W|ct 9B

cn Aut|or'
ȣhe຃ coming຃into຃being຃of຃ the຃ notāon຃of຃ ɹauthorӫ຃ constātđtĨs຃the຃
privi|eged຃ ņoņent຃ of຃ |nd/t|duc||đc||anȸ in຃ the຃ history຃ of຃ ideas, ຃
know|eࣉge,຃ |iteratƏre,຃ phi|osophy,຃ and຃ tȤe຃ sciencesň ຃ Աven຃ to-
day,຃when຃we຃reconstruct຃the຃hist௬ry຃of຃a຃concept,຃|iterary຃˗enre,຃
or຃schoo|຃ot຃phi|osophy,຃ such຃ categories຃ seeņ຃re|ative|y຃ĚĨak,຃
secondaʾ,຃and຃superimposed຃scansions຃in຃coņparison຃σith຃the຃
s௭|id຃and຃fundamenta|຃ unit຃ot຃the຃ author຃and຃ the຃σorkň຃
Ì຃sha||຃ Ƭct຃ctter຃here຃dҀ scciohistorica|຃ana|ysis຃ot຃the຃authorĸs຃
personaɧ຃ ħertain|y຃it຃wou|d຃be຃worth຃exaţining຃hoσ຃the຃aƏthor຃
became຃individua|ized຃in຃a຃cu|ture຃|ike຃ours,຃ Ěhat຃statƏs຃he຃hՑs຃
been຃ given,຃ at຃ what຃ moņent຃ studies຃ ot຃authenticity຃ and຃ Ցttri-
bƏtion຃ began,຃ in຃what຃kind຃ ot຃system຃ot຃va|orization຃the຃ autৼor຃
was຃ invo|vedɇ ຃ at຃ what຃ point຃ we຃ began຃ to຃ recount຃ the຃ |ives຃ ot຃
authors຃ rather຃ than຃ ot຃heroes, ຃ and຃ how຃ this຃ tundaĥenta|຃cate-
gorĖ຃ ot຃ ´theϒţanƛandϒhisƛwcrk຃ critiĹism̔຃ beganԑ຃ Fcr຃ the຃ ϓīѹ
mentɇ຃however,຃Ì຃want຃to຃deaֵ຃so|e|y຃with຃the຃re|ations֓p຃be̋een຃
teɔt຃ and຃ author຃ and຃ with຃ the຃ manner຃ in຃which຃ tȤe຃ text຃ pcints຃
to຃ this຃ ٤tigure¨຃ thatɇ຃ at຃ |east຃ in຃ appearance,຃ is຃ ođtside຃ it຃ and຃
aƬteĹedes຃ it˪ ຃
ϟecȧett຃nice|y຃tormu|ates຃the຃theme຃with຃which຃ŝ຃Ěou|d຃like຃
to຃beginŴ຃ ´຃ ځWhat຃does຃it຃matter຃who຃is຃speakāng,Ĭ຃soņeone຃sai࣊,຃
ώwhat຃ does຃ it຃ matter຃ who຃ is຃ speakin˗ň ڂ ຃¨຃ Ìn຃ this຃ inditterenďe຃
appतars຃ one຃ ot຃ the຃ tundaĥenta|຃ ethica|຃ princip|es຃ ot຃ conteପ-
porary຃writing຃ğécr/|urc) .ȸ Ì຃say ´຃ethica|¨຃because຃this຃ānditterenďe຃
is຃not຃rea||y຃a຃tra੥t຃characteriɶing຃the຃ņanner຃in຃Ěhich຃one຃speaǻs຃
and຃ wrltes,຃ but຃rՒther຃ a຃ kind຃ ot຃imņanent຃ ׼|e,຃ taken຃ up຃˝Ƙer຃
and຃ over຃again,຃ never຃tu||y຃app|ied,຃ not຃designatiƤ˗຃ writin˗຃ as຃
somethin˗຃ coĥp|eted,຃ but຃doņānating຃ it຃as຃ a຃ practāceт຃ Since຃ it຃
is຃ too຃taņ֡iar຃ to຃requ̥e຃ a຃ |en˗thy຃ana|ysis,຃ this຃iĥņaƤent຃ಗ|e຃
can຃ be຃ adeēuate|y຃ i||đstrated຃ here຃ by຃ ɲacing຃ two຃ of຃ āts຃ ଫa֨or຃
theņesĂ ຃
ƹ5MϽ
Ǣ JȘҀ îř !ru||Ÿ cndŸMc||cdŸ
ȅirstٲ ofٲ aÌl,ٲ weٲ canٲ sayٲ thatٲ today´ sٲ writinzٲ hasٲ freedٲ itseÌfٲ
fromٲ theٲ dimensionٲ ofٲexpression͟ٲ ςeferrinzٲ oĺÌyٲtoٲitself,ٲ butٲ
Ƅithoutٲbeinzٲresהrictedٲtoٲtheٲconfinesٲofٲitsٲinterioքity,ٲwritiĺzٲ
isٲ i dentifiedٲ withٲ itsٲownٲunfoldedٲexteriority.ٲ 1hisٲ meansٲ thatٲ
itٲisٲ anٲinterpÌayٲofٲsiensٲ arranzedٲ lessٲaccordineٲtoٲitsٲsienifiedٲ
ʵontentٲthanٲaccordineٲtoٲtheٲveryٲnatɨreٲofٲtheٲsienifierčٲ Writ-
inzٲunfoldsٲlikeٲaٲ eameٲŦc×) ɣthatٲinvariabÌyٲzoesٲbeyondٲitsٲownٲ
˳uÌesٲ andٲ transzressesٲ itsٲ limitsėٲ lnٲwritinz,ٲ theٲ pointٲ isٲ notٲ toٲ
ɖƶnifestٲ orٲ exaltٲ theٲ actٲ ofٲ writine,ٲ norٲ isٲ itٲ toٲ pinٲ aٲ subŔ ectٲ
withinٲlƶneuaze,ٲ itٲis,ٲ rather,ٲ aٲ questionٲofٲcreatinĐٲaٲ spaceٲintoٲ
wǥichٲ theٲ writinzٲsubŔ ectٲ constantlyٲ disappears. ٲ
ěheٲsecondٲtheme,ٲwritineĆ sٲrelationshipٲwithٲdeath,ٲisٲevenٲ
moreٲ famiÌiarƱٲ 1hisٲ Ăinkٲ subvertsٲ anٲ oldٲ traditionٲ exemplifiedٲ
byٲ theٲ Ěreekٲ epic,ٲ whichٲ wasٲ intendedٲ toٲ perpetuateٲ theٲ im-
mortalityٲ ofٲ theٲ heroǝٲ ifٲ heٲ wasٲ wiÌlinzٲ toٲ dieٲ youԯe,ٲ itٲ wasٲ soٲ
thatٲ hisٲ life,ٲ consecratedٲ andٲ maenifiedٲ byٲ deathŠٲ miĐhtٲ passٲ
intoٲ immortality,ٲ theٲ narrativeٲ thenٲ redeemedٲ thisٲ acceptedٲ
death.ٲ lnٲ anotherٲ way,ٲ theٲ motivation, ٲ asٲ weÌlٲ asٲ theٲ themeٲ
andٲ theٲ pretextٲofٲArabianٲ narrativesʉsuchٲasٲI|cɣI|c×scoJɣcoJɣ
ęncɣ μӅѽҎוֶ͍wasٲ alsoٲ theٲ eludinĐٲ ofٲ deathȵٲ oneٲ spoke,ٲ teĂlineٲ
sto˲iesٲ intoٲ theٲ earlyٲ mornine,ٲ inٲ orderٲ toٲ forestalÌٲ death,ٲ toٲ
postponeٲ theٲ dayٲofٲreckonineٲthatٲ wouÌdٲ silenceٲ theٲ narrator͠ٲ
Schehera̛adeĆ sٲ narrativeٲ isٲ anٲ effort,ٲ renewedٲ eachٲ nieht,ٲ toٲ
keepٲ deathٲ outsideٲ theٲ circleٲ ofٲÌifeŤٲ
