Exscription - Nancy

8/14/2019 Exscription - Nancy

1/19

JEAN-LUC NANCYExscription

Ofthe two texts nitedhere, hesecond lone willaccount or heircommon itle.Elevenyears eparate hesetwotexts, nd thereaderwillsensethisdistance.'Thewritingf he econdbroughtmebackhowever,n an unexpectedway, o thefirst.A continuityeemedinescapable, f a community ithBataillewhichgoes beyond ndcangowithout heoretical iscussionwhich cansuppose iveson,or at least endureswithwhatcan be called thetragic eligion fBataille).This communityhereforelso goes beyond ommentary,exegesis, rinterpretationf Bataille. t is notwithoutdistance rreservations,utthese repreciselyheoretical.t s a communitynthatBataille mmediatelyommunicates o me thatpain and thatpleasurewhichresult romhe mpossibilityf ommunicatingny-thingt all without ouchinghe imitwhere llmeaning pills utofitselfike a simple nk tain n aword, ntheword meaning."2hisspilling nd this nkaretheruin oftheories f"communication,"conventionalhatterwhichpromotes easonable xchangenddoesnothing utobscureviolence, reacheryndlies,while eaving hepower funreasonwithnochanceofbeingmeasured. uttherealityofcommunity herenothings sharedwithout lso being emovedfrom hatkindof"communication,"hisreality as always lreadyrevealed hevanity fsuch speeches.Theycommunicate nly thepostulation f hecommunication f meaning,ndof hemeaningof "communication." s for ataille, eyondwhathesays nd some-

1. The first,na slightly ifferentersion, aspublishednthe nthology iserede la litterature Paris:Bourgois,ollection Premiereivraison,"977).2. See myLa CommunautWesoeuvree (Minneapolis: he UniversityfMin-nesotaPress, orthcoming),ranslatedyPeter onnor ndChristopherynsk.YFS78, On Bataille, d.AllanStoekl,C 1990byYaleUniversity.

47


2/19

48 Yale French tudiestimes part romwhathesays,he communicates ommunitytself.That s,nakedexistence, akedwriting,ndhow one silently, aun-tingly eferss to theother,making s sharemeaning's akedness:neither odsnor houghts utthatus imperceptiblynd nsuperablyexscribed. oday here sakind fnecessity f ayinghis, f ayingtagain:we exist,wewrite, nly for" his taggeringpillage fmean-ing.Morethan usta fewyears rerepeated ere;ourwholetraditionmustre-appropriatetsexperienceor tself. Je erai n versdevrairien .. J'aifait e vers,ne sais surquoi" [I will make a versefromnothingat all . . . I made the verse,about what I know not], writesGuillaumede Poitiers round heyear 100.3

I. REASONS TO WRITEWriting,n theBookIn a certainense-verycertain,nfact-it is nodoubtnearlympos-sible oday o"rien crire"writenything]nthebook.ThispeculiarFrench sageof heword rien" bliges netounderstandtthe ametimeboth: t'sno longer ossible o write nythingn thesubject fthebook, nd t s no onger ossible oget utofwritingn thebook.It sno onger ossible owrite nything hateverbout hebook:if ndeed thequestion f hebook"mustbe the ssue,to borrowheexpression rom ne of the textswhich markthe horizonof thisimpossibility"EdmondJabes t la questiondu livre,"by JacquesDerrida),wemust t oncepostulate hat s ofnowthisquestionhasbeenfully reated althought has notbeen norcan it everbe theobjectofanytreatise). wishtoposit, o invent nythingbout ttodaycan only spring romgnorance rnaivete,whether eal orfeigned. omething efinitives as of nowaccomplished egardingthisquestion, y group, networkrwhateverne wants o callit,of exts hat an'tbeavoided, amedMallarme, roust, oyce, afka,Bataille,Borges, lanchot, aporte, errida.An incompleteist nodoubt, nunjust neperhaps-itisnonetheless ertain hatwe mustnot imply assthroughhem n theway, ut tay here.Which snotat all fetishistic,dolatrous,rconservative-quite hecontrary,sshouldbe clear. t is timeto affirmhat hequestionofthe book s

3. All citations romhemany uthors re woven ntothistext nd will notbefootnotedutofrespect or he pirit f he rticle.


3/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 49already ere. Reactionary ietism onsists n theexactopposite,nindefinitelyoliciting hese sametexts o as to extract rom hem,andstart p again n a thousandmore r ess declaredways, ygloss,imitation rexploitation,question f hebook ntheform f pec-ulation,mise en abyme,staging, ragmentation,enunciation renunciation fthebook, tretchings far s theeyecanread.I myself houldhave liked to contentmyselfwithpatiently e-copying hese textshere.Nothing an assureme that shouldnothavedoneso.But-at thesametime,bythesamecategoricalmperative-it'sno longer ossibletogetout ofwritingn the book.

