رولان بارت جوناثان كولر

ﺑﺎرتﺑﻌﺪﺑﺎرت ﻛﺎﻧﺖﺳﺘُﻌَﺪﱡﺧﻴﺎﻧﺔًﻟﻄﺎﺑﻌﻬﺎاﻟﻴﻮﺗﻮﺑﻲﻛﻤﺎلمﺒﺎدئ ﻟﻬﺎ. ﺗﻠﻚاﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔاﻟﺘﻲﺗﺤﻴﻂﺑ ﻣﺜيرةﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎمﺑﺼﻮرةاﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ،ﺧﺼﻮﺻًﺎﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔإﱃالمﻬﺘﻤينﺑﻌﻤﻞﺑﺎرت،وﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎن المﺠﺎدﻟﺔﰲأناﻟﺒﺤﺚﻋﻦالمﺤﺎﻳﺪﻫﻮأﻛﺜﺮاﻟﺨﻴﻮطالمﻮﺣﱢﺪةﰲﻣﺴيرةﺑﺎرتاﻟﺨﺼﺒﺔ. وﻳﺬﻫﺐﺑﺮﻧﺎرﻛﻮﻣﻴﻨﺖﰲ ﻣﻦﻣﻘﺘﻀﻴﺎتوﻗﻴﻮداﻟﻌﻘﻞ،أواﻟﺨﻄﺎب اﻟﻨﺴﺒﻲﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎأنﻳﻌﻤﻞﻋﲆﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲأوﺗﻨﺎولﺣﺎﻟﺔ ورﻏﻢأﻧﻪﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎنﺗﺘﺒﱡﻊﻫﺬااﻟﻨﺰوعالمﻀﻤﺮﰲ 12ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔًﺎﻋﲆﻧﺤﻮﺟﺬري أﻋﻤﺎلﺑﺎرت،ﻓﺈﻧﻪﻧﺰوعﺗﺴﻬﻞاﻟﺴﺨﺮﻳﺔﻣﻨﻪﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﻫﺮوﺑًﺎﻣﻦاﻟﻮاﻗﻊ،ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻓﻴﻠﻴﺐﻟﻴﺠين،وﻫﻮﺧﺒيرﰲاﻟﺴيرَاﻟﺬاﺗﻴﺔ،ﰲﻓﺼﻞﻣﻦﻛﺘﺎب ﺳﺎﺧﺮةﻟﻜﺘﺎب » ﻟﻘﺪﺑﺪأﺑﻬﺠﺎءﻣﻨﻄﻖ المﻄﺎفﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﻐﺮاقﰲﺣﻠﻢﻳﻘﻈﺔﻳﻮﺗﻮﺑﻲﻋﻦ ﻣﻦﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻟﻘﺪﻓﺼﻞﰲﻛﺘﺒﻪالمﺒﻜﺮةاﻟﻠﻐﺔَﻋﻦاﻟﻮاﻗﻊﻟﻴﺴﻠﺒﻬﺎﺑﺮاءﺗﻬﺎ،واﻵنﻓﺈن اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔذاﺗﻬﺎﺗَﺴﻤَﺢﻟﻪﺑﺄنﻳَﺴﺘَﻌِﻴﺪﻟﻠﻐﺔﺑﺮاءﺗﻬﺎوﻳﺤﺼﱢﻨﻬﺎﺿﺪﱠاﻟﻨﻘﺪ.وﺗﺤﺖ اﺳﻢالمﺘﺨﻴﱠﻞأواﻟﺮواﺋﻲ،ﻳﺤﺘﻀﻦﺑﺤﺐﻣﺎﻛﺎنﻗﺪﺳﺨﺮﻣﻨﻪﺗﺤﺖاﺳﻢ اﻷﺳﻄﻮرةأواﻷﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ،ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ؟ﺗﺮاﺟﻊ؟ﻫﺬاﻫﻮﻣﺎﺳﺎرعاﻟﺮأياﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﰲ اﻟﻐﺮبﺑﺎﻟﺨﻠﻮصإﻟﻴﻪ،إﻧﻪﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮى،اﻧﺠﺮافﻳﻨﻄﻠﻖﻣﻦﻣﻮﻗﻒﻣﻠﺘﺒﺲ…إﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲﻣﺮﺗﺪٍّا؛ﻓﺎﻷﺳﻄﻮرةﻫﻲﻣﺘﺨﻴﱠﻞ المﺮءﺑﺸﻜﻞﻛﺎﻣﻞ(،والمﺘﺨﻴﱠﻞﻫﻮأﺳﻄﻮرةﺳﻌﻴﺪة؛ﻓﺒﺎﺳﻢ ﻟﺒﻌﺾاﻟﻮﻗﺖﻳﺘﻘﺪﱠم،ﺧﻄﻮةﺑﺨﻄﻮة،ﻣﺠﺘﺎزًاﺣﻤﺎﻗﺘﻪ،ﻣﺘﻘﺼﱢﻴًﺎإﻳﺎﻫﺎ،ﻣﺘﻠﺬﱢذًا 13ﺑﻬﺎ،ﻣﺤﺎوﻻًأن ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻜﺘﺐﻟﻴﺠينأﻳﻀًﺎ 14اﻟﻄﺒﻘﻲ؛إﻧﻪﻣﻐﺮمﺑﺎلمﺤﺎﻳﺪ 121