ƴurٲ culturхٲ hasٲ metamorphosedٲ thisٲ ideaٲ ofٲ narrative,ٲ orٲ
writine,ٲ asٲ somethineٲ desienedٲ toٲ wardٲ offٲ deathŤٲ Writineٲ hasٲ
becomeٲ linkedٲ toٲ sacrifice, ٲ evenٲ toٲ theٲ sacrificeٲ ofٲÌife.ٲ itٲisٲnowٲ
aٲ voÌuntaryٲ effacementٲ whichٲ doesٲ notٲneedٲ toٲ beٲ representedٲ
inٲbooks,ٲ sinceٲitٲisٲbrouehtٲaboutٲinٲtheٲwօiter´ sٲveryٲexistenceƱٲ
1heٲ work,ٲ whichٲ onceٲ hadٲ theٲ dutyٲ ofٲ providinĐٲ immortaÌity,ٲ
nowٲ possessesٲ theٲ rizhtٲ toٲ kill,ٲ toٲ beٲ itsٲ author´ sٲ murderer,ٲ asٲ
inٲ theٲ casesٲ ofٲ Fӽaubert,ٲ ĸroust,ٲ andٲ βafka.ٲ 1hatٲ isٲ notٲ aÌÌ,ٲ
howeverΏ ٲ thisٲ relatˋonshipٲ betweenٲ writiĺzٲ andٲ deathٲ isٲ aÌsoٲ
manifestedٲ inٲ theٲ effacementٲofٲtheٲwritinzٲ subŔ ect´ sٲ individuaÌٲ
characteristi cs. ٲ ʪsinzٲ alÌٲ theٲ contrivancesٲ thatٲ heٲ setsٲ upٲ beą
ؓeenٲ himselfٲ andٲ whatٲ heٲ writes,ٲ theٲ writinzٲ sub¡ectٲcanceÌsٲ
outٲ theٲ siensٲ ofٲ hisٲ par̂cularٲ individualityčٲ Asٲ aٲ result,ٲ theٲ
markٲ ofٲtheٲ writerٲ isٲ reducedٲ toٲ nothineٲ moreٲ thanٲ theٲ sineu
٬ٲ
l|c|nj lsnj cnnjAuƷ|crčnj íř ! UåҀ
larityٲ ofٲ ũisٲ absencełٲ ҏeٲ mustٲ assumeٲ theٲ roleٲ ofٲ theٲ deadٲįanٲ
inٲ theٲ eameٲofٲwritineĖٲ
Ħoneٲ ofٲ thisٲ isٲ recentłٲ criticismٲ andٲ philosopĈůٲ toožٲ noteٲ
ofٲ theٲ disappearance÷orٲ deatƺ÷ofٲ theٲ authorٲ soˡeٲ timeٲ aeo.ٲ
Őutٲ theٲ consequencesٲ ofٲ theӯٲ discoveryٲ ofٲ itٲ haɮeٲ notٲ beenٲ
sufficientlyٲ examined, ٲ norٲ hasٲ itsٲimportٲbeenٲaccuratelůٲ meas-
uredčٲ Aٲcertainٲnumberٲofٲnotionsٲthatٲareٲ intendedٲtoٲ rцplaceٲ
theٲ privi˛eeedٲ positionٲ ofٲ theٲ authorٲ actuallyٲ seemٲ toٲ preserveٲ
thatٲ privileeeٲ andٲ suppressٲ theٲ realٲ meanineٲ ofٲ hiƟٲ disappear-
ance.ٲ Ƴٲ shallٲ exaįineٲ twoٲ ofٲ theseٲ notions, ٲ bothٲ ofٲ ereatٲ im-
portanceٲ todayėٲ
1heٲ firstٲisٲ theٲ ideaٲ ofٲtheٲ workčٲ Ƴtٲ isٲaٲ veryٲ familiarٲ thesisٲ
thatٲ theٲ taskٲ ofٲ criticismٲ isٲ notٲtoٲbrineٲoutٲ ɤheٲ workȬ sٲ relation-
shipsٲ wƔthٲ theٲ au˿hor,ٲ norٲ toٲ reconstructٲ throuehٲ tũeٲ textٲ dҀ
tũouehtٲ orٲ experience,ٲ butٲ ratherٲ toٲ analyzeٲ theٲ workٲ throuehٲ
itsٲ struďחure,ٲ itsٲ arďhƕteďture,ٲ ɐtsٲ ƕntrƕnsicٲ form,ٲ anЬٲ theٲ pÌaŀٲ ofٲ
itsٲ internalٲ relationships .ٲ Atٲ thisٲ point,ٲ howeveֆ,ٲ aٲ problemٲ
arisesȵ ٲ ϐhatٲ isٲ aٲ workĎٲ Whatٲ isٲ tũisٲ curiousٲ uniؖٲ whɐchٲ weٲ
desienateٲ asٲ aٲ workĎٲ ħfٲ whatٲ elementsٲ isٲ itٲ composedĎٲ Ȉsٲ itٲ
notٲ whĜtٲ anٲ Ϥuthorٲ hasٲ written`ٲ Ķifficultiesٲ appearٲ immedi-
ately.ٲ Ƴѧٲ anٲ individualٲ wereٲ notٲ anٲ author,ٲ couldٲ Ƅeٲ sayٲ thatٲ
whatٲheٲwrote,ٲ said,ٲ leftٲbehindٲinٲhisٲpapers,ٲ orٲwƺatٲhasٲbeenٲ
ЖollecteЭٲofٲhisٲremarks,ٲ couldٲbeٲ calledٲ aٲ ´work̨Ďٲ ϑhenٲ Sadeٲ
wasٲ notٲconsideredٲanٲauthor,ٲwhatٲwasٲtheٲstatusٲofٲhisٲpapers`ٲ
Wereٲ theyٲ siįplyٲ rollsٲ ofٲ paperٲ ontoٲ whichٲ heٲ ceĀselesslyٲ un-
coiledٲ hˌsٲ fantasiesٲdurineٲhisٲiįprisonmentĎٲ
ķvenٲ whenٲ anٲindividualٲ hasٲ beenٲ accepteЮٲ asٲ anٲ author,ٲ
weٲ musɤٲstillٲaskٲwhetherٲeverůthineٲ˿hatٲheٲwrote,ٲ saidǘٲ orٲleftٲ
behindٲisٲ partٲ Րfٲ hisٲ ؽorkƱٲ 1Ĉeٲ problemٲ isٲ bothٲtҐeoreticalٲandٲ
tecґnicĜl .ٲ Whenٲ undertaӸneٲ זheٲ publicatio
԰ٲ
o˂ٲ ĦietĄscheɺ sٲ
worksǘٲ ɉorٲexampleǘٲ whereٲ sĈouldٲ oneٲ stopŷٲ źureſyٲeverytũineٲ
mustٲ bcٲ published,ٲ butٲwhatٲ isٲȪeverytĈiԱeƧŷٲ ΡverytĈineٲthatٲ
Ħietzscũeٲ himselfٲ publisƺedŲ ٲ certainlyǽٲ Andٲ wżatٲ aboutٲ theٲ
roueƺ͡ٲdraftsٲforٲhŽsٲworksŷٲ Ȍbviously. ٲ ƒĈeٲ plaĺsٲ forٲĈisٲaphoȦ
rismsŷٲ ʬes. ٲ ƒheٲ deletedٲ passaeesٲandٲtheٲ notesٲ ϥtٲtheٲ bottomٲ
ofٲtheٲ paeeĎٲ ʬesƱٲ Whatٲif,ٲ withinٲ aٲ workbooӴٲfilledٲwitҒٲaphoȦ
risms,ٲ cneٲ findsٲaٲ referenceǘٲ theٲ n̽tationٲ ofٲaٲ meɆtineٲ orٲofٲanٲ
addressǘٲ orٲ aٲ laundryٲ list.ٲ Ƴsٲitٲaٲ work,ٲ orٲ notŷٲ Čǫ!ࢵ notŷٲ Andٲ
ǝ Ʋ+Ҁ ìř ĉrť||Ÿ cnJŸ Me||cJŸ
soٲ cn, ٲ Ϧdٲ infinitum.ٲ Mowٲ canٲ oneٲ defineٲ aٲ workٲ amidٲ theٲ