For hisquestion s nota question,t s not subjectwhich an beconsidereds completelyr ncompletelyxplored-still ess as ex-hausted.Exhaustion-an undefinedxhaustion-forms ather hesubjectwhichmustbe tackled, ere s elsewhere.As for hebook Mallarme's itle ndprogram),he oose ends ofsomethingn ourhistory ave nowbeentiedup.The power f thisknotdoes not comefromhe"genius" f hese"authors" ut ignalsthehistorical,more hanhistorical, ower ndnecessitywhichmusthave causedthewritingfbookstoget ll knotted pin tself. incetheWest-whatHeideggermadeus think f s theWest-decided asfar ack as humanmemory oes, oconsign o bookstheknowledgeofa truth ecipheredna Book-of theWorld,fGod, ndeed ftheId-which was nonethelessmpossible oreadorwrite, he West sknotted pwithwriter'sramp. his s inbrief hewell-known ainreasonforwhat we havecontinually ogo and readagain n thesetexts.And ofwhatwehaveto write gain-on condition hatwe not,followinghefashionwhichforgetshe mplacable essonof PierreMenard, llow theconcept f"writinggain" o tumble own othelevelofthe"rewrite."Accordingo a lawwhichall thesetexts ontain, ndarticulate,and whoserigorneeds no demonstration,hishistory tricken ywriter's rampcan onlyendby repeatingtself.Neverfullydealtwith, hequestionofthe book marks heresurgencefrepetition.Not of apropre itsown]repetitionecause tis, nasmuch s it s,thequestion fwhatremainswithout ropertypropertynd iterarycommunism,hat s thequestion).Repetitions theform,hesub-stanceofwhatdoes nothave ts dentity rintednce andfor ll (normore han nce) ntheuntranscribableook.Forwhoever appens o


4/19

50 Yale French tudiesbe deprived f this dentity-for veryonen the West-repetitionforms hequestion fthebook, hequestionwhichmustbe writtenin order o dissolve nits writing-what?In order-but thegesturefwritingsnever atisfied ith tele-ology-to dissolve-but in a dissolution tself issociated rom hevaluesof solutionconferredn it by metaphysics-notmerely heidealidentitynscribedntheblindingwhiteness ftheBook.(forn thedepth feternalight, verythinghich s scatteredntheuniverses reuniteds ifboundby ove nto single ook.Dante.)but to dissolvethis dentityo thepointofa loss, a privationwhich s also a privatization,o dissolve ventheBook tself o thepoint of oss, privation, rivatization.he Book is there-in everybook thevirgin efoldingf the booktakesplace (Mallarme)-wemustwrite n t,make t a palimpsest,verloadt,muddy tspageswithadded ines to thepointofutmost onfusion fsignsand ofwritings: e must n short ulfilltsoriginal nreadability,lutchingitin theshapeless xhausted andofthecramp.What for?we must ndeedtake the risk:we must write n thebookfor deliverance.Whichwouldscarcely ave to dowithFree-dom Imeanwith hat ubjective,ubject, ubjugatedreedom hichGod or theSpirit fmetaphysics utomaticallyonfer ponthem-selves).Writing ught oslip ntothe nterstice fthestrange om-onymiber/liber,nto heeverydaymbiguityf ivraisondelivery].Writing?ormentingourself,uitevainly oping orhemomentofdeliverance?Bataille)-and the sentencewhichfollows n thesamestory, istoire erats:

Myreasonforwritings toreachB.B. s thewoman n the tory,uther nitial ndthe entencetselfhaveusreadwoman, hiswoman, woman nd man ndB.;Bataillehimself,ndaplaceand book nd thoughtnddeliveranceitself,"inpersonwithout nyallegorism.Such s repetition: enewal, ewritingf hepetition,f heefforttoreachand oin,of therequest, fthedemand, ftheplea,oftheclaim,of the supplication.Rewritingn the book is therenewedclamor rmurmurf demand, f pressingall. f he extswhichhave mentioned o remain henceforthn ourhistory,t'sbecausethey avenotdealtwith ny uestion uthaveknotted his all ntolump n one ormore hroats fwriting: grand lottal pasm.Theyhave knotted he ethical and morethan ethicalcall for


5/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 51deliverance, ntoa deliverance.t is imperativeot toanswer t ...theneutral, rites lanchot, enominatings neutral he iteraryctwhichbringingn unanswerableroblem o the losure f naliquidto whichthequestionwouldn't orrespond-or ather twould beindispensable o distinguish ith all possiblecaretwo ncommen-surable oncepts: he answer oa question nd theanswer oa call.It maybe thatone can answer call onlybe repeatingt-likenightwatchmen.tmaybethat t s nottheresponsewhich s imper-ative, utonly heobligation fresponding,hich scalledresponsi-bility. ow, n thebook, an the ssue beresponsibility?ludingt sno onger ossible nymore han voidinghis:how,nwriting heretheVoice s absent avoicewithoutwritingsat onceabsolutelyliveandabsolutely ead.Derrida),s a call to beheard,how can it be aquestionofvocation,nvocation radvocation? ow ingeneral anthe book'sfullotherness e delivered?All these exts aveexhausted he heme, he heory,hepractice,themetamorphosis,hefuture,hefugue,r he utof hebookfor oother easonthantorepeat hiscall.Imyself adsomethinglse towrite,ongerndformore han neperson. ong nthewriting.t wouldbe a book as long s theThou-sand and OneNights, erhaps, utquitedifferentProust).RepetitionsAll thesame, t is probably etter o dot the 's ofrepetition,t theriskofrepeatingmyselfomewhat.Thereduplicationf hebook t tsownheart,he elf-representa-tionof iterature,ach book's tory f tsownbirth-of tsowndeliv-ery-its self-analysis,rperhaps he nvolution f tsmessage nthedisplay f tscode,or thefigurationf tsproceduresnthenarrativeordemonstrativerocess f heformationf tsfiguresrtheputtingintoplay f tsrulesby hegame's ules hemselves,llthatn awordI will call autobibliography,ll thisdatesfrom he nvention fthebook. Everythingn the strengthfwhich ourmodernity ainedentire ibraries-ithad tobe, t wasnecessary ythatvery ecessityofthebook whichno written ext scapes theuselessprolix pistlewhich amwriting lready xists none of hethirtyolumes nthefive ookshelvesn one of he nnumerableexagons-andsodoes tsrefutation.- he ibrary fBabel-, allthismakesup the elf-repeti-tionwhichunavoidablyonstituteshebookfrom irth. he reason