روﻻنﺑﺎرت إناﻟﺴﺨﺮﻳﺔﻣﻦﻣﻔﻬﻮم ﺑﺄﻧﻪﻻﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲﻓﺼﻠﻪﻋﻦاﻟﺠﻬﺪاﻟﻨﻘﺪياﻟﺬيأﻟﻬﻤﻪ؛ﻛﻲﻧﺘﺠﻨﺐاﻟﻮﻗﻮعﰲاﻟﺮﺿﺎﻋﻦ اﻟﺬاتاﻟﺬيﺳﺨﺮﻣﻨﻪﻟﻴﺠين.وﻗﺪﻳﻜﻮنﻣﻦاﻷﻓﻀﻞأنﻧﺤﺬوﺣﺬودﻳﺎﻧﺎﻧﺎﻳﺖﺑﺪﻻً ﻣﻦﺑﺮﻧﺎرﻛﻮﻣﻴﻨﺖ)رﻏﻢﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪﻣﻨﻈﻮرﻳﻬﻤﺎ(،وأنﻧﻌﺘﱪاﻟﻴﻮﺗﻮﺑﻲ،وﻟﻴﺲاﻟﺴﻌﻲوراء » اﻟﺼﻮرةالمﻀﻤﺮةﻟﻴﻮﺗﻮﺑﻴﺎﻋﺎﻃﻔﻴﺔأواﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ،ﺗﺒﺪواﻟﺤﻘﺎﺋﻖواﻟﺨﻄﺎﺑﺎت،ﺑﺎلمﻘﺎرﻧﺔ واﻟﺨﻄﺄﻳﻜﻤﻦﰲﺗﺼﻮراﻟﻴﻮﺗﻮﺑﻴﺎﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرﻫﺎﺷﻴﺌًﺎﻳﻤﻜﻦ 15ﻣﻌﻬﺎ،ﻛﺄﻧﻤﺎﻳﻌﱰﻳﻬﺎاﻟﻨﻘﺺ ﺑﻠﻮﻏﻪ. وﻣﻦالمﻤﻜﻦﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺاﻟﺘﻐيراﻟﺬيﺣﺪثﺧﻼلاﻟﺴﻨﻮاتاﻟﻌﴩﻳﻦاﻟﺘﻲأﻋﻘﺒﺖوﻓﺎة ﺑﺎرتﰲﺧﻤﺲﻧﻘﺎط: أوﻻً:ﺣﺪثﺗﻐيرﻫﺎﺋﻞﰲأﻫﻤﻴﺔﺑﺎرت؛ﻓﻔﻲﻋﺎم٩٧٩١،ﻗﺒﻞﻋﺎمﻣﻦرﺣﻴﻠﻪ،أﻃﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪواﻳﻦﺑﻮث ﻫﺬا اﻹﻏﻮاءاتاﻟﴩﻳﺮةاﻟﺘﻲﻛﺎنﻳُﻌﺘﻘﺪأناﻟﻨﻘﺪاﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲﻳﻨﺼﺎعﻟﻬﺎ،ﻟﻜﻨﻪﻳﻈﻞ،رﻏﻢذﻟﻚ، ﺗﴫﻳﺤًﺎﻳَﺒْﻬَﺘﻚﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﺗﻘﺮؤهﰲ١٠٠٢،وﻳﺬﻛﺮكﺑﺎﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔاﻟﺘﻲﻛﺎنﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊﺑﻬﺎﺑﺎرتﰲ اﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎت.ﻣﻦاﻟﺼﻌﺐوﺻﻒﺗﻠﻚاﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ،وﻫﺬاﰲﺣﺪذاﺗﻪأﻣﺮﻣﺜيرﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎم؛ﻓﻬﻲ ﻳﻘﻴﻨًﺎﻟﻢﺗﻜﻦأﻫﻤﻴﺔَﻣَﻦﻳﺴﻤﱢﻴﻬﻢﻓﻮﻛﻮ،ﻣﺆﺳﴘ ﺣﻴﺚﺗﺘﺨﺬالمﺤﺎوﻻتﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮاﻟﻔﻜﺮﺷﻜﻞﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎتأوﺗﺄوﻳﻼتﻟﻠﻨﺼﻮصاﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ.وﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦﻛﺬﻟﻚأﻫﻤﻴﺔَﻣﺆﺳﺲﻣﺪرﺳﺔﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ،ﻗﺎمﺑﺒﻨﺎءإﻃﺎرﻧﻈﺮيﱟﻳﻌﻤﻞﰲداﺧﻠﻪﻋﺪد ﻛﺒيرﻣﻦاﻟﻨﺎس)ﻟﻢﻳﻜﻦﺛﻤﺔ أوأﻟﺘﻮﺳيرﻳﻮن،رﻏﻢأنﻫﻨﺎكﻛﺜيرﻳﻦ،وأﻧﺎﻣﻦﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ،ﺗﺄﺛﱠﺮواﺑﻪإﱃﺣﺪﱟﻛﺒير(.ﻛﺬﻟﻚﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦأﻫﻤﻴﺘﻪأﻫﻤﻴﺔﻣﻜﺘﺸِﻒ،ارﺗﺒﻂاﺳﻤﻪﺑﻔﻜﺮةﻫﺎﻣﺔ،ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎﻳﻜﺜﺮاﻻﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎدﺑﺒﻨﺪﻧﻜﺖ أﻧﺪرﺳﻮنﻛﻮﻧﻪأوﺿﺢﻟﻨﺎأناﻷﻣﻢواﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎتاﻟﻜﺒيرةﻫﻲ المﻤﻴﱢﺰةﻟﻸﻫﻤﻴﺔاﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔاﻟﺘﻲﺗَﻤﺘﱠﻊﺑﻬﺎﺑﺎرتﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞﰲإﻣﻜﺎناﺳﺘﺨﺪامﺳﻠﻄﺘﻪﻛﻨﻘﻄﺔ اﻧﻄﻼقﻻﺗﺤﺘﺎجإﱃﺗﱪﻳﺮ،ﻓﻤﺜﻼًﻋﺒﺎرة ﺟﻴﺪةﻟﺒﺪءﻣﻘﺎلﻋﻦأيﻣﻮﺿﻮعﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ؛وﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞأﻫﻤﻴﺘﻪﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًاﰲﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔأنﻻأﺣﺪ ﺳﻮفﻳﺮدﱡﻗﺎﺋﻼً ﻫﺬاﻧﻮعﻣﻦاﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔاﻛﺘﺴﺒﻪواﻟﱰﺑﻨﻴﺎﻣينﰲﻣﺠﺎلاﻟﺪراﺳﺎتاﻷدﺑﻴﺔ)ﻣﻊاﻟﻔﺎرق أنﺑﻨﻴﺎﻣينﻟﺪﻳﻪﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﻣﻦالمﺆﻟﻔﺎتﻳﻜﺮساﻟﻨﺎسﺟﻬﻮدﻫﻢﻟﴩﺣﻬﺎ(،ﺗﻠﻚاﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ 122