millionsٲ ofٲ tracesٲ leftٲ byٲ someoneٲ afterٲ hisٲ death`ٲ Aٲ theorǑٲ ofٲ
theٲ wc֓˚ٲ doesٲ notٲ exist,ٲ andٲ theٲ empiricalٲ taskٲ ofٲ thoseٲ whoٲ
nai̒eÌŀٲ ̎ndertakeٲ theٲ editineٲ ofٲ worksٲ oftenٲ suffersٲ inٲ theٲ aʳ-
senceٲ ofٲ suchٲ aٲ theoryĖٲ
ϒeٲcouldٲeoٲevenٲfurtherǝ ٲĶoesٲI|cɣI|cuscoJɣcoJɣęocɣĘ|g||sɣ
coԲstituteٲ aٲ ͋ork`ٲ Whatٲ aboutٲ Ȃlementٲ ofٲ AlexandriaĆ sٲ Ʒ|sɝ
cc||cn|csɣ orٲĶioeenesٲ Ⱦaertius´ sٲ ||Œcsƚɣ Aٲ multitudeٲ ofٲquestionsٲ
arisesٲ withٲ reeardٲ toٲ thisٲ notionٲ Ցfٲtheٲ workŤٲ Μonsequentlŀ,ٲ itٲ
isٲ notٲ eԳouehٲ toٲ declareٲ thatٲ weٲ shouldٲ doٲ withoutٲ theٲ writerٲ
|theٲ ϧuthorǗٲ andٲ studyٲ theٲ workٲ itself͢ ٲ Theٲ wordٲ ɑcr|ɣ andٲ theٲ
uniؗٲ thatٲ itٲdesienatesٲareٲprobablyٲ asٲproblematicٲasٲtheٲstatؠsٲ
ofٲtȓeٲ a̎thor´ sٲ individualiؘ.ٲ
Anotherٲ notionٲ whichٲ hasٲ hinderedٲ usٲ fromٲ takineٲ fullٲ
measureٲ ofٲ theٲ author´ sٲ disappearaѹce,ٲblurrineٲ andٲ concealineٲ
theٲ momentٲ ofٲ thisٲ effacementٲ andٲ subtlyٲ preservineٲ theٲ au-
thor´ sٲ eيistence,ٲ isٲ theٲ notionٲ ofٲ writineٲ |écr|ŏurc) .ɣ Whenٲ rie-
orou˸ly applƼed,ٲ thisٲnotionٲshoذdٲaԐowٲusٲnotٲonӾyٲtoٲЦrcumventٲ
referencesٲ toٲ theٲ author,ٲ butٲ alsoٲ toٲ situateٲ hisٲ recentٲ absence.ٲ
Theٲ notionٲofٲwriLjne,ٲ asٲ currentlyٲemployeЯ,ٲ isٲ concernedٲwithٲ
neitherٲ theٲ actٲ ofٲwritineٲ norٲ theٲ indicationĢbeٲ itٲ symptomٲ orٲ
sienĢofٲ aٲ meanineٲ whichٲ someoneٲ miehtٲ haveٲ waԴtedٲ toٲ ex-
press .ٲ Weٲtry,ٲwithٲereatٲeffort,ٲ toٲimaeineٲtheٲeeneraÌٲcˬnditicnٲ
ofٲeachٲ tчxt,ٲ theٲ conditionٲ ofٲbothٲ theٲ spaceٲ inٲ whichٲ itٲ isٲ dis-
persedٲ andٲ theٲ tiԕeٲ inٲwhichٲ itٲ unfolds. ٲ
lnٲ currentٲusaee, ٲ however,ٲ theٲ notiՒnٲ ofٲwritineٲ seemsٲtoٲ
transposeٲ theٲ empiricalٲ characteristŽcsٲofٲtheٲauthorٲintoٲaٲ tran-
scendentalٲanonymity.ٲ WeٲareٲcontentٲtoٲeffaceٲtheٲmoreٲvisibÌeٲ
marksٲ otٲ theٲ author´ sٲ empiricitǑٲbyٲ playineٲ off,ٲ oneٲ aeainsטٲtheٲ
other,ٲ twoٲ waysٲ ofٲ characteriĄineٲ writine,ٲ Եamely,ٲ theٲ criticalٲ
Ϩndٲ theٲ relieiousٲ approaches. ٲ Ěivineٲ writineٲ aٲ primalٲ statusٲ
seemsٲ toٲbeٲaٲwayٲofٲretranslatine,ٲ inٲ؋anscendentalٲterms, ٲbothٲ
theٲ theoloeicalٲaffirmationٲofٲitsٲ sacredٲ charϩcterٲandٲ theٲ criticalٲ
affirmationٲ ofٲ itsٲ creativeٲ character.ٲ ěoٲ admitٲ thatٲ writineٲ is,ٲ
becauseٲofٲtheٲ veryٲ historyٲ thatٲitٲmadeٲ possible,ٲ sub¡ ectٲtoٲ theٲ
testٲofٲoblƖvionٲ andٲ repression,ٲ seemsٲtoٲ reˮresent,ٲ inٲtɜanscenȥ
dentalٲterms,ٲ theٲreԋeiousٲprӪХpleٲofٲtheٲhƼddenٲmeanөeٲ|whichٲ
requiresٲ interpretation)ٲ andٲ theٲ criticalٲ principleٲ ofٲimplicitٲ sie-
nifications, ٲ silentٲdeterminations,ٲandٲcbscuredٲ contentsٲ|whichٲ
h|c|˫łs˫cn˫Au|Ďʠrǐ˫ êř Î ƯJҀ
eives຃riseٲtoٲcommentarů̿ čٲ 1oٲimaeineٲwritineٲas຃abseƤce຃seemsٲ
toٲ beٲ aٲ simpleٲ repetition,ٲ inٲ transcendentalٲ terms. ٲ olٲbothٲ theٲ
reÌieiousٲprincipĔeٲ ofٲinalterableٲandٲůetٲneveևٲfulfālÌedٲtradition,ٲ
andٲtheٲ aestheticٲ principle຃ ofٲtheٲworkȭ sٲ survivaÌ,ٲ itsٲ perŗetua-
tionٲ beyondٲ theٲ authorƈsٲ deatғ.ٲ andٲ itsٲ eniematicٲ eɕĨcssɣ inٲ re-
lationٲ toٲ himëř
1hisٲ usaeeٲ ofٲ theٲ notionٲ ofٲ writineٲ runsٲ the຃ riskٲ ofٲ mainȣ
tainineٲtheٲauthorȭ sٲ privileeesٲ underٲ theٲ protectionٲǂfٲwritine´ sٲ
"İ ¥¬zœ¬wÓзцaķsïĤ itٲ keeps຃ alive,ٲ inٲ theٲ erayٲ liցht຃otٲnȅtralization, ٲ
theٲ inteDpĂay຃ ǂfٲ thoseٲ representationsٲ thatٲ formeŧٲ aٲ partic̏larٲ
imaeeٲ otٲtheٲ authǂr.ٲ ʩheٲ author´ sٲ ŧisappearance.ٲ wĈich, sinceٲ
εaĂlarmш, ٲ hasٲbeenٲ aٲ constantlyٲ recurrineٲ event,ٲ iĐ຃ sŜbņ ectٲtoٲ a຃
series຃ ofٲ transcendentϪlٲ barriers.ٲ 1hereٲ seems຃to຃beٲ anٲ āmporؽ
tantٲdȖvidineٲ lineٲ betweenٲ thoseٲ whoٲ believeٲ thatٲ theyٲ can຃ still຃
locateٲtodayȭ sٲ discontinuitiesٲĠruă|urcȑ)ȸinٲtheٲhistoricoǙtranscen-
dentaĂٲtraditionٲoѨٲtheٲnineteenthٲcщnturů,ٲ andٲthoseٲwhoٲtrůٲtoٲ
freeٲ themselves຃onceٲ andٲ forٲ all຃ fromٲ thatٲ tradition. ٲ