6/19

52 YaleFrench tudieswrite s to reach B.: Babel, Bible,bibliology, ibliomancy,iblio-mania,bibliophilia, ibliotheque library].

This is whatthebookhas more ccuratelyndedup reciting ndharking ackto, n theage of tsmaterial nvention: n the age ofprinting,geof he rue ook, geof hefully eveloped ubject ndofcommunication. rinting as satisfied he need to relate to eachothernan deal mode Hegel). incethen verythingas happened sif ll the deal content fcommunicationonsisted nautobibliogra-phy.All booksdisplay hebeingor thelaw of thebook: from hebeginningthasnoobject ut tself,ndthis atisfaction.amwritingtoyou,daughter, ithpleasure, ven hough have nonewsforyou(Mmede Sevigne).Everythingas beensaid, nd we cometoo ate, nthemore hanseven housand ears hat here avebeenthinkingmen:so it s thatthefirsthapter n booksmustbebegun,na bookentitled harac-ters.The exhaustion fmaterialprescribeshe nfinite umber fpossible waysto form hesignsof t. It's thehistory f theworldwhichweare nowvisiting,hegoddess ellshim: t'sthebookof tsdestinies.Move into another oom and there s anotherworld, n-otherbook-somewherein it youwill find heEssaysconcernedwiththeodicywhere t's all written,ndyou'llread there hatallBorges verwrotewasbuta thoughtfLeibnitz'swhichLichtenberghadalready ecopied: he ibraries ill becities.No placewillbe freeofbooks, ven f here houldhappen o be a lack.You arequiteright,sir, heres a wholechaptermissing ere,eaving hole of t easttenpages n thebook,writes ristram,he uthorwhoalsorecounts isownbirth.Nor will anybookbe free fbooks,for, otcontent oinscribe urnameon anonymous houghts ya singleauthor,weappropriatehoseof thousands f ndividuals, pochs, ndentire i-braries,nd westeal evenfrom lagiarists, ritesJean aulplagiariz-inghimselfnemore ime.The textual nthology-choosinglowersfrom ooks, hoosing ooks o as toarrangeneachbookthebouquetof ts iterariness-continuesnabated ll thewaydownto us.Allthisrepetitionnabyme f hebookconstitutestsredundan-cy, othnative oit andmorenaivethan s usually hought. edun-dancys theoverflowf heundulating ave, ts excess: heBookhasalwaysbeenthought f as theendlessly pouting pray fan inex-haustible cean-wouldn't a jetofgrandeur,f hought,rof onsid-erable motion, sentence ursuedn arge ype paced uttoone inea page,keepthe readerngoodcondition or he ength fthe book


7/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 53(Mallarme). hewaverepeatstself ndfallsbackagain.Thisrepeti-tion s perhaps roperlyalledcomposition: ocompose s togatherback ogether,oputback n, obring ackhome, ndtoreduce. verybookbrings ack theredundancyftheBook to thespacedelimitedby an inscription. n each of its temples,autobibliographysworshiped.-on condition hat t knownothing f the other epetitionorwhich nfact t s only heexchange f heremuneration.heageofprintings indeed he geof he ubject-there s no bookthat s notthe book of an 'I,' and 'IFrepeats tself, hat is how it can berecognized.

I haveno more mademybook thanmybook has made me-abook consubstantialwith ts author.The subjectsets itselfup asa Book, ndonly his elf-erectionas ever ecured he ubstance fsubject-whose frank issimulation llows desire o be read ikeanopenbook: thus,reader, am myself hematter fmy book; youwouldbeunreasonableospendyoureisure n sofrivolousndvaina subject. am not buildinghere a statueto erect at the towncrossroads,his s for nook in a library,ndto amusea neighbor.Others ormman; tellofhim, ndportray particularne,veryll-formed. wantpeopleto seemynatural ndordinary ace,howeveroff he track t is. My reason forwritings to reach B.-to reachmyself,oreach n hermy ociety, er olitude,o reachhim,herwhosays I,'notnatural, otordinary.'IF epeatsts desire o tself-but canthatdesire e anythingutoff hetrack? hatthe displaytself s notenough omake tvisible.Someonegets ost rremediablynthematter fhisbook-someonewho will not toprepeatingohimself: thematterfmy xperience,whichwillbe thematterfmybook" ndthis ime t'sProust. ost nevery ook, omeone-who is and sn'ttheonewhosays -repeatshimself. hrough heabymeof utobibliographynd nspite f hisabyme, n autograph alks ntotheabyss. tserrantmovement e-ginsat the same crossroads s itsself-erection.This is theautographwhich takes tssingulareave at theveryopening f ts book. So farewell.Montaigne,hisfirst ayofMarch,fifteen undred nd eighty. ignature fplace, signature fname,signatureffarewell,t enters t own book as if twere tomb. t issamenesswhich, n alteringts identitynditssingularity,ividestheir eal (Derrida).Literal ndliterary epetitionelongs o himwho goes astrayn