ﺑﺎرتﺑﻌﺪﺑﺎرت اﻟﺘﻲﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊﺑﻬﺎﻧﻘﻄﺔﻣﺮﺟﻌﻴﺔﻻﺧﻼفﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ،ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻤﻜﻦأنﻧﺴﻤﱢﻴﻬﺎ،ﺗﺠﻌﻞﻣﻦأﺣﺪﻫﻢ ﻣﻔﻜﱢﺮًاﻛﺒيرًاورﻣﺰًاﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴٍّﺎ،ﺑﻴﺪَأنﺑﺎرتﻓﻘﺪإﱃﺣﺪﱟﺑﻌﻴﺪﻫﺬااﻟﻨﻮعاﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐﻣﻦاﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ؛ ﻓﻬﻮﻟﻢﻳَﻌُﺪﺷﺨﺼًﺎﻻﺗﺤﺘﺎجإﻻأنﺗﺴﺘﺸﻬﺪﺑﻪﻟﻜﻲﺗﺪﻓﻊاﻷﻣﻮرﰲاﻻﺗﺠﺎهاﻟﺬيﺗﺮﻳﺪه، واﻟﻴﻮم،ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲأنﺗﺬﻛﺮاﻷﺳﺒﺎباﻟﺘﻲﺗﺪﻋﻮإﱃﻗﺮاءاﺗﻪأواﻻﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎدﺑﻪ. ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ:ﰲاﻟﻌﴫاﻟﺬﻫﺒﻲﻟِﻤَﺎﻛﺎنﻳُﻌﺮَفاﺧﺘﺼﺎرًاﺑ أنﻧﻨﻈﺮإﱃﺑﺎرتﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﻣﻨﻈﱢﺮًاﰲالمﻘﺎماﻷول،ﻟﻜﻦاﻟﻴﻮم؛ﺣﻴﺚ ﻟﻢﺗَﻌُﺪﺟﺪﻳﺪة،وﻟﻢﺗَﻌُﺪﺗﺜيراﻟﺨﻮفأواﻹﻋﺠﺎب،ﻓﻤﻦاﻟﺴﻬﻞأنﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐﺑﺎرتأﻫﻤﻴﺔً ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺷﺨﺼًﺎﻗﺎوماﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ—ﺧﺼﻮﺻًﺎﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺗﻪاﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ—وﺳﻌﻰلمﺮاوﻏﺘﻬﺎأو ﻟﺘﺠﺎوزﻫﺎ،وﺳﻮفأﻋﻮدإﱃﻫﺬهاﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔﺑﻌﺪﻗﻠﻴﻞ. ﺛﺎﻟﺜًﺎ:ﺛﻤﺔاﺣﺘﻤﺎلأﻗﻞاﻟﻴﻮمأنﻳﺤﺘﻔﻲﻣﻌﺠﺒﻮﺑﺎرتﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﻠﻤﻞأواﻟﺘﻐﻴيرﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎره المﻠﻤﺢاﻟﺜﺎﺑﺖﻷﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ؛إذﻇﻬﺮتﺛﻮاﺑﺖأﺧﺮى،ﺳﻮاءأﻛﺎﻧﺖاﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔاﻟﻴﻮﺗﻮﺑﻴﺔ)ﻧﺎﻳﺖ(،أم اﻟﺒﺤﺚﻋﻦ روﺟﺮ(،ﻟﻜﻦﻫﻞﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊﺗﻠﻚاﻟﺜﻮاﺑﺖاﻹﻣﺴﺎكﺑﺄﻛﺜﺮاﻟﺠﻮاﻧﺐإﺛﺎرةﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎمﰲأﻋﻤﺎل ﺑﺎرت؟ راﺑﻌًﺎ:ﻳﻤﻜﻦاﻟﻨﻈﺮاﻵنإﱃاﻫﺘﻤﺎمﺑﺎرتﺑﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔاﻟﺠﺴﺪﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ،ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻘﻮل ديإﻳﻪﻣﻴﻠﺮ،إﱃ اﻟﺬيﻳﻀﻴﻒإﻟﻴﻪ)أوﻳﱪزﻣﻦﺧﻼﻟﻪ(ﺑﻌﺾاﻟﻔﺮوقاﻟﺪﻗﻴﻘﺔاﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ 16» وﻻﺗﺰالﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔاﻟﺮﺑﻂﺑينﺑﺎرتوﺑيناﻟﺠﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔالمﺜﻠﻴﺔﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎدﰲﺑﺪاﻳﺘﻬﺎ وأﺧيرًا:وﻟﻌﻞﺗﻠﻚﻫﻲاﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔاﻷﻫﻢ،ﻓﺈنﺑﺎرتاﻟﺬيﻛﺎنذاتﻳﻮمﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔﺛﻮرﻳﺔ، وﺗﻬﺪﻳﺪًاﻟﻘِﻴَﻢاﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔاﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ،أﺻﺒﺢأﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔﻟﻠﻌﺪﻳﺪﻣﻦاﻟﻘِﻴَﻢاﻟﺘﻲﻣﺜﱠﻞذاتﻳﻮم اﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪاﻷﻛﱪﻟﻬﺎ؛ﻓﻔﻲﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮﻋﺎم٠٠٠٢،ﻧﴩتﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒالمﺴﺎﻓﺔﺑ ﺑﻌﻨﻮان ﻟﻠﻐﺔ،المﺘﻌﺒﱢﺪﰲﻣﺤﺮاباﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ،اﺳﺘﺨﺪمﻋﻠﻢاﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎعواﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞاﻟﻨﻔﴘﻟﻜﻦ،ﻗﺒﻞﻛﻞ ﻻأﺛﺮﻫﻨﺎ 17ﳾء،اﺳﺘﺨﺪمرﻫﺎﻓﺔاﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ،ﻛﻲﻳُﻠﻘِﻲاﻟﻀﻮءﻋﲆاﻷدباﻟﻔﺮﻧﴘ ﻟﻨﺼيراﻟﻄﻠﻴﻌﺔ،أوﻧﺎﻗﺪاﻷﺳﺎﻃيراﻟﱪﺟﻮازﻳﺔ،أوﺑﻌﺒﻊاﻟﺴﻮرﺑﻮن،اﻷﻓﱠﺎكاﻟﺬيأﻋﻠﻦﻣﻮت المﺆﻟﻒ.ﻛﻤﺎأﻏﻔﻠﺖﻫﺬهالمﻘﺎﻟﺔأﻳﻀًﺎﺑﺎرتاﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻲ،اﻟﺬيﺗﻢاﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎﺿﺔﻋﻨﻪﺑﻌﺎﻟِﻢ 123