ݺ t ຃i s຃notٲenoueh,ٲ howeෑer.຃ t o຃reŗeatٲtheٲ eņpty຃affirmationٲ thatٲ
theٲauthorٲhasٲрsappeʲedčٲ ŸorٲtheٲsЃeٲreason,ٲŪtٲisٲnotٲenough຃
to຃keepٲrepeatineٲ |afterٲĦietzsche)ٲ thatٲ Ěodٲandٲବan຃haveٲdieʹٲ
aٲ cՓmmonٲdeath.ٲ ĥnstead,ٲ weٲ șɩstٲlocate຃the຃space຃lefǬ຃empО຃
by຃ theٲ authorĬ s຃ ѻisappearance.຃ loÌÌowٲ theٲ distribu؄onٲ ofٲ Ѿapsٲ
andٲ breaches, ٲ andٲ watchٲ forٲ theٲ oƃeninesٲ thatٲ thisٲ disapŗear٥
anceٲ uncovers. ٲ
First,ٲ weٲ needٲ toٲ clariѺٲ briefÌyٲ theٲ probÌemsٲȏİisineٲ fromٲ
tĈeٲ useٲ ofٲthe຃au
י
ҔorƩ sٲ nameŎ຃ ϓhatٲisٲanٲϫuthoİ´ sٲnameΗٲ Φoɯٲ
doesٲ āǬ຃ functionʜٲ Ÿarٲ fromٲ offerinǤٲ aٲ soÌētion,ٲ Ì຃ sҕaÌſٲ onſůٲ Ū˧̟
dācaǬe຃ some຃ ofٲ theٲ difficuluesٲ thatٲ itٲ presentsͣٲ
1heٲaɩthorƩ sٲ nameٲ isٲaٲ properٲname,ٲ andٲ therъ˃oreٲŪtٲraisesٲ
Ǭhe຃ probĔeņs຃ common຃ toٲ alÌٲ proŗerٲ namesǽ ٲ ȮΧereٲ ćٲ relerٲ toٲ
źearleƩsٲanaÌyses,ٲ amoneٲothers. Ϋ)ٲ Ǚbvāous|y.຃ one຃ cannoǬ຃turnٲ
a຃ proper຃ name຃ intoٲ aٲ pureٲ andٲ simple຃ referenceǽٲ άtٲ hȏsٲ otherٲ
thanٲindicativeٲfunctions. ٲmore຃thanٲ anٲ indication,ٲ aٲ eыṡre,ٲ aٲ
fineerٲ pointedٲ atٲ someone,ٲ itٲisٲ theٲ eŘuivaÌentٲ ofٲ aٲ descriptionŎ ຃
Whenٲ oneٲ says຃ ´Arāstotle. ̔຃ one຃ eņploys຃ aٲ worȑٲ that຃ is຃ theٲ
eŘuivaĂentٲ ofٲ one.ٲ orٲ aٲ se

es.຃ ofٲdefiniteٲ descriptˍons,ٲ such຃ asٲ
´theٲ authorٲ otٲ theٲ Anc|v||csƄŢ ɣ ǔtheٲ founderٲ ofٲ ontolozů, ´ٲ andٲ
Í JoҀ
ėٲ
!rƺ|ŬnjcndnjMe|ŭcJnj
Ēoٲ torth.ٲ οƂeٲ cannotٲ stopٲ there,ٲ however,ٲ becauseٲ aٲ properٲ
ԶaĮeٲ doesٲ notٲhaveٲ˘ ustٲ oneٲ sƖenifƖcatƖonͤ ٲ Whenٲ weٲ discoverٲ
thatٲ υmbaءdٲ didٲ Ƃotٲ writeٲ L0 L|055c 5u!r!|µc||c, weٲ cannotٲ pre-
tendٲthat ٲtheٲmeanineٲofٲthisٲproperٲƂaįe,ٲ orٲthatٲotٲtheٲauthor,ٲ
hasٲ beenٲ alteredͥ ٲ 1heٲ properٲ nameٲ andٲ theٲ authorĆ sٲ nameٲ areٲ
Ēituatedٲ betؾeenٲ theٲ twoٲ polesٲ ofٲdescriptionٲ andٲ desienationʙ ٲ
theŀٲmustٲhaveٲaٲcertainٲlinkٲwithٲwhatٲtheŀٲname,ٲ butٲoneٲǰhatٲ
isٲ neitherٲ eƂtirelyٲ inٲ theٲ modeٲ ofٲ desienationٲ norٲ iƂٲ thatٲ ofٲ
description,ٲ itٲ muĒtٲbeٲ aٲ 5pcc!!!c linkŢ ٲ ȇoweverʊandٲ itٲ ƖĒٲ hereٲ
thatٲ theٲ particularٲ difficultƕesٲ ofٲ theٲ authorĴ sٲ naįeٲ arise÷theٲ
linksٲ betƄeeƂٲ theٲ properٲ nameٲ andٲ theٲ individualٲ namedٲ andٲ
betweenٲ theٲ authorĴ sٲ nameٲ andٲ whatٲ itٲ namesٲ areٲ notٲ iso-
morphicٲandٲdoٲnotٲfunctionٲinٲtheٲĒameٲway.ٲ 1hereٲareٲseveralٲ
differenďesėٲ
lf,ٲ forٲ example,ٲ ĸie֞eٲ Ķupontٲ doesٲ notٲ haveٲ blueٲ eyes,ٲ orٲ
wasٲnotٲborƂٲinٲĸaris,ٲ orٲisٲnotٲaٲdoďtor,ٲtheٲnameٲĸierreٲ Ķuponךٲ
willٲ stillٲ alwaysٲ referٲ toٲ theٲ sameٲ person,ٲ suchٲ thinesٲ doٲ notٲ
modifyٲ theٲ linkٲ ofٲ desienationė ٲ 1heٲ problemsٲ raisedٲ byٲ theٲ
authorĴ sٲ nameٲ areٲ įuďhٲ moreٲ ďomplex,ٲ howeverŢ ٲ lfٲlٲ disďoverٲ
thatٲShakeĒpeareٲ wasٲnotٲbornٲinٲtheٲhouseٲthatٲweٲ visitٲtoday,ٲ
thisٲ isٲ aٲ modƖficati onٲ whiďh,ٲ obviously,ٲ willٲ notٲ alterٲ theٲ funcƆ
tionineٲofٲtheٲauthorĴ sٲname.ٲ ŐutٲifٲweٲprovedٲthatٲShakespeareٲ
didٲ notٲwriteٲ thoĒeٲsonneכsٲ whichٲpassٲforٲhis,ٲ thatٲwouldٲcon-
stituteٲ aٲ sienificantٲchaneeٲ andٲ affectٲ theٲ mannerٲ inٲ whiďhٲ theٲ
authorĴsٲ nameٲ funďtionsͦ ٲ lfٲweٲ provedٲthatٲShakespeareٲwroteٲ
ŐaconĴ sٲ Lr90n0n byٲ showineٲ thatٲ theٲ sameٲ authorٲ wroteٲ bothٲ
theٲ worksٲ ofٲ Őaďonٲ andٲ thoseٲ ofٲShakespeare,ٲ thatٲ wouldٲ beٲ aٲ
thirdٲ typeٲofٲchaneeٲwhichٲwouldٲenurelyٲmodifyٲ theٲ funďtion̠
ineٲ ofٲtheٲ authorĴ Ēٲ nameėٲ 1heٲ authorĴ sٲnaįeٲ isٲnot,ٲ therefore,ٲ
Ӳ ustٲaٲ properٲ nameٲ likeٲ theٲ reĒt. ٲ
Ȋanyٲ otherٲ factsٲ pointٲ outٲ theٲ paradoxicalٲ sineularityٲ ofٲ
theٲ authorĴ sٲ name.ٲ 1oٲ saŀٲ thatٲ ĸierreٲ ĶupontٲdoesٲnotٲexƖstٲisٲ
ƂotٲatٲallٲtheٲsameٲasٲĒayineٲthatٲMomerٲorٲȇerįesٲ1rismeeistusٲ
didٲ notٲ exist.ٲ lnٲ theٲ firstٲ case,ٲ itٲ meansٲ thatٲ noٲ oneٲ hasٲ theٲ
nameٲʦierreٲĶupont,ٲinٲtheٲsecond,ٲ itٲįeanĒٲthatٲseveralٲpeopleٲ