8/19

54 Yale FrenchStudieshis ownmarks-in thespeechesof his own wake, ike Finnegan's,signs reonofa merebytoken hatwills stillto bebecoming ponthisthereonce a herewas: an exodushas begun again,here, ndsomeonehas enterednto thehistoryfhisdiaspora.The repeatedcall comesfrom im. t'sthe call of a solitudewhichpreexistsnyisolation, he nvocation f community hichneitherontains orprecedesny ociety. owtodeliver hefull thernessommon o allbooks? omeone sks,somewriter rother,n 'I' who s called.

bentover hebookopento the amepagewhathe hearsare the ongsfromtheother idewhere heothers re (Jacqueline isset)

The Storyhe Writeshimselfabout theBookis a storywhich onforms ithhis desire ndhisexodus.Writing,esays,marks verywherehe end ofcommunism. hat s,ofwhathehas neverknown, ecausehe was bornwithwriting.Buthewritesn hisbooks-and inall hisbooks-what commu-nismwas,thebook's absence.Thebook never retendsoanythinglessthanretracinghatexceeds t. Thequestion f hebook'soriginwill neverbelongto anybook(Derrida)-andyet,0 memory ouwhohavewrittenwhat haveseen,herewill be seenyournobility(Dante).Sohe writes heworld f hebard, he toryteller,he acredreciter.hefirstoet,whotook his tep oastofree imselfhroughthecrowd'smagination,nowshowto returnhroughtto real ife.Forhegoesoff ightnd eft o tell thecrowd heexploitswhichhisimaginationttributesothehero.Thishero s,fundamentally,oonebuthimself. utthepoet's isteners, ho understandim,knowhow to identifyhemselveswith thehero Freud). his pureself-poiesis npurecommunityontinually aunts ll of iterature:ndit'samanof hehere, manof henow,who shisownnarrator,ntheend Robbe-Grillet).Itwas,he says, heworld f a mimewhohad nomodelsandnoimitators,heworld fthe brilliantmproviser,fthe dancer runkongod,ofthedrumbeats,heblows, hewhistlingfan unwrittenmusic, heworld fprayers,upplications,nvocations.t'sthetribewith tswords ndrecitations,he hantingry f heprimitiveom-mune roundtshearth-silentwritingf fire obrighthat ttearswithouteaving trace Laporte).


9/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 55Which sfollowed,n the torywe tellourselves, y he ociety fthatwriting hich s not hebookbut he ngravingf acred harac-ters, he inscription ftheLaws on tabletsofstone ormetal,on

columns, pilasters,pediments, nd mouldings, ardwriting ndeverywherehe erection f steles setting orth heOrder nd theArrangement,he StructurendtheModel,forno one andthusforall: this was monumental ommunism, rchitectural riting ndhieroglyphic onarchy. ll thewordsmusthave a characteristics-pectofdepthorprominence, ngravingrsculpture,he writer fmaxims Joubert)aysof sacredwriting. ndevery ooktendsun-controllablyoward he maxim:maxima sententia, he greatestthought..Last comes-fromnowhere ndeverywhere,rom gypt,onia,Canaan-the book; ast comes ta biblia,the rremediablyluralBi-ble,theLaw, heProphets,heScripture,s itdividestself,ays tselfout,puts tself nabyme, nddisseminatestself. t s and snottheBook ofonlyone-author orpeople.Lastcomesthevery elated, ery ldreligionfbooks, ndalltheexodibegin.Egypt,onia,Canaanmove, onstantlycatteringom-munescrossing he desert.Thehistoryfbooksbegins y osing tselfnthebookofhistory.Therenothingellsus who f nyonewrote hevery irstactwhich snonetheless alled theBookoftheAlliance Exodus,27:7). It's thehistory f thepact-a pactofdeliverance-broken, ept,betrayed,stilloffered-and f therenewed all tosign tonceagain.Scarcelygraven efore heywerebroken, he Tablets re never et up,theywanderntheArkwith hewanderingribes. he Scrollsunroll ndthevolumeofhistorywellsuntil treaches s; thebook s insepara-ble from hestory,hehistory f thenovel: theage ofthebookisromanticism.n ourwritings hought eems to proceedwiththemovement f man who walksstraighthead. nthewritingsf heancients, n thecontrary,t seemstoproceed ythemovement fbirdwhich oarsandwhirls s itgoesforwardJoubert).Who does not see that have taken road longwhich shall go,without toppingndwithout ffort,s long s there s inkandpaperin the world?Booksbeginwiththeir epetition: wo stories fgenesismingle,overlap, epeatand contradict hemselves.Books are copied, re-produced, ublished because they are not in themselvespublicas either songor an obelisk;we transmithem, ranslate hem-