روﻻنﺑﺎرت اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎع؛وﻫﺬاﻟﻴﺲﻣﺠﺮدﺳﻬﻮ،ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎأنﻧﺮىذﻟﻚﻻﺣﻘًﺎﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﺗﺸيرالمﻘﺎﻟﺔإﱃ اﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرﻫﺎﺷﻴﺌًﺎﻫﺠﺮه.ﻓﺒﺎرت ﺑﺠﻮاﻧﺒﻬﺎاﻷﻛﺜﺮرﻫﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﴚء،وﻟﻴﺲﺷﺎﺋﻨًﺎأوﺧﻄيرًاﺑﻜﻞﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ. ﻟﻘﺪأﺻﺒﺢﺑﺎرتأﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔﺳﺎﻫﻢوﺻﻮﻟﻪإﱃﻋﺸﻖاﻟﻠﻐﺔاﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔورﻫﺎﻓﺘﻬﺎ —ﺑﻌﺪاﺟﺘﻴﺎزهﻣﺤﻄﺎتأﺧﺮىﻳُﻔﱰضأﻧﻬﺎﺛﻮرﻳﺔ—ﰲرﻓﻊﻗﻴﻤﺘﻪﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرهﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪًاﻋﲆ أناﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔﺗﻜﻤﻦأﺳﺎﺳًﺎﰲاﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔﺑيناﻟﺬاتاﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔواﻹرثالمﺘﻤﺜﻞﻋﲆاﻟﻮﺟﻪاﻷﻛﻤﻞ ﰲاﻟﻠﻐﺔاﻷم، اﻟﻨﻀﺎﻻتاﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔواﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ،ﺑﺪأﺑﺎرتاﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻲﺣﻴﺎةﺟﺪﻳﺪةﻣﻦاﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ،وﻣﻦ اﻵنﻓﺼﺎﻋﺪًا،ﺳﻴﱰكﺑﺎرتاﻟﻔﺮﺻﺔﻟﺮوﻻنﻟﻜﻲﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ،ﺟﺎﻟﺒًﺎإﱃالمﻘﺪﻣﺔاﻟﺬاتاﻟﺮاﻏﺒﺔ، اﻟﺬاتالمﺘﻔﺮدة،ﻋﺎﺷﻖاﻟﻠﻐﺔواﻷﺳﻠﻮباﻟﺬيﻻﻳﺨﺠﻞﻣﻦﻋﺸﻘﻪ وأﻧﺎأﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪﺑﻬﺬاالمﻘﺘﻄﻒﻟﻴﺲﻷﻧﻪﻣﺒﺘﺬل؛وإﻧﻤﺎﻷﻧﻪ—ﰲآنٍواﺣﺪ—ﻧﻤﻮذﺟﻲ وﻳﺠﺪﺗﱪﻳﺮًاﻟﻪﰲالمﺴﺎراﻟﺬيﺳﻠﻜﺘْﻪﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎتﺑﺎرت،ﻓﻜﻤﺎرأﻳﻨﺎ،ﺗﻨﺘﻘﺪﺑﺸﺪةﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ اﻷﺧيرة أدوارًاﺣﺎﺳِﻤﺔﰲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼﺗﻪالمﺒﻜﱢﺮةﺣﺘﻰﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﻛﺎنﻳَﻀَﻌﻬﺎﻣﻮﺿﻊاﻟﺴﺆال ﰲﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋًﺎﻟﻠﺴﺨﺮﻳﺔﰲ أو » ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ،وﻫﺬﻳﺎﻧﺎتﴎﻳﻌﺔاﻟﺰوال ﻗﺪﻧﻘﻊﻓﺮﻳﺴﺔإﻏﺮاءﺗﻘﻤﺺﻫﻴﺌﺔاﻟﻌﻠﻴﻢﻫﺬه،واﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎءﺑﺘﻔﻮقاﻟﺮؤﻳﺔاﻟﺜﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺗﺐﺑﺪﻻًﻣﻦأوﻫﺎمالمﻨﻈﱢﺮالمﻨﺘﻈﺮ.إﻧﻬﺎﻫﻴﺌﺔﺷﺪﻳﺪةاﻹﻏﺮاء،ﺧﺎﺻﺔًﰲﻳﻮﻣﻨﺎﻫﺬا، ﺑﻌﺪأﻓﻮلﻧﺠﻢاﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔوﺣﻴﺚﺗﻘﻤﱡﺺﻫﻴﺌﺔاﻟﻨﺎﻗﺪاﻟﻔﻄِﻦﻻدﱢﻋﺎءاﺗﻬﺎﻳﺠﻌﻞالمﺮءﻋﲆﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺪوأﻗﺮبإﱃاﻟﻨﺠﺎح،ﻟﻜﻦﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًاﺑﺴﺒﺐاﻹﻏﺮاءاﻟﺬيﺗﻨﻄﻮيﻋﻠﻴﻪﻫﺬهاﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ،ﻳﺘﻌين ﻋﲆاﻟﻘﺎرئاﻟﺒﺼيرأنﻳُﻤﻌِﻦَاﻟﺘﻔﻜيرﰲﺗﻀﻤﻴﻨﺎﺗﻬﺎ،وﻗﺪﻳﺄﺧﺬﻫﺬااﺗﺠﺎﻫَينْﻣﺤﺘﻤﻠين. ﻓﺄوﻻً:ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎأنﻧﺴﺄل،ﻛﻤﺎﻓﻌﻠﺖُأﻧﺎآﻧﻔًﺎ،إنﻛﺎنﻗﻴﺎمﺑﺎرتﺑﺘﺒﺪﻳﺪاﻷوﻫﺎمﰲأﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ المﺒﻜﱢﺮةﻟﻴﺲإﻻﺗﻨﺼﻴﺒًﺎﻷوﻫﺎمﺟﺪﻳﺪة؛أيﻣﺮاوﻏﺔأﻧﻴﻘﺔ.وﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮإﱃﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢالمﺮء لمﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻪاﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ،ﻛﻢﻫﻮﻣﻐﺮٍأنﻳُﻌﻠِﻦأﻧﻬﺎﻛﺎﻧﺖﻣﺤﺾاﻓﺘﺘﺎﻧﺎتأوﺗﺠﻠﻴﺎتﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ 124