wereٲ į˔edٲ toeetherٲ underٲ oneٲ name,ٲ orٲ thatٲ theٲ trueٲ authorٲ
hadٲ noneٲ îˊϽ theٲ traitĒٲ traditionallŀٲ ascribedٲ toٲ theٲ personaeٲ ofٲ
MomerٲorٲMermes . ٲ 1oٲsayٲthatٲϖĴ Ēٲrealٲnameٲisٲaďtuallyٲȉaďquesٲ
Ķurandٲ insteadٲ ofٲĸierreٲ ĶupontٲiĒٲ notٲ theٲ sameٲ aĒٲ sayineٲthatٲ
ņ|Ŋ|njlsnj cnnjđu||cƞċnj
ʍٲ
!ưʶҀ
StendhalĆ sٲnameٲwasٲMenriٲŐeyle.ٲ ħneٲcouÌdٲalsoٲquestionٲtƻeٲ
meanineٲ andٲ tunctionineٲ ofٲ propositionsٲ Ìikeٲ ǔŐourbaȘiٲ isٲ so-
andƬso,ٲ soƭand͎so,ٲ etc Ƌ ´ٲ andٲ ´ʫictorٲ ķremita,ٲ ȹlimacus, ٲ Anti-
cԍacus,ٲ Fraterٲ 1acituԖus,ٲ ȸonstantineٲ ȹonstantius,ٲ ɸɹ ofٲthes eٲ
areٲ γerkeeaard. ´ٲ
Theseٲ differencesٲ mayٲ resultٲ fromٲ theٲ factٲ thatٲanٲauthor̳ sٲ
nameٲ isٲ notٲ simplyٲ anٲ elementٲinٲ aٲ discourseٲ |capableٲ of ٲbei˨zٲ
eitherٲsub¡ ectٲorٲob¡ ect,ٲ ofٲbeineٲreplaceаٲbyٲaٲpronoun,ٲ andٲtҖeٲ
Ìikeɾ,ٲitٲperformsٲaٲcertainٲroleٲwithٲreeardٲtoٲnarraƢveٲdiscourseʁ ٲ
assurineٲ aٲ classificatoǯٲ function.ٲ Suchٲ aٲ nameٲ permitsٲ oneٲ toٲ
zroupٲ toeetherٲ aٲ certainٲ numberٲ ofٲ texts,ٲ defineٲ themʁٲ differ-
entiateٲ themٲfromٲ andٲ contrastٲ themٲ toٲ othersͧٲ ĥnٲ addition, ٲ itٲ
establishesٲaٲreÌationshipٲamoneٲtheٲtexts.ٲ Mermesٲ1rismezist̐sٲ
didٲ notٲ exist,ٲ norٲ didٲ Źippocrateׄinٲ theٲ seԷseٲ thatٲ ƐaÌǒȏcٲ
existedǚbutٲ theٲ factٲ thatٲseveralٲtextsٲ havьٲ beenٲ placedٲ undeİٲ
theٲsameٲnameٲindicatesٲthatٲthereٲhasٲbee˧ٲestablishedٲamoǁzٲ
themٲ aٲ relaƢonshipٲ ofٲhoșoeeneity,ٲ ɊÌiation,ٲ authenticatˎonٲ ļfٲ
٭
omeٲ textsٲbyٲ tҗeٲ useٲ ofٲ others,ٲ reciprocaÌٲэxpÌicauonǷٲ ļİٲ cļԸ-
comitantٲ utӥiǒation.ٲ 1heٲ ϬuthorƩ sٲ nameٲ se֨esٲ toٲ chaİacteňiǒюٲ
aٲ certainٲmodeٲ olٲbeineٲ ofٲdiscourse. ٲ theٲ factٲthatٲthяٲ discoɪr˹eٲ
hasٲ anٲauthor̴ sٲ name,ٲ thatٲoneٲcanٲsaُٲIJthisٲwasٲwrittenٲ#ÃÊ so-
andƊso´ٲ orٲ ȪsoƭandƊsoٲ isٲitsٲauthor, ´ٲ showsٲ thatٲ thisٲ discoɪr˹eٲ
isٲ notٲ ordinaryٲ everydayٲ speechٲ thatٲ merelyٲ comesٲ andٲ eoɇs,ٲ
notٲ somethineٲ thatٲ isٲ immediatelyٲ consumabÌečٲ ʥnٲ theٲ con-
trary,ٲ itٲisٲaٲ speechٲthatٲmustٲbeٲreceivedٲinٲaٲcertainٲșodeٲandٲ
that,ٲ inٲ aٲ einjenٲ cuÌture, ٲ mustٲreceiveٲ aٲ certainٲ status. ٲ
ĥtٲwouldٲ seemٲthatٲt heٲauthorƩ sٲ name,ٲ unÌikeٲ otherٲ ŗroperٲ
names,ٲdoesٲnotٲpassٲfromٲtheٲinteriorٲofٲaٲ discourseٲtoٲtheٲİeȏlٲ
andٲexteriorٲindividuϿٲwhoٲproducedٲit,ٲǩstead,ٲ theٲnameٲ seemsٲ
aÌwaysٲtoٲbeٲpresent,ٲmarkineٲoffٲtҵٲedeesٲofٲtheٲtext,ٲreveaÌinz,ٲ
orٲatٲÌeastٲcharacte˵zine,ٲ itsٲmodeٲofٲbeine.ٲ 1heٲauthor̵ sٲ nașeٲ
manӆfestsٲtheٲappearanceٲofٲaٲcertainٲdiscursiveٲsetٲandٲindicatesٲ
theٲ statusٲ otٲ thisٲ discourseٲ withinٲ aٲ societyٲ andٲ aٲ culؑre
ʍٲ
ĥtٲ
hasٲ noٲ leealٲ status, ٲ norٲisٲitٲlocatedٲ inٲtheٲficŭonٲ ofٲ theٲ ؿor˚,ٲ
rather,ٲ itٲisٲlocatedٲinٲ theٲ breakٲ thatٲ foundsٲaٲ certainٲ discursiveٲ
constructٲandٲitsٲveǯٲparŭcularٲmodeٲofٲbeine.ٲ Asٲaٲ resēÌt,ٲ weٲ
coulбٲ sayٲ thatٲ inٲ aٲ civiÌiٛationٲ likeٲ ourٲ ownٲלhereٲ areٲ aٲ certainٲ
numberٲofٲ discoursesٲ thatٲ areٲ endowedٲ withٲ theٲ IJauthorٲfēnc-
tion, ´ٲwhiÌeٲothersٲareٲdepǮnjedٲofٲit čٲ A຃p˶vateٲletterٲԗa
ِٲ
ـeÌÌٲ
! ƺðҀ éř Iơu||nj cnJnjMc||cJnj
haveٲ aٲ siener÷itٲ doesٲ notٲhaveٲ anٲ author,ٲ aٲ contractٲ mayٲ wellٲ
haveٲ aٲ euarantor÷itٲ doesٲ notٲhaveٲ anٲauthorƋ ٲ Anٲ anonymousٲ
textٲpostedٲ onٲ aٲ wallٲprobabÌyٲ hasٲaٲ writer÷butٲ notٲanٲauthor. ٲ
1heٲ authorٲ functŽonٲ isٲ thereforeٲ characteristŽcٲ ofٲ theٲ modeٲ ofٲ
existenceŠٲ ЧcuÌatŽon,ٲ andٲ lunctioՉneٲofٲceֈtϼnٲ discoursesٲwithƼnٲ
aٲ society.ٲ
Ⱦetٲusٲ analyzeٲ thisٲ ̩authorٲfunctionĕٲ asٲ weٲ haveٲ ¡ustٲʷescribedٲ
itƋ ٲ lnٲ ourٲ culture,ٲ howٲdoesٲ oneٲ characterizeٲ aٲ discourseٲ con-
tainineٲ theٲ authorٲfunctŽonĎٲ lnٲwhatٲwayٲisٲ thisٲ discourseٲ dif-
ferentٲ fromٲ otherٲ discoursesĎٲ lfٲ weٲ liƙitٲ ourٲ remarksٲ toٲ theٲ