10/19

56 YaleFrench tudiesseventy-two ews, ix from ach tribe n seventy-twoayson theisland ofPharos,madetheBibleGreek-, webetray hem, ounter-feit hem,mitate hem, ecopy,ecite, nd cite them.Whoeverays'I' mixesupbooks and signaturesnhis book: n thereasoningsndinventionshat transplantntomy oil andconfound ithmy wn,have sometimesdeliberately ot indicated he author, n order oholdin checkthe temerityf thosehastycondemnationshataretossedat all sortsofwritings. ere therepeated epetition eginsagain.Books area corruptible atter. ooksare made ofwood:biblos,liber, odex,Buch, t'salwaysbark rtree. tbums, trots,t decom-poses, it can be erased, t falls to thegnawing riticism f mice.Bibliophilias, just as much as philosophy,n impossible ove, tsobjectsdiscolored, aded,worn-out, ut-up, ullofholes. Booksaremiserable, ateful. escarteshates he obofmaking ooks.There snothing or heSubject-theother,he ame;whosays I' (think)-inthetomes,nothing ut loss oftime,a lifeuselesslyconsumed nreadinghe craps fknowledgehat myselfan found. here houldbe some legalrestraintimedagainst nept nduselesswriters, sthere s againstvagabonds nd idlers.Both and a hundred therswouldbe banishedfrom hehandsof ourpeople.This is no jest.Scribblingeemsto be a sort f ymptomf nunruly ge.Whendidwewrite omuchas sinceour dissensions egan? ince ourwritinghas beentroubled.Forhe whosays I' mustnonethelesswrite, hedemonstrationsinexorable: hinkinghroughheproblemf he goandthe lter go,of heoriginaryouplingndthehuman ommunity,usserlwrites:In all this there reessential aws or an essential tyle he rootofwhich ies firstnthe transcendentalgo, nd n thetranscendentalintersubjectivityhichtheegodiscoversnit,andconsequentlyntheessential tructuresf transcendental otivation nd constitu-tion.Success nelucidatinghemwould n tself ive his prioristicstyle supremelyonorable ational xplanation:inal ranscenden-tal ntelligibility.usserlwriteswhathe doesn'twant-to write.Hewrites hattheoriginatinglterationf theego,thecommunityfmen,forms rdeformstyle,writing,ven ntelligibility,he ulti-matesuccessofwhich tdeciphers.Thussupplicationhroughhebookbegan t the ametime s thepersecutionfbooks.Writings tied o a cruel imulacrum f orture(Laporte). ndnow, hroughheglass veryonean see the nscription


11/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 57being tched n thebody f heprisoner. bviously simplewritingcan't beused, t mustn't ill onthe pot, utwithin welve ours ntheaverage Kafka, The PenalColony").

The officerncharge fthemachine xecuteshimself, t theendof the story, y engravingn his ownbodythelaw whichhe hasviolated:Be just Butonlythemad machine s left oapply he awsavagely-communism nd capitalismwritingmachines.Yet it isthe sameappeal:How to deliver he book'sfullotherness?ApocalypseAndwhat fbooksalways nnounced, lways rovoked,heresump-tion nthis tory fwhathas noplace there, oesnothappen here?And what fwe understood hy, oday, peaking,writing, e mustalways peakseveraltimes t the ame time, peaking ccordingothe ogicofdiscourse nd thusunder henostalgia f hetheologicallogos, speaking oo to make possiblea communication fspeechwhichcanonlybe decided n thebasis of communismfrelationsofexchange ndthusofproduction-but lsonotspeaking,writingin a breakwithany anguage f peech ndwritingBlanchot)?At theendofbooks, here s theApocalypse. his is the kindofprophecy-call,that s-which is actuallywritten.t s thebook oftheendof theworld, he book ofthe newbeginning.tswriteraysand I sayhis name-John-and he nameshis place ofexile-theislandof Patmos.This book s a letter o thescatteredhurches,othe secret ommunityereftf tscommunion.n this etter letteris addressed o eachone of thechurches,o eachoneofthe, ssem-blies.The ettersrepeated, ivided,ransformed:otheAngel f heChurch fEphesus,write:Thusspeakshewho holdstheseven tars(John).o them nYsat Loka.Hearing. he urb torbs.Then's nowwithnow'sthen n tense ontinuant. eard.Whohaving as heshallhave had. Hear Joyce).John ritesnthisbookthevisionswhich t sgiven ohim o see:buthe onlywrites ecause thevisionscommand im towrite.TheAngel peaks ohimholding heBookbutJohnoesnotrecopyt: hewriteswhat theAngeldictates o him.What s revealeds not theAngelnor the Book: it is man's writing.He who is announcedthroughevelation, hosays nhisturnwhohe s, shewho says-ofwhomJohn rites hathe sayshe is thealphaandomega.He is theBook, f ourse, ut lso:nothing ut hefinal ount f he haracters