ﺑﺎرتﺑﻌﺪﺑﺎرت :ﺻﻮرةﻣﻦﻛﺘﺎب 3-11ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﺮةﰲاﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔﻳﻤﻜﻦأنﺗﺮﺑﻄﻪﺑﻤﺆﻟﻔينآﺧﺮﻳﻦ،ﻻوﺟﻮدﻫﻨﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ،ﻻﳾءﺳﻮى اﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ!إنﻣﻦﺷﺄنﺳﺨﺮﻳﺔﺑﺎرتﻣﻦﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻪاﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔأنﺗﻌﻤﻞ،ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًا،ﻋﲆﺧﻠﻖ أﺳﻄﻮرةﺑﺎرﺗﻴﺔ،أﺳﻄﻮرةاﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ،والمﺆﻟﻒ. 125

روﻻنﺑﺎرت ﻻﻳﻌﻨﻲﻫﺬاأنﺑﺎرتﻟﻴﺲﻛﺎﺗﺒًﺎ؛ﻓﻬﻮﻛﺎﺗﺐﻣﺘﻤﻴﺰﻋﲆﻧﺤﻮاﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻲ،ﻛﺎﺗﺐأﻧﻴﻖ، ﻣﺘﻔﺮد،وﺟﺴﻮر.ﻟﻜﻦﺗﻤﺎﻣًﺎﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎذﻫﺐﻫﻮإﱃأناﻟﻨﺒﻴﺬﺟﻴﺪﻣﻦاﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔالمﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔﻟﻜﻦ ﺧيرﻳﺔاﻟﻨﺒﻴﺬأﺳﻄﻮرة،ﻓﺒﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎأنﻧﺬﻫﺐﻧﺤﻦأﻳﻀًﺎإﱃأﻧﻪﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎﺑﺎرتﻛﺎﺗﺐﻋﻈﻴﻢﻣﻦ اﻟﻮﺟﻬﺔالمﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ،ﻓﺈنﺑﺎرتاﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐأﺳﻄﻮرة؛ﻣﺤﺾﺑﻨﺎءأﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞﺗﺄﺛيره، ﻋﲆوﺟﻪاﻟﺪﻗﺔ،ﰲإﺛﻨﺎﺋﻨﺎﻋﻦﺗﻨﺎولﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪووﺿﻌﻬﺎﻣﻮﺿﻊاﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎر،واﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎﻟﻨﺮى ﻣﺎﻳﻤﻜﻦأنﺗﻔﻌﻠﻪﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔإﱃالمﻤﺎرﺳﺎتوالمﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎتاﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔاﻟﺘﻲﻧﻬﺘﻢﺑﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ.ﻟﻘﺪ أرادﺑﺎرتأنﻳﻜﺘﺐﻛﻤﺎأﻋﻠﻦ،ﻻأنﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻈﻤﺔوأﻫﻤﻴﺔﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪﻋﻦﻣﺰاﻋﻤﻬﺎﺑﺸﺄنالمﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎتاﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔاﻟﺘﻲﻳﺘﻨﺎوﻟﻬﺎ،وﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻫﺬاﻋﲆﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﻪالمﺘﺄﺧﱢﺮةاﻟﺮاﺋﻌﺔﻋﻦﺑﺮوﺳﺖ،اﻟﺘﻲأﻋﻠﻦﻓﻴﻬﺎﺗﺤﻮﱡﻟَﻪﻣﻦاﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎتﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔإﱃاﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔﻓﺤﺴﺐ،ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪرﻧﻔﺴﻪاﻟﺬيﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖﺑﻪﻋﲆأﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪالمﺒﻜﱢﺮة )اﻟﺘﻲﻛﺜيرًاﻣﺎﺗﺒﻨﻰﻓﻴﻬﺎأﻳﻀًﺎﻓﻜﺮةاﻹﻧﺘﺎج(. إناﻟﺤﻂﱠﻣﻦﺷﺄنالمﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢأواﻟﺘﻨﻈيراتاﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔواﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎءﺑﺒﺎرتﻛﻜﺎﺗﺐﻫﻤﺎإذن وﺟﻬﺎنﻟﻌﻤﻠﺔواﺣﺪة،وﻣﻦالمﻬﻢأنﻧﺘﻘﴡﱠﺗﺪاﻋﻴﺎﺗﻬﻤﺎﻋﲆﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔﺑﺎرتﰲاﻟﻮﻗﺖاﻟﺮاﻫﻦ؛ لمﺎذاﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲأنﻧﻘﺮأه؟ﻫﻞﻟﻜﻲﻧﻌﻤﱢﻖﺷﻜﻮﻛﻨﺎﰲأناﻟﺨﻄﺎباﻟﻨﻈﺮيﻟﻴﺲﺳﻮىﺻﻮرة ﻣﻠﺘﺒﺴﺔﻣﻦﺻﻮرﺗﻀﺨﻢاﻟﺬات؟ﰲﻫﺬهاﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ،ﻓﺈنﻗﻴﻤﺔﺑﺎرتﺳﺘﻜﻮنﻣﴩوﻃﺔﺑﻮﺟﻮد ﺣﻀﻮرﻣﺆﺛﺮﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ،وﻫﻮأﻣﺮﻋﲆالمﺮءأنﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢﻣﻘﺎوﻣﺘَﻪ،وﻫﻮﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎدﺣﺎﻟﻨﺎاﻟﻴﻮم، وﻋﲆاﻟﻌﻜﺲ،ﻓﺈنأﻋﻤﺎلﺑﺎرتأﻛﺜﺮﻓﺎﺋﺪةﰲﺗﺤﻔﻴﺰﻧﺎﻋﲆالمﻐﺎﻣﺮاتاﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔوﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﲆاﻟﺘﻔﻜيرﺧﺎرجﻧﻄﺎقاﻵراءاﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪة. وﺳﻮفأذﻫﺐإﱃأنﻗﻴﻤﺔﺑﺎرت،ﻻﺑﻞﻋﺒﻘﺮﻳﺘﻪ،ﻻﺗﻜﻤﻦﰲاﻟﺒﺼيرةاﻟﺜﺎﻗﺒﺔأو اﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔاﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﻴﺔاﻟﺘﻲوَﺳَﻤَﺖْأﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪالمﺘﺄﺧﺮة،وإﻧﻤﺎﰲأﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪالمﺒﻜﺮة،اﻟﺘﻲﻗﺎمﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎفاﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻتﻋﺪدﻣﻦاﻟﻌﻠﻮم،ﻓﻔﻲ ﻋﺎﻣٍّﺎ ﺑﻘﻠﻢﺑﺎرت ﻛﻞالمﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢﰲﻣﺬﻳﺎعﻻﻳﻌﺮفﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔﺗﺸﻐﻴﻠﻪ إﺣﺪىاﻟﺴﻤﺎتاﻟﺠﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔﻟﻌﺒﻘﺮﻳﺔﺑﺎرتﻫﻲاﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﻪاﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔاﻹرﺷﺎدﻳﺔﻟﻠﻨﺰﻋﺔ المﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔواﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔإﱃاﻟﻮﺿﻮح.وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًاﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﻛﺎنﻳﺴﻌﻰﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔأوﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻲﻟﴚءٍﻣﺎ،ﻓﺈﻧﻪﻛﺎنﻳﺘﺠﻪ،ﺑﻔﻌﻞﻫﺬااﻹﺟﺮاء،إﱃﺗﻨﺎولﻣﺸﻜﻼتوﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت وﻋﻨﺎﴏﰲاﻟﺨﻄﺎبﻳﺘﻢإﻏﻔﺎﻟﻬﺎﻋﺎدةً.إناﻟﻨﻤﻮذجاﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻲ،اﻟﺬيﻳﻘﴤﺑﺄﻧﻪ 126