authorٲ ofٲ aٲ bookٲ orٲ aٲ text,ٲ weٲ ca˩ٲ isolateٲ fourٲ differentٲ char-
acteristics ŵٲ
Ÿirstٲ ofٲ all,ٲ discoursesٲ areٲ ob¡ ectsٲ ofٲ appropriation.ٲ 1heٲ
formٲ ofٲownershipٲ fromٲwhichٲ theyٲ sp֕neٲ isٲ ofٲaٲratherٲpartic-
uÌarٲtype, ٲoneٲthatٲhasٲbeenٲcodifiedٲforٲԘanyٲyearsėٲ WeٲshouÌdٲ
noteٲ that,ٲ historȖcally,ٲ thisٲ typeٲ ofٲownershipٲ hasٲ alwaysٲ beenٲ
subsequentٲtoٲ whatٲoneٲ miehtٲcaÌlٲpenalٲappropriation.ٲ ěexts,ٲ
books,ٲ andٲ discoursesٲreallyٲbeeanٲ toٲhaveٲauthorsٲ|otherٲ thanٲ
mythical,ٲ ´sacralizedƇٲ andٲ ´sacralizineĕٲ fieuresǗٲ toٲ theٲ extentٲ
thatٲauthorsٲbecameٲsub¡ ectٲtoٲpunishment,ٲ tҘatٲis,ٲ toٲtheٲextentٲ
thatٲ discoursesٲ couÌdٲ beٲ transeressive.ٲ lnٲ ourٲ cآltureٲ |andٲ
douЈtlessٲinٲ manyٲ others), ٲ discourseٲwasٲnotٲorieinaÌlyٲaٲ prod̠
uct,ٲ aٲ tǧine,ٲ aٲ kindٲ ofٲ eoods,ٲ itٲ wasٲ essentiaÌÌyٲ anٲact÷anٲ actٲ
plaЗedٲinٲtheٲbipolarٲfieÌdٲofٲtheٲsacredٲandٲtheٲձrofane,ٲ theٲlicitٲ
anŧٲ theٲ iÌÌicit,ٲ theٲ relieiousٲandٲ theٲblasphemous .ٲ MistoricalÌy,ٲ
itٲwasٲaٲeestureٲfrauehtٲwithٲrisksٲbeforeٲbecomineٲeoodsٲcauehtٲ
upٲ Ȗnٲ aٲ circuitٲ ofٲ ownership.ٲ
ħnceٲ aٲ systeƙٲofٲownershipٲforٲtextsٲ cameٲ intoٲ beine,ٲ onceٲ
strictٲ rulesٲ concernŽneٲ authorű sٲ riehts,ٲ authorƬpublisherٲ rela-
tions, ٲriehtsٲofٲreproduction,ٲandٲrelatedٲmattersٲwereٲenacted̡
atٲtheٲendٲofٲtheٲeiehteenthٲandٲ theٲ beeinnineٲofٲtheٲnineteenthٲ
century÷theٲ possibilityٲ ofٲ transeressionٲ attachedٲ toٲ theٲ actٲ ofٲ
writȖneٲ tookٲ on,ٲ moreٲ andٲ more,ٲ theٲ formٲ ofٲ anٲ imperativeٲ
peculiarٲtoٲ literature.ٲ ĥtٲ isٲ asٲ ifٲtheٲ author,ٲ beeinnineٲwithٲ theٲ
momentٲatٲwhichٲheٲ wasٲpÌacedٲ inٲ theٲ systemٲ ofٲpropertyٲ thatٲ
characterizesٲ ourٲ society,ٲ comȜensatedٲ forٲ theٲ statusٲ thatٲ heٲ
thusٲacquiredٲbyٲrediscoverineٲtheٲoldٲbipolϭrٲfieldٲofٲdiscourse,ٲ
ɣe¾ϽÌ5 0nҀ ̂ўхέϾД˼Ҁ
ưٲ
Ǟ J˳Ҁ
systematica˛lyٲ practicineٲ transeressionٲ andٲ therebyٲ restorineٲ
daneerٲ toٲ aٲ writineٲ whichٲ wasٲ nowٲ euaranteedٲ theٲ Љenefitsٲ ofٲ
ownershipčٲ
1heٲ auםhorٲfunctionٲ doe˺ٲ notٲ affectٲ aÌlٲ discoursesٲ inٲ ͧҀ ɫnią
versalٲ andٲ Иonstantٲ way,ٲ howeverΐ ٲ 1hisٲ isٲ itsٲ seconȑٲ characą
teristic.ٲ lnٲՔurٲcivilizationōٲ itٲhasٲnotٲaÌwaysٲbeenٲtheٲsaɕeٲtypesٲ
ofٲ textַٲ whichٲ haveٲ requiredٲ attributionٲ toٲ anٲ authorė ٲ 1hereٲ
wasٲ aٲ timeٲ whenٲ theٲ textsٲ thatٲ weٲ todayٲ caIÌٲ IJIiterary̪ٲ |ǫarra-
tives, ٲstorieś.ٲepics,ٲtraeedies,ٲcomedies)ٲwereٲaccepteвōٲpētٲiǫtoٲ
circulationōٲ andٲvalorizedٲwithoutٲ anyٲ questionٲaboutٲמheٲideną
tityٲ ofٲtheirٲauthorłٲ theirٲanonymityٲcausedٲnoٲ dӇfficuItiĩsٲ sinceٲ
ןheirٲancieĻtness,ٲ whetherٲreaÌٲ orٲ imaeined,ٲ wasٲreeaňгedٲasٲaٲ
sɩfficientٲ eɧaranteeٲ ofٲ tƺeirٲ statusư ٲ ʥnٲ theٲ otherٲ hațʺ,ٲ thoseٲ
textsٲ thatٲweٲ ǫowٲwouIdٲcaIlٲscientific͏thoseٲ dealineٲف͂Ūthٲ cosą
moloeyٲ andٲ theٲ heavensōٲ medicineٲ andٲ illnessesōٲ natأrϮlٲ sci-
encesٲ andٲ Đeoeraphy÷wereٲ acceptedٲ inٲ the̓ ȊiddÌeٲ Θɋesōٲ andٲ
acceptedٲ asٲ IJtrue, ɵٲ onIyٲ whenٲ markedٲ withٲ theٲ nameٲ ofٲtheirٲ
̶
author.ٲ IJΨippocratesٲ said, ´ٲ IJʧIinyٲ recoēnts, ´ٲ قereٲ țotٲ reaÌÌّٲ
formulasٲofٲanٲareumentٲbasedٲonٲaؤthorityłٲtheyٲwereٲtƻeٲmarką
ersٲinsertedٲinٲ discoursesٲthatٲ wereٲ supportedٲtoٲbeٲ rѐŻĩivedٲ asٲ
statementsٲ ofٲdemonstratedٲ truth.ٲ
AٲreversaÌٲoccurredٲinٲtheٲseventeenthٲorٲeiehteentƻٲcenٲ tɫryưٲ
φcieĻtificٲdiscoursesٲbeeanٲtoٲbeٲreceivedٲ forٲthemselveƟ, ٲ ln຃theٲ
anonymitٓٲ ofٲ anٲ establishedٲ orٲ aÌwaysٲ redemՕnstraЊÌeٲ trɨthłٲ
theirٲ membershipٲ inٲ aٲ systematicٲ ensemble,ٲ andٲ notٲ tˇeٲ referą
enceٲtoٲ theٲindividualٲ whoٲ producedٲthem,ٲ stoodٲasٲ נɌeirٲ euarą
antee.ٲ 1heٲautҙorٲfunctionٲfadedٲaway,ٲandٲtheٲinventՖňɻ sٲnameٲ
seɣedٲonlyٲtoٲchristenٲaٲ theoremōٲ proposition,ٲ particuIĀrٲeffectōٲ
property,ٲ body,ٲ eroupٲ ofٲelements,ٲ orٲ pathoÌoĐicalٲ sْndromeėٲ