12/19

58 Yale.French-Studiesofwriting-thats all that s revealed f he even roken ealsof hebookof theslaughteredamb. t's theendofreligion.Johnwrites ll his visions of writings. ut n the middle,he isforbiddeno writethewordsof the seventhunderclaps. o bookdeliversheunheard,naudible, eafeningpeech-the primitiveu-mult he ound fwhichwouldhavegiven ise othe xaltationf hemystical ommunity.ut the bookknowsof thescatteringf thecommunion-itis the nscriptionf tand t communicatests call:Let thehearer ay"Come " Come punctuates he Apocalypse ndourbookson books.Come, nd restoreous theconventionsfwhatdisappears,hemovement f heartBlanchotuotedbyDerrida).t'suptoyouto takethe tepofmeaning. here s nochance fdeciding,no futuren deciding,n whateveranguage,whatcomes n "Come"(Derrida).It is not a call to communication,ut thepropagationf therepetitionfthe appeal,or theorder ndofthe demandwhichbear,produce,onvey,eachnothing,ien-viens,-which donotcallforresponse utfor hesimpleobligationorespond,heresponsibilitytowrite gainwiththetwenty-fiveetterswhichcontainno revela-tionbutonlytheir wn exhaustion.Heretheexhaustions initial: hereason writestoreachB.-togofrom he firsto the second etter,o trace etters iedone to theother,whichcallswriting, hich calls a woman, man,a book,astory nd always ike B. in thestory n impossibleunsustainablenudity.Far beyond ndfar hort f whatany speechcan unveil of thereal-farbeyondndfar hort f nyOneBook, pocalypses stilltobe discovered,hediscovery hichshakesall books: that he bookand the communion re stripped, is-covered,n all books. Thebook'sabsence s the bsenceofCommunion-ourcommunionrashare f ne toallandof llto one Mallarme). ut lso thepresence-always nstantlywallowedup-of thebook.Johnmust swallowalittle ook. took he ittle ook ndswallowedt; nmymouththadthe weetness fhoney,utwhen had eaten t, t filledmygutswithbitterness.

Whatcommunicates, hat s taken ncommunionsnothing,snotnothing,othing utbitterness,ut call;anotherommunism,in thefutureutnotthecloseofhistory,communismf xodus ndrepetition, ouldmeannothingbut, s Blanchot ays,naddition owhattheymean,whatdo wordswant:relations fexchange,husof


13/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 59production?),utthiscommunismwould write hedeliverance fbooks, n books.Vain so longas it is bookish it'sMontaignewhomadeuptheword)-and howcould t notbe, starting ight ere?-,butnodoubt lsobookish olong s it svain, o long swriting,tilland onceagain, s notopenly t risk n it.I repeat:The reasonsforwriting book can be reduced o thedesire omodifyherelationsxistingetween man ndhisfellows.These relations re udged nacceptablend areperceiveds a dread-fulmisery Bataille).Farcalls. Coming, ar. nd here.Us then Joyce).

(April 977)II. REASONS TO READ

It is becoming rgent ostop commentingnBataille even houghthecommentaryn him s stillquite sparse).Weought o know t,Blanchothintedat it, appropriately,efusingo comment n thisrejection f ommentary.hereforehaveno intentionf omment-ingon him nBlanchot's tead. ButBlanchot o often oesnothingbut"comment n" Bataille: hinking ithhim, onversing ithhimto infinity.hushe writes: How had he endedup wishing or heinterruptionfdiscourse?Andnotthe egitimate ausewhichper-mits thegive-and-take fconversations .. Whathe hadwanted wassomething uitedifferent,ostop tcold, obreaknto he ircle.Andat once t hadhappened: heheart easing obeat, heeternal alkingdrive topping.")4Moreoverhere anbe noquestion f"refusing."herehasneverbeenand will never eanythingimply eprehensibler imply alsein commentingnwhat,byventuringntowriting,asalready re-sented tselffor ommentary,nd in realityhas alreadybegun tocomment n itself.But such s theambiguityfBataille:hehasbecome nvolved ndiscourse,nd nwriting, eeply nough oexposehimself o thefullnecessity fcommentary.ndthusto tsservility.e has advancedhisthoughtar nough ortsseriousnessodeprive imof hedivinecapricious vanescentovereigntyhichwas however is sole "ob-ject." That imit,heart-rendingndsorrowful,oyous nd relieved,

4. MauriceBlanchot, 'EntretiennfiniParis:Gallimard, 970), 6.


14/19

60 Yale French.tudiesthatdeliverance rom hought, hichdoes notabdicate-quite thecontrary-butwhichno onger as reason obe,orhas notyet easonto be.Thatfreedomredatingll thought, hichthere an never eany questionofmakingntoeither bject rsubject.)Butwhenhe eludedthegesture,hepropositionnd thepositionof a thinker, philosopher,writerandhe ceaselessly ludes,notfinishingis texts,till essthe"sum"or he"system"fhis thought,leavingeven his sentencesunfinishedn occasion, or else relent-lesslywithdrawing yan eccentric,opsided yntaxwhat the prog-ression f a line ofthoughtwas laying own s a logic or a topic)-whenhe stole away,he also stolefrom s access towhat he wascommunicatingous."Ambiguity":sthat heword? erhaps,f t's matter f cting, fa simulacrum-whichwe mustn'thesitate o impute o himalso.Bataille alwaysplayedat beingunableto finish, ut on an act ofexcess, tretching ritingo itsbursting oint, heexcess of whatmakes writing:hat s tosaywhatsimultaneouslynscribesndex-scribest. twas a gameandanact,for e wrote easelessly, ritingeverywhere,lways, he exhaustion fhiswriting. e both aid andwrote hisgame, his ct.He wrote hathe wasguiltyf alkingbouttheglassof lcohol nstead fdrinkingt andgettingrunk. runk nwords ndpagestoexpressndat the ame timedrown he mmensefutile uilt fthegame.Savinghimselfhatway, oo, s itwere, ndalwaysoversure ffinding alvation n thegameitself.Thus notdetaching imself rom oovisibly Christianheater fconfession,absolution ndrelapse nto in, nd ofdependencenforgivenesslloveragain. (Christianitys theater: he repairof the irreparable.Bataillehimself newhowmuch theaterherewas in sacrifice. utthequestion snotofopposing othis he byss f "purelyrrepara-ble."Whatmustridus ofthespirit fcatastrophe hichdominatesus isahigherreedom, ore erribleerhaps ut nquite nother ay.Thattheater oo is ours:a sacrificefwriting y writing, hichwriting edeems.There s no doubtthat ome have hammed t upcomparedwithwhatwere,nspiteofeverything,ataille's estraintandsobriety. o doubt hat oo muchhasbeenmadeofthewriter'snailsbeing orn ut, f uffocationnundergroundaults f iteratureandphilosophy. nless sequencesofthought avebeenhastily e-constructed,apsfillednwith deas. Acommentarynboth ases.)Thisdoesnoturge nany ritic ommentariesnBataille and f hatwerenecessarilyhe case I wouldbeimplicated). here repowerful