ﺑﺎرتﺑﻌﺪﺑﺎرت ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎﻳﻮﺟﺪالمﻌﻨﻰﻳﻜُﻦﻫﻨﺎكﻧﺴﻖ،وأﻧﻪﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪالمﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎتالمﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ واﻟﺪوالوالمﺪﻟﻮﻻتﻟﻜﻞﻣﺴﺘﻮًىﻣﻦﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎتاﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ،ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐأنﻧﻔﻜﺮ،ﻋﲆﺳﺒﻴﻞالمﺜﺎل، ﰲوﻇﻴﻔﺔﻛﻞﻋﻨﴫﻣﻦﻋﻨﺎﴏﻋﻨﺎوﻳﻦﺻﻮرالمﻮﺿﺔواﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔاﻟﺘﻲﺗﻨﻌﻜﺲﺑﻬﺎ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔاﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔﰲالمﻼﺣﻈﺎتﺣﻮلاﻟﻄﻘﺲ،وﰲﺣﺎﻟﺔاﻷدب،ﻓﺈنالمﻨﻬﺞالمﺘﺪرجاﻟﺬي اﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻪﰲ اﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮوأﻛﺜﺮﻫﺎدﻻﻟﺔًﻋﲆﺣﺪﱟﺳﻮاء،وﺗﻤﺜﻴﻠﻬﺎ،وﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻬﺎ،وﻓﻘًﺎﻷيﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞأوﺷﻔﺮات. إنالمﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ،أوﻻًوﻗﺒﻞﻛﻞﳾء،أداةﺗﻐﺮﻳﺐ؛ﺣﻴﺚﻳﺘﻌينﻋﻠﻴﻚاﻟﻨﻈﺮإﱃاﻷﺷﻴﺎء ﰲﻣﻘﺎﻻتﺟﺪﻳﺪة،وﺑﻄﺮقﺟﺪﻳﺪةواﻹﺗﻴﺎنﺑﺠﺪﻳﺪﺗﻘﻮﻟﻪ،وﻫﻜﺬا،ﺳﻮاءأَﺧْﺮَجﻟﻨﺎﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ أﺻﻴﻠﺔواﺿﺤﺔالمﻌﺎﻟﻢأمﻻ،ﻓﺈناﻟﻨﺰوعالمﻨﻬﺠﻲﻟﻪأﻫﻤﻴﺔﺣﺎﺳﻤﺔﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔإﱃﺑﺎرت، وﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎﻳﻨﻘﻠﺐﻋﻠﻴﻪ،ﻓﺈﻧﻪﻳﺨﺎﻃﺮﺑﺎﻟﺴﻘﻮطﰲاﻷﺷﻜﺎلاﻟﱪﺟﻮازﻳﺔواﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﻴﺔﻟﻸﺳﻄﺮة اﻟﺘﻲﻗﺎمﺑﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞآﻟﻴﺎﺗﻬﺎﰲاﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ. وﺛﻤﺔﻣﺜﺎلﻋﲆالمﺰاﻳﺎاﻟﺘﻲﺗﻮﻓﱢﺮﻫﺎالمﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ،ﻫﻮذﻟﻚاﻟﺨﻂاﻟﺒﺴﻴﻂواﻟﺴﻬﻞﰲ اﻟﺘﻘﴢﱢ)اﻟﺬيأﺻﺒَﺢَاﻵنَﻣَﻠْﻤَﺤًﺎﺛﺎﺑﺘًﺎﰲﻧﻈﺎماﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢاﻟﻔﺮﻧﴘ(اﻟﺬيأﺳﻤﺎهﺑﺎرت » ﺑﺴﻴﻂ اﻟﻜﺎرﺗﻮن )وﻣﺎﻗﻴﻤﺔأيﻣﻨﻬﺞﻻﻳﺴﻌﻰإﱃاﺳﺘﺠﻼءﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪﺑﻜﻠﻴﺘﻪ؛أي،ﰲﻫﺬهاﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ،ﺳﻄﺢ اﻟﻨﺴﻴﺞاﻟﴪديﺑﺄﴎه؟(…ﻓﺈﻧﻪﺳﻴﺼﻄﺪمﻻﻣﺤﺎﻟﺔﺑﺘﺪوﻳﻨﺎتﻻﺗﱪرﻫﺎأيوﻇﻴﻔﺔ )وﻻﺣﺘﻰأﻗﻠﻬﺎﻣﺒﺎﴍة » إﱃاﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞاﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮيﻟﻠﴪد إنﻛﺎﻧﺖﺛﻤﺔﻣﺴﺎﺣﺎتﻻأﻫﻤﻴﺔﻟﻬﺎﺗﺴﺘﻘﺮﰲاﻟﻮﺣﺪاتاﻟﴪدﻳﺔ—ﻓﻤﺎﻫﻲ،ﰲﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ المﻄﺎف،إنﺟﺎزاﻟﻘﻮل،أﻫﻤﻴﺔﻣﺎﻻأﻫﻤﻴﺔﻟﻪ؟ اﻟﺘﺸﻮﻳﻖ،أواﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺎت،أوالمﻨﺎخ،أوالمﻌﻨﻰاﻟﺮﻣﺰي،وﻣﻊذﻟﻚﺗﻤﺘﻠﻚوﻇﻴﻔﺔدﻻﻟﻴﺔ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﻠﺺ،ﺑﻔﻌﻞاﻓﺘﻘﺎرﻫﺎﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻰﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًا،ﺗﻘﻮل اﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔﺗُﻘِﻴﻢﺗﻌﺎرﺿًﺎﺑينالمﻌﻨﻰواﻟﻮاﻗﻊ، ﻗﺎﺑﻞﻟﻠﻔﻬﻢ ﻓﻬﻲﺗﺸيرإﱃﻣﺎﻳﺴﻤﱠﻰﻋﺎدةً 127