Κyٲ theٲ samёٲtoken,ٲ literaryٲ discoɫrsesٲ cameٲ toٲbeٲacc
ђ
˯tedٲonlyٲ
whenٲ endoǎedٲ withٲ theٲ authorٲ function.ٲ Weٲ nowٲ asžٲoɉٲeachٲ
poeucٲorٲfictionalٲtext. ٲ Fromٲwhereٲ doesٲitٲcome,ٲ whoٲ كroteٲˎt,ٲ
when,ٲ undcrٲ whatٲ circumstances, ٲ orٲbeeinnineٲ withٲ Ƅhatٲ дeą
sien`ٲ 1heٲ meanineٲ ascribedٲ toٲ itٲ andٲ theٲ statusٲ orٲ vaIueٲ acą
cordedٲ itٲ dependٲ onٲ theٲ ԙannerٲ inٲ whichٲ weٲ ansلerٲ theseٲ
ɛuestions.ٲ Andٲ ifٲ aٲ textٲ shouÌdٲ beٲ disЙoveredٲ inٲ aٲ stĀteٲ oɉٲaną
onymityĢǎhetherٲ asٲ aٲ consequenceٲ ofٲ aǫٲ accidentٲ Ňrٲ theٲ au-
thorƪ sٲexplicitٲwishĢtheٲeameٲbecomesٲoneٲofٲrediscoɮeriǫeٲtheٲ
author. ٲ χinceٲliteradžٲanonymityٲisٲnotٲtoÌerabIe,ٲ weٲcĀnٲ acceptٲ
! ! 0 Ҁ èř Iru||nj cnJnj īe||cJnj
itٲonÌyٲinٲtheٲeإiseٲofٲanٲeniema.ٲ AsٲaٲresuÌt,ٲtheٲauthorٲfunctionٲ
todayٲ pÌaysٲ aǁٲ importantٲ roÌeٲ inٲ ourٲ viewٲ ofٲ Ìiteraryٲ works .ٲ
|1heseٲ areٲ obɮiousÌyٲ eeneraÌiĄationsٲ thatٲ wouÌdٲ haveٲ toٲ beٲ re-
finedٲ insofarٲ as ٲrecentٲ criticaÌٲ practiceٲ isٲ concerned. ) ٲ
1heٲthirdٲʵharacteristicٲofٲthisٲauthorٲfunctioĻٲi s ٲthatٲi t ٲdoesٲ
notٲ deveÌopٲ sŗontaneousÌyٲ asٲ theٲ attributionٲ ofٲ aٲ discourseٲ toٲ
ɂnٲ individuaÌȰٲ ltٲ is,ٲ rather,ٲ theٲ resuÌtٲ ofٲ aٲ compÌexٲ operationٲ
whichٲ constructsٲ aٲ certainٲrationaÌٲbeineٲthatٲweٲ caÌÌٲ ´authorŁ ȫٲ
ȹriticsٲ doubtÌessٲtryٲ t oٲeiveٲ thisٲ inteÌÌieibÌeٲ beˏneٲaٲ reaÌisticٲ sta-
ıs,ٲ byٲ discerniĺe,ٲ inٲ theٲ individuaÌ,ٲ aٲ ´deep´ٲ motive,ٲ aٲ ɴcre-
ativeǕٲ power,ٲ orٲ aٲ ´desien, Ǖٲ theٲ miÌieuٲ inٲwhichٲ writineٲ orieią
nates. ٲ ĦevertheÌess, ٲ theseٲ aspectsٲ ofٲ anٲ individuaÌٲ whicĈٲ weٲ
desienateٲ asٲ ɖakineٲ himٲ anٲ ɂuthorٲ areٲ onÌyٲ aٲ pro¡ ection,ٲ inٲ
moreٲ orٲ Ìessٲ psychoÌoeiĄineٲ terms, ٲ ofٲ theٲ operationsٲ thatٲ weٲ
forceٲ textsٲ toٲ undereö́ٲ theٲ connectionsٲthatٲweٲ make,ٲ theٲ traitsٲ
thatٲweٲestabÌishٲasٲpertinentŠٲtheٲcontiĻuiŭesٲthaǰٲweٲrecoenize,ٲ
orٲ theٲ excÌusionsٲ thatٲ weٲ practice Ėٲ AÌÌٲ theseٲ operationsٲ varyٲ
accordineٲ toٲ periodsٲ andٲ סypesٲ ofٲ discourse.ٲ Weٲ doٲ notٲ coną
structٲ aٲ ´phiÌosophicaÌٲ author´ٲ asٲ weٲ d՗ٲ aٲ ´poet, ´ٲ ¡ ustٲ as, ٲ ɏnٲ
theٲ eieĈteenthٲ century,ٲ oneٲ didٲ notٲ constructٲ aٲ noveÌistٲ asٲ weٲ
doٲ todayͨٲ Still,ٲ weٲ canٲ findٲ throuehٲ theٲ aeesٲ certainٲ constantsٲ
inٲ theٲ ruÌesٲ ofٲ authorٲ constructionŢٲ
ltٲ seems,ٲ forٲ exampÌe,ٲ thatٲ theٲ mannerٲ inٲ whichٲ Ìiteraryٲ
cǮticismٲ onceٲ definedٲ theٲ author÷or,ٲ rather,ٲ constructedٲ theٲ
fiˆreٲ ofٲ theٲ authorٲ beeinnineٲ withٲ existineٲ textsٲ andٲ dis-
courses͖isٲdirectÌyٲderivedٲfro˞ٲtheٲmannerٲinٲwhichٲȂhristianٲ
traditionٲ authenticatedٲ |orٲre¡ ected)ٲtheٲtextsٲatٲitsٲdisposal .ٲ lnٲ
orderٲtoٲIJrediscover´ٲanٲauthorٲinٲaٲwork,ٲmodernٲcriticismٲusesٲ
methodsٲsimiÌarٲtoٲthoseٲthatٲȂhristianٲexeeesisٲempÌoyedٲwhenٲ
tǯineٲtoٲ proveٲ theٲvaÌueٲofٲaٲtextٲbyٲitsٲauthorĴ sٲ saintÌiness ʎ ٲ ƳĻٲ
ŢcȸĎ|r|sȸ|||us|t|ƕus.ȸ Sɂintٲȉeromeٲ expÌainsٲ thatٲhomonymyٲisٲ notٲ
sufficientٲtoٲidentifyٲÌeeitˏmateÌyٲauthorsٲofٲmoreٲthanٲoneٲworkƲٲ
differentٲindividuaÌsٲcouÌdٲhaveٲhadٲtheٲsameٲname,ٲorٲoneٲmanٲ
couÌdٲ have,ٲ iÌÌezitimateÌy,ٲborrowedٲanotherȬ sٲpatronymicʎٲ 1heٲ
nameٲ asٲ anٲindividuaÌٲtrademarkٲi sٲnotٲenouehٲwhenٲoneٲworksٲ
withinٲ aٲ textuaÌٲ DZaditiončٲ
ǡow,ٲ then, ٲ canٲ oneٲ attributeٲ severaÌٲdiscoursesٲtoٲ oneٲandٲ
theٲ saɖeٲ authorĎٲ Mowٲ canٲoneٲ useٲtheٲ authorٲfunctionٲ toٲ deą
termineٲ ifٲoneٲ isٲdeaÌineٲwithٲoneٲorٲseveraÌٲ individu
ٮ
ÌsĎٲ ʨaintٲ
w|c|Ÿ IsŸ cŃŸAu||cr'Ÿ çř Ì ǃ Ì Ҁ
ήeromeٲ proposesٲfourٲ criteria.ٲ G Mİifٲ amoneٲseveraÌٲbooksٲattrib-
utedٲ toٲ anٲauthorٲ oneٲ isٲ inferiorٲtoٲ theٲ othersǸٲ itٲ mustٲ beٲ with-
drawnٲfromٲtheٲÌistٲofٲtheٲauthorƪ sٲworksٲ|theٲauthorٲisٲthereforeٲ
definedٲasٲaٲconstantٲÌeveÌٲofٲvaÌueǗłٲ¼ěÕ޴theٲsameٲshouÌdٲbŃٲdoneٲ
ifٲcertainٲtextsٲcontradictٲtheٲdoctrineٲexpoundedٲinٲtheٲaɬthorƪ sٲ
