (March 1953), p. 108.
الفصل الرابع: الناقد
(1)
Barthes speaks of his love for ‘scription’, the act of writing:
‘Writing is the hand and thus the body: its impulses, controlling
mechanisms, rhythms, weighings, slidings, complications, evasions—in short,
not the soul but the subject ballasted by
its desire and its unconscious’ (Le Grain de la
voix, p. 184/193). He also says that in writers of earlier
periods there is ‘a chance of avantgarde’ ‘whenever it’s the body that
writes and not ideology’ (p. 182/191). For further discussion, see Chapter
8.
(2)
See Le Plaisir du texte,
which explains that the reader accedes to jouissance (the pleasure offered by the radical text)
through the cohabitation of languages
working side by side (p. 10/4). Barthes notes that he had already discovered
this cohabitation in Sade: ‘antipathetic codes (the noble and the trivial,
for example) come into contact, pompous and ridiculous neologisms are
created; pornographic messages are embodied in sentences so pure that they
might be used as grammatical models’ (p. 14/6). Barthes’s reading, adding
its own language, accentuates these effects of
collision.
الفصل الخامس: الجدلي
(1)
Raymond Picard, Nouvelle critique ou
nouvelle imposture?
(Pauvert, 1965), p. 69; New Criticism or New
Fraud?, tr. Frank Towne (Washington State University Press,
1969), p. 21.
(2)
Édouard Guitton, ‘M. Barthes et la critique universitaire’,
Le Monde, 28 March 1964, p.
9.
الفصل السادس: السيميوطيقي
(1)
For discussion of Saussure’s theory of language and his
proposals for semiology, see my Saussure
(Fontana, 1976); revised edition: Ferdinand de
Saussure (Cornell University Press,
1986).
(2)
See my Structuralist Poetics:
Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature
(Cornell University Press, 1975),
pp. 34–8.
الفصل السابع: البنيوي
(1)
For general discussion of the use of linguistics in
structuralist literary studies, see my Structuralist
Poetics, part 1. For Barthes’s use of Benveniste’s
distinction, see pp. 197–200.
(2)
Barthes, ‘Par où commencer?’, in Le
Degré zéro, suivi de Nouveaux essais critiques, p. 155/New Critical
Essays, p. 89. This essay is Barthes’s nearest approximation
to instructions for undertaking a structural
analysis.
(3)
See Barthes’s ‘Analyse textuelle d’un conte d’Edgar Poe’, in
L’Aventure
sémiologique.
(4)
In a brilliant discussion contrasting Barthes’s
‘anti-constructionist’ approach to Sarrasine with a ‘deconstructionist’ reading, Barbara
Johnson argues that his refusal to reorder or reconstruct the text leads him
to miss ways in which the work undermines the presuppositions of the
readerly mode to which it supposedly belongs. See her essay ‘The Critical
Difference: BartheS/BalZac’, in The Critical
Difference (Johns Hopkins Press,
1981).
(5)
See Barthes’s ‘L’Effet de réel,’ Le
Bruissement de la langue,
pp. 185-6/146-7.
(6)
For an explanation of deconstruction, see my On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after
Structuralism (Cornell University Press,
1982).
الفصل الثامن: المُتعِيُّ
(1)
Preface to Chateaubriand’s Vie de
Rancé, in Le Degré zéro de
l’écriture, suivi de Nouveaux essais critiques, p. 106/New Critical
Essays, p. 41.
(2)
Michel-Antoine Burnier and Patrick Rambaud, Le Roland-Barthes sans peine (Ballard, 1978),
p. 41.
الفصل التاسع: الكاتب
(1)
‘To Write: an Intransitive Verb’, Le
Bruissement de la langue,
pp. 21–31/11–21.
(2)
For a semiotic discussion of the sentimental, see my Flaubert: The Uses of Uncertainty (Cornell
University Press, 1974), pp. 225–8.
الفصل العاشر: الأديب
(1)
Particularly interesting are ‘The Wisdom of Art’, introduction
to Cy Twombly, Paintings and Drawings,
1954–1977, catalogue of an exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art
(New York, 1979), collected in The Responsibility of Forms, pp. 157–76, and
‘Lecture de Brillat-Savarin’, preface to a re-edition of Brillat-Savarin’s
La Physiologie du goût (Hermann,
1975), in The Rustle of Language, pp.
250–70.
(2)
For discussion of this problem, see my On Deconstruction (Cornell
University Press, 1982), chapter 1.
الفصل الحادي عشر: بارت بعد بارت
(1)
François Wahl’s preface does not appear in the English
translation.
(2)
See La Règle du jeu 5
(1991). Statements of support are published in 6 (1992). See also L’Infini 37 (1992).
(3)
For brief summaries of three of these lecture series, see
Œuvres complètes, vol. 3 (Seuil,
1995): ‘Comment vivre ensemble’, p. 744, ‘Le Neutre’, p. 887, ‘La
Préparation du roman (1): de la vie à l’œuvre’, p. 1059. The topic of ‘le
neutre’, as a goal which gives
coherence to the diversity of Barthes’s writing, is ably explored in Bernard
Comment, Roland Barthes: vers le neutre
(Christian Bourgois, 1991).
(4)
‘Entretien’, Œuvres
complètes, vol. 3, p. 1241. For such a book, see Richard
Klein, Eat Fat (Pantheon,
1996).
(5)
‘Démystifier’, La Chronique, Œuvres
complètes, vol. 3, p. 988.
(6)
‘Pause’, La Chronique, Œuvres
complètes, vol. 3, pp. 990-1.
(7)
‘Vita Nova’, Œuvres
complètes, vol. 3, p. 1300, note 2.
(8)
Ibid., p. 1301.
(9)
Ibid., p. 1302. See also ‘Osons être paresseux!’ Œuvres complètes, vol. 3, p.
1085.
(10)
Diana Knight, in the best discussion of ‘Vita Nova’,
explains the Moroccan boy by identifying this passage in ‘Incidents’
and the Zen poem here quoted, from the Zenrin Kushu, which Barthes takes from Alan Watts’s
The Way of Zen. Eric Marty in
the Œuvres complètes wrongly
transcribes Barthes’s reference to ‘Moroccan boy of the Zenzin
poem’, and then explains in a note that this must refer to a poem
from Moroccan oral tradition. In fact, the Zen poem is also cited
from Watts at the end of A Lover’s
Discourse. See Diana Knight, ‘Idle Thoughts:
Barthes’s Vita Nova’, Nottingham French Studies (spring
1997), pp. 94-5.
(11)
‘Vita Nova’, Œuvres
complètes, vol. 3, p. 1306. The allusion is to La Fontaine’s
fable of ‘The Frog who Wanted to Make Himself as Big as the Bull’ (I,
3).
(12)
Bernard Comment, Roland Barthes: vers
le neutre (Christian Bourgois, 1991), pp. 14,
27.
(13)
Philippe Lejeune, Moi
aussi (Seuil, 1986), p. 107. The parodic chapter ‘Le
Roland-Barthes sans peine’ is pp. 103–16.
(14)
Ibid., p. 108.
(15)
Diana Knight, Barthes and Utopia:
Space, Travel, Writing (Oxford University Press,
1997).
(16)
D. A. Miller, Bringing out Roland
Barthes (University of California Press, 1992), pp.
31-2.
(17)
Gilles Macassar, ‘L’Empereur des signes’, Télérama 2631 (14 June 2000), p.
62.