روﻻنﺑﺎرت اﻷﻧﺴﺎقاﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻴﺔﻟﻢﻳﺘﻢاﻟﺘﻨﻈيرﻟﻬﺎ،أوﺗﺼﻮرﻫﺎﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎرﻫﺎوﻇﻴﻔﺔﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖﺑﺎلمﻌﻨﻰ اﻟﻀﻤﻨﻲ،ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎذاتأﻫﻤﻴﺔﺣﺎﺳﻤﺔﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔإﱃاﻷﻋﻤﺎلاﻟﺘﻲﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲﻟﻠﱰاﺛيناﻟﻮاﻗﻌﻲ واﻟﻄﻠﻴﻌﻲ،ﻛﻤﺎﻧﻈﱠﺮﻟﻬﺎﺑﺎرتﰲأﻋﻤﺎلروبﺟﺮﻳﻴﻪﻋﲆوﺟﻪاﻟﺨﺼﻮص؛ﺣﻴﺚاﻟﻮﺻﻒ » إناﻻﻟﺘﺰاماﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻲﻫﻮﻣﺎﻳﻤﻜﱢﻦﺑﺎرتﻣﻦإﺑﺮازاﻟﴫاعاﻟﺪاﺋﻢﺑينالمﻌﻨﻰ وﺗﻔﺮﻳﻐﻪﰲاﻷدب،والمﻮﺿﺔ،وﻏيرﻫﻤﺎﻣﻦأﻧﺴﺎقاﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ،ﺣﻴﺚﻣﻦاﻟﺴﻬﻞﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔﻋﲆﻧﺎﻗﺪ إﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲأنﻳﻔﱰضوﺟﻮدﻣﻌﻨًﻰﻛﺎفٍدونأنﻳﺸﻐﻞﺑﺎﻟﻪﺑﻤﻼﻳيناﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎتاﻟﺘﻲﺗﺸير ﻧﺤﻮالمﻌﻨﻰﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎﺗﻔﺸﻞﰲﺗﻮﺻﻴﻞﻣﺎﻧﺘﻮﻗﻌﻪﻣﻨﻬﺎ. إنوﻇﻴﻔﺔاﻷدب،ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻘﻮلﺑﺎرتﰲﺗﺼﺪﻳﺮ ﻛﺜيرون ﰲ ﻋﲆاﻷﺷﻴﺎء؛وﻣﻦﺛَﻢﻣﺤﻮاﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢﻛﻤﺎﺧﻄﺘﻪالمﻤﺎرﺳﺎتاﻟﺨﻄﺎﺑﻴﺔاﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ؛وﻣﻦﺛَﻢﻫﻨﺎك ﺻﻠﺔﺑينأﻫﺪافﻧﺼيراﻟﻄﻠﻴﻌﺔ،واﻟﺘﺤﻮلاﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ،وﺑينﺣﻠﻢاﻟﻌﻠﻤﻮﻳﺔالمﺒﻬﺞاﻟﺬيﻗﺎد ﺑﺎرتاﻟﺸﺎبإﱃﺗﺠﺮﻳﺐﺳﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔوﺗﺮﻛﻴﺰاﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪﻋﲆﻛﻞﻣﺎﻧﻌﺘﱪهﺑﺪﻳﻬﻴٍّﺎ أوﻧﻌﺎﻣﻠﻪﻛﴚءﻻأﻫﻤﻴﺔﻟﻪ.ﺳﻴﻜﻮنﻣﻦالمﺤﺰنﻟﻮأنﺑﺎرتﻫﺬاﻓُﻘﺪإﱃاﻷﺑﺪﰲﺻﻮرة » ﻧﺴﻴﺎنالمﻨﻈﱢﺮﻟﺼﺎﻟﺢاﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ.ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎناﻟﻘﻮل،ﺑﺪﻻًﻣﻦذﻟﻚ،إنالمﻨﻈﱢﺮﻫﻮاﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐاﻟﺬي ﻧﺄﺧﺬأﻓﻜﺎرهﺑﺠﺪﻳﺔ.وﻫﺬاﻣﺎﻳﺴﺘﺤﻘﻪﺑﺎرتﺑﻜﻞﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ. 128

ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎتوﻣﺮاﺟﻊ اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻷول:رﺟﻞاﻷدوار 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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ:المﺆرخاﻷدﺑﻲ 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 at- tempting in Le Degré zéro to ‘Marxianize the Sartrean commitment’. Un- fortunately, one cannot wholly trust his recollections here, since he also

روﻻنﺑﺎرت 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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ:ﻋﺎﻟِﻢاﻷﺳﺎﻃ 1) Barthes, ‘Maîtres et esclaves’, Lettres nouvelles (March 1953), p. 108. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺮاﺑﻊ:اﻟﻨﺎﻗﺪ 1) Barthes speaks of his love for ‘scription’, the act of writing: ‘Writ- ing 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 ide- ology’ (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 em- bodied in sentences so pure that they might be used as grammatical mod- els’ (p. 14/6). Barthes’s reading, adding its own language, accentuates these effects of collision. 130

ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎتوﻣﺮاﺟﻊ اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ: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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺴﺎدس:اﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻲ 1) For discussion of Saussure’s theory of language and his pro- posals 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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ: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 131

روﻻنﺑﺎرت leads him to miss ways in which the work undermines the presupposi- tions 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). اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ:المُﺘﻌِﻲﱡ 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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ: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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﻌﺎﴍ:اﻷدﻳﺐ 1) Particularly interesting are ‘The Wisdom of Art’, introduction to Cy Twombly, Paintings and Drawings , 1954–1977, catalogue of an exhibi- tion at the Whitney Museum of American Art (New York, 1979), collected 132

ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎتوﻣﺮاﺟﻊ 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. اﻟﻔﺼﻞاﻟﺤﺎديﻋﴩ:ﺑﺎرتﺑﻌﺪﺑﺎرت 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 Neu- tre’, 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 tran- scribes Barthes’s reference to ‘Moroccan boy of the Zenzin poem’, and 133

روﻻنﺑﺎرت 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. 134

ﻗﺮاءاتإﺿﺎﻓﻴﺔ (أﻋﻤﺎلﻟﺮوﻻنﺑﺎرت 1) Here I list only books and one important interview. For bibliographies of Barthes’s numerous articles, now collected in his Œuvres complètes , see Communications 36 (1982); Sanford Freedman and Carol Anne Tay- lor, Roland Barthes: A Bibliographical Reader’s Guide (Garland, 1983); and Gilles Philippe, Roland Barthes, Bibliographie des écrivains de France (Memini, 1996). Philippe’s excellent bibliography, while hard to find, is particularly thorough in describing writings about Barthes. Barthes’s Œuvres complètes , in three volumes, edited by Eric Marty, were published by Seuil in 1993, 1994, and 1995. All of the works listed below can be found in them, but my page references in this book are to the earlier individual volumes: the first to the French original, the second to the English translation. (I give page references to the English translations published in the United States, mostly by Hill and Wang, but many of these have also been issued in England by Jonathan Cape.) Entries marked with an asterisk are collections published after Barthes’s death. *A Barthes Reader, ed. Susan Sontag (Hill and Wang, 1982).

روﻻنﺑﺎرت *L’Aventure sémiologique (Seuil, 1985). The Semiotic Challenge, tr. Richard Howard (Hill and Wang, 1988). *Le Bruissement de la langue (Seuil, 1984). The Rustle of Language, tr. Richard Howard (Hill and Wang, 1986). La Chambre claire: note sur la photographie (Gallimard and Seuil, 1980). Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, tr. Richard Howard (Hill and Wang, 1981). Critique et vérité (Seuil, 1966). Criticism and Truth, tr. Katrine Kueneman (University of Minnesota Press, 1987). Le Degré zéro de l’écriture (1953), with Nouveaux essais critiques (Seuil, 1972). Writing Degree Zero, tr. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith (Hill and Wang, 1968); New Critical Essays, tr. Richard Howard (Hill and Wang, 1980). Éléments de sémiologie (1964), in Le Degré zéro de l’écriture, suivi de Éléments de sémiologie (Seuil, 1965). Elements of Semiology, tr. An- nette Lavers and Colin Smith (Hill and Wang, 1968). L’Empire des signes (Skira, 1970). Empire of Signs, tr. Richard Howard (Hill and Wang, 1982). Essais critiques (Seuil, 1964). Critical Essays, tr. Richard Howard (North- western University Press, 1972). Fragments d’un discours amoureux (Seuil, 1977). A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments, tr. Richard Howard (Hill and Wang, 1978). *Le Grain de la voix: Entretiens 1962–1980 (Seuil, 1981). The Grain of the Voice: Interviews 1962–1980, tr. Linda Coverdale (Hill and Wang, 1985). Image, Music, Text, essays selected and tr. Stephen Heath (Hill and Wang, 1977). *Incidents (Seuil, 1987). Incidents, tr. Richard Howard (University of Cali- fornia Press, 1992). 136