15/19

JEAN-LUC NANCY 61and mportantommentaries, ithoutwhichwe couldnotevenposethe questionofhis commentary.But fter ll Bataillewrote Iwant oarouse hegreatestmistrust.I only peakof ived xperiences;do not onfinemyselfo maginaryactions" (6, 261).5How canwe notbeaffectedythismistrust? owcanwe simplygoonwith eading,hen lose thebook, rmakenotes n tsmargins?If underlineustthispassage ndquote tas Ihave ustdone, betrayit already, reduce t to a "stateofintellection"as Bataillesayselsewhere). et t had already een reduced o somethingnwhichintellection ertainly oesn'texhausteverything,utnonethelessoversees hestage.Elsewhere tillBataillewrites hatwritings the"mask"of cry ndanon-knowledge. hat hen oesthatwritingowhichwrites hatvery hing?How couldit notmaskwhatat onemomentt unveils?Andhowcould t notmask, ntheend, heverymaskwhich tsays t s and which tsays t s applyingoa "scream-ing silence"?The blowcannotbeparried,hemechanism r machi-nation fdiscourse s implacable. ar romisingo deafen s,thecry(orthesilence)has beenspiritedwaybybeingnamedor ndicated,under mask which s all the harder o locate forhavingbeensup-posedly hown,named n itsturn,n order obedenounced.Ambiguitys thereforenevitable,nsurmountable.t is nothingother hantheambiguityfmeaning tself.Meaning hould ignify,butwhatmakesmeaning, rthemeaning fmeaning s itwere,s intruthnothing ther han"thisempty reedom,his nfiniterans-parence fwhatfinally oesn'thavetheburden fhaving meaning"(6, 76).Bataillenever easedtofighthisburden, ewrote nly ofreehimself rom t-to reach iberty,o let treachhim-, but writing,speaking,he could onlymakehimself nce againresponsible orsome signification.Dedicating neself ut ofprinciple o this si-lence,philosophizing,peaking,salways murky usiness: he lid-ingwithoutwhich heexercise ouldnotbethen ecomes hemove-ment ofthoughttself" 11,286).The ambiguityies in emptyingexperience fthought,hrough hought; his s philosophy,his sliterature. ndyet mptied xperiences not tupidity-even f hereis stuporn it.Any ommentarynBataille nvolves im n a direction fmean-

5. All referencesoBataille re takenfromheOeuvres ompletesParis,Gal-limard, 970), nd willappearnthetext s vol.,p.


16/19

62 Yale.French tudiesing, oward omethingnivocal.Thereforeataillehimself, henhewanted owrite nthethought ithwhichhehad most n common,wrote urNietzschen a move ssentiallyntent nnotcommentingon Nietzsche,on not writing n him. "Nietzschewrotewithhisblood-whoevercriticizes imor,better, utshimto thetext an doit only fhehimselfs bleeding." Letno one doubt t for n instant:you can'tunderstandword fNietzsche'swork eforexperiencingthatdazzlingdissolutionnitstotality"6, 15,22).But the same goes for ll commentary,f whatever uthor, fwhateverexttmaybe. n awriter'sext, nd lso n a commentator'stext whicheverywriter's ext s in its turn)whatmatters,whatthinks attheveryimit f houghtfnecessary)s whatdoesnot enditselfwholly o a univocalmeaning utwhichstumbles nder heloadofmeaningnd throwst off alance.Bataillenever tops xpos-ing this.Alongside ll the themeshe deals with,through ll thequestionshe debates, Bataille" snothing uta protest gainst hesignificationfhisowndiscourse.fheis to beread,freading ebelsstraight wayagainst hecommentary hich t is, andagainst heunderstandinghich tought obe,wehaveto read neveryinethework r theplayofwriting gainstmeaning.This has nothing odowithnonsense, orwiththe absurd, orwith mystical, hilosophical,rpoeticesotericism.aradoxically,it's traightrom he entence-straightromhewords nd yntax,way, ften lumsy r opsided, emovednanycase as muchas pos-siblefrom heoperation f a "style" "in theacoustico-decorativesenseof he erm" sBorges ays) fweighingnmeaningtself, ivenandrecognizable,wayof nterferingithor mpedinghecommu-nication f thismeaning, ot firstous,but to thismeaningtself.Andreadingmust emainn tsturn nwieldy,wkwardnd,withoutceasing odecode,beyond ecoding. hisreading emains aughtnthestrangematerialityf anguage,t conforms iththesingularcommunicationwhich is carried n not only bymeaningbutbylanguagetself rrather, hich snothingmore han he ommunica-tion of anguagewith tselfwithoutmaking utmeaning,n a sus-pensionofmeaning, ragile,epeated. ealreading oesforwardn-knowing,t alwaysopens a book like an unjustifiableut in thesupposed ontinuum fmeaning.t mustgo astray tthisbreak.Thisreading-which sfirstf ll readingtself,llreading,nev-itably iven ver o the udden, lashing,lidingmovement f writ-ingwhichprecedestandwhich t willrejoin nlybyreinscribingt


