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.

جميع الحقوق محفوظة لمؤسسة هنداوي © ٢٠٢٠