17/19


18/19

64 Yale French tudiesthewords 'myife") hereferentoesnotpresenttself s suchexceptby signification. ut this "outside"-entirelyexscribednto thetext-is the nfinite etreatfmeaning ywhicheach existence x-ists. Not thebrute atum,material, oncrete, eputed o be outsidemeaning ndwhichmeaning epresentsut the "empty reedom"throughwhichthelivingbeingcomes to presence-and absence.This freedoms notemptyn thesenseofbeingvain.No doubt t isnotdirected oward project, meaning r a work.But t uses thework fmeaning oexpose, olaybaretheunusable, nexploitable,unintelligiblend unfoundable eingofbeing-in-the-world.hatthere s being, rsomebeingor evenbeings, nd in particularhatthere's us,ourcommunityofwriting-reading):hat s what nsti-gates llpossiblemeanings,hat s what s thevery laceofmeaning,butwhichhasnomeaning.Writing,ndreading,s to be'exposed, o exposeoneself o thisnot-havingtothisnot-knowing)ndthusto "exscription."he ex-scribeds exscribedrom hefirst ord, ot s an "unsayable"r s an"uninscribable"uton thecontrarys thatopeningntoitself fwriting o itself, o its owninscriptions the nfinite ischarge fmeaning-in all the sensesoneshouldgive heexpression.Writing,reading,exscribehething tself, existence,"he"real"-which isonlyexscribedndwhosebeing lone is what'sat stake n inscrip-tion. n inscribing ignifications,e exscribe hepresence fwhatwithdraws rom ll signification,eingitself life,passion,sub-stance... ).The beingof existence anbepresented:tpresentstselfwhenexscribed. ataille's ry sneithermaskednor tifled;tmakes tselfheard s thecry hat s not heard. nwritingherealdoes notrepre-sent tself,tpresentsheunheard-of-violencendrestraint,he ur-priseand freedom fbeing n exscription herewriting t everymomentdischargestself, nburdenstself, mpties tself, f tself.But"exscripted"s not a word n the anguagenorcanonefabri-cate it as I doherewithout eingmangled yone's ownbarbarism.The word "exscripted" xscribesnothing nd writesnothing,tmakes clumsy gestures o indicatewhat must write tself lone,straightutof he lways ncertainhoughtf anguage. Thenudityof theword write'remains,"writesBlanchot,6 hocomparest tothenudity fMadameEdwarda.ThereremainsBataille'snakedness, is nakedwriting,xposing

6. Blanchot, pr&s-coupParis,Minuit, 983), 1.


19/19

JEAN-LUC.NANCY 65thenakednessofall writing. bscure and clear ike a skin, ike apleasure, ikea fear. utcomparisonsrenotenough. henakednessofwriting,s thenakedness fexistence.Writingsnakedbecause t"exscripts,"xistence s nakedbecause tis "exscripted."From ne to theother assesthe ight ndviolent ension fthatsuspension fmeaningwhichcomprises ll "meaning"; hat ouis-sance so absolute hat taccedesto ts own oyonlyby osing tselfnit,by pillingtselfnto t, nd tappears s the bsentheartabsencewhichbeats ike a heart) fpresence.t s theheart f hingswhich sexscripted.In a senseBataillemustbepresentouswith hat resencewhichdistances ignificationnd which tselfwould be communication.Not a united ody fworkmadecommunicable,nterpretable"Col-lectedWorks," o precious nd necessary,till cause unease; theycommunicate s completewhatwas onlywrittennpiecesandbychance)but thedawdling, owover, fan exscriptionffinitude.Released n itareaninfiniteouissance, painanda pleasure o realthat ouching hem reading xscripted)onvinces s at onceoftheabsolutemeaning ftheirnonsignification.

Inyet notherense, t s Bataillehimself,ead.That s,theexas-peration feverymoment freadingn thecertitudehatthemanwhowrotewhat s being eadexisted nd theconfoundingvidencethat hemeaning fhis work nd themeaning fhis ife rethe amenakedness, he same denuding fmeaningwhichdistances hemfrom ach other s well-by the fulldistanceofan in(x)scription.The deadBataille ndhis booksofferedshiswritingeaves hem:they're hesamething, he same banon comment ndcomprehen-sion (thesameban onkilling).t'sthe mplacable nd oyouscoun-terblow nemust strike gainst ll hermeneuticso that iterature(and)existence an onceagainexpose hemselves;nthe ingularity,in thereality,n the freedomf"thecommondestiny fman" 11,311).Speakingof Bataille's death,Blanchotwrote: "the readingofbooks mustopenus tothenecessity fthatdisappearancenwhichtheywithdraw. ooksthemselves efer s to an existence."7(August 988) Translated yKatherine ydon

7. Blanchot, Amitik Paris,Gallimard, 973), 27.

Exscription - Nancy

Documents

Transcript of Exscription - Nancy