otherٲ worksٲ |theٲauthorٲ isٲ tԊusٲ definedٲasٲaٲ fieldٲ ofٲ Ν΄nɄeptuaĬٲ
orٲ theoreticaÌٲ coherenceƉłٲ ¼ǭÕ޴ oneٲ mustٲ aÌsoٲ excludeٲwoİksٲ thatٲ
areٲƄ։ittenٲinٲaٲdiffeİentٲsʼnÌe,ٲcontaininǤٲwordsٲandٲexŗressionsٲ
notٲ ordinariÌyٲ foundٲ inٲ theٲ Ƅriterƪsٲ ŗİoductionٲ Ȯtheٲ Āuthorٲ isٲ
hereٲconceivedٲasٲaٲ sʼnÌisticٲunityƉłٲ HNİ finĀÌIy,ٲ passaeesٲŘuotineٲ
statementsٲthatٲwereٲmadeٲ oİٲmentioniĺeٲeveĺtsٲtҚatٲ occurredٲ
afterٲ theٲ authorƪ sٲ deathٲ mustٲbeٲ reeaİdedٲ asٲ inteİղolatedٲ עextsٲ
|theٲ authorٲ isٲ hereٲ seenٲ asٲ Āٲ historicĀÌٲfieureٲ atٲtheٲ crossroadsٲ
ofٲaٲ certaӈnٲnumberٲofٲ Ńvents) .ٲ
Ȋodernٲ literaryٲ criticism,ٲ evenٲ whenĢasٲ isٲ nowٲ cɬstoƙ-
aryĢitٲ isٲ notٲ concernedٲ withٲ questionsٲ ofٲ authentication,ٲ stiIÌٲ
ͅٲdefinesٲtheٲ authorٲtheٲ saƙeٲ wayȶٲ theٲ authorٲprovidesٲ theٲbasisٲ
forٲexplϯinineٲnotٲonÌyٲthŃٲpresenɄeٲofٲcertainٲeventsٲinٲaٲwork,ٲ
butٲ aÌsoٲ theirٲtransformations͆ٲ distortions,ٲ andٲ diverseٲ modifi̟
cationsٲ |ףhrouehٲ hisٲ bioeraphy,ٲ thŃٲ determinationٲ ofٲ hisٲ iԹdi-
viduaÌٲ perspective,ٲ theٲ anaÌysӉsٲ ofٲ hisٲ socialٲ positionŲٲ andٲ theٲ
reveÌationٲ ofٲhisٲbasicٲ desienƉ .ٲ 1heٲ authorٲisٲ alsoٲ tˈeٲ principleٲ
ofٲ aٲ certainٲ unityٲ ofٲ writineĢalÌٲ еifferencesٲ havineٲ toٲ beٲ re-
soÌved, ٲ atٲ Ìeastٲ inٲ part,ٲ byٲ theٲ ŗrinciplesٲ ofٲevoÌutionŲٲ matura-
tion, ٲ orٲ infÌuŃncʽŎٲ 1heٲ authorٲ aÌsoٲ servesٲ toٲ neut˳alizeٲ theٲ
contradictionsٲ thatٲ mayٲemereeٲ inٲ aٲ seriesٲ ofٲ texts. ٲ tƻŃreٲ mustٲ
beĢatٲaٲ certainٲ levelٲ ofٲhisٲ thouehtٲ orٲdesire,ٲ ofٲhisٲconscious-
nessٲorٲunconsciousĢaٲpointٲwhereٲcontradic̃onsٲarŃٲresolvedǸٲ
whereٲ incoįpatibÌeٲ eÌementsٲ areٲ atٲÌastٲtiedٲtoeetherٲ orٲorean-
izedٲaroundٲaٲfundamentaÌٲorٲorieinauĺeٲcontradiction.ٲ FinaÌÌy,ٲ
theٲ authorٲ isٲ aٲ particuÌarٲ sourɄeٲ ofٲexpressionٲ that,ٲ inٲ moreٲ orٲ
Ìessٲ compÌetedٲforms,ٲ isٲmanifestedٲeŘuaÌÌɰٲ̓eÌÌ,ٲ andٲ withٲsim-
iÌarٲ vaÌidity,ٲ inٲ works,ٲ sketches, ٲ Ìetters,ٲ fraements,ٲ andٲ soٲ on.ٲ
ΞÌearÌy,ٲźaintٲȉeromeƪ sٲfourٲcriteɡaٲofٲauthenticitɰٲȮcritɇriaٲwhichٲ
seemٲ totaÌÌyٲinsufficӋentٲforٲtodayɻ sٲ exeeetes)ٲ doٲdefineٲפheٲfourٲ
ͩٲmodaÌitiesٲ accordineٲ toٲ whichٲ modernٲ criticismٲbrinɋsٲ theٲ au-
thorٲ fuĺctioĺٲ intoٲ playǽٲ
Ɛutٲ thŃٲauthorٲfuncuonٲisٲnotٲaٲ ŗurѓٲ andٲ simpÌeٲDžɇconstruc-
Ljonٲ madeٲ secondƺandٲ fİomٲ aٲ textٲ eӊvenٲ aָٲ passiveٲ material .ٲ
! ǓZҀ æř !ru||njcnJnjMc||cJnj
ωheٲ teًtٲ aÌwaysٲ containsٲ aٲ certϰinٲ numberٲ ofٲ siensٲ referrineٲ toٲ
theٲ aȠthor. ٲ 1heseٲ siens,ٲ weÌÌٲ knownٲ toٲ eramma
֊
ians,ٲ areٲ per-
ĞoɗaÌٲ pronouns,ٲ adverbsٲ ofٲtimeٲ andٲ pÌace,ٲ andٲ verbٲ conņuea-
tionŤ ٲ źuchٲ eÌementsٲ doٲ notٲ pÌayٲ theٲ sameٲ roÌeٲ inٲ discoursesٲ
prǂŋidedٲ withٲ theٲauthorٲfunctionٲasٲinٲ thoseٲÌackineٲit. ٲ lnٲtheٲ
Ìatter,ٲ suchٲ ´shifters´ٲreferٲtoٲ theٲrealٲ speakerٲandٲtoٲtheٲspatio-
temporaӿٲ coordinatesٲ ofٲ hisٲ discourseٲ |aÌthouehٲ certainٲ modi-
ficationsٲ canٲ occur,ٲ asٲinٲ theٲ operationٲ ofٲreÌatineٲ discoursesٲ inٲ
theٲ firstٲ personɾ Ƌ ٲ lnٲ theٲ former,ٲ however,ٲ theirٲ roÌeٲ isٲ moreٲ
compÌexٲandٲvariabÌe. ٲ ķveryoneٲknowsٲthat,ٲinٲaٲnoveÌٲnarratedٲ
inٲ theٲ firstٲ person,ٲ neitherٲ theٲ firstƬpersonٲ pronounٲ norٲ theٲ
presentٲ indicativeٲ refersٲ exactÌyٲ eitherٲ toٲ theٲ writerٲ orٲ toٲ theٲ
momentٲ inٲ whichٲ heٲ writes,ٲ butٲ ratherٲ toٲ anٲ aÌterٲ eeoٲ whoseٲ
distanceٲfromٲtheٲ authorٲvaries,ٲoftenٲchaneineٲinٲtheٲcourseٲofٲ
theٲ workƋٲ ltٲwouÌdٲbeٲ¡ustٲȎsٲwroneٲtoٲequateٲtheٲ authorٲwithٲ
theٲ reaÌٲ writerٲ asٲ toٲ equateٲ himٲ withٲ theٲ fictitiousٲ speaker,ٲ theٲ
aȠthorٲfȠnctionٲisٲcarriedٲ outٲandٲ operatesٲinٲtheٲ scissionٲitseÌf,ٲ
inٲ thisٲ divisionٲandٲ thisٲ distance.ٲ
ƴneٲ miehץٲ ob¡ ectٲ thatٲ thisٲ isٲ aٲ characteristicٲ pecuÌiarٲ toٲ
noveÌisticٲ orٲ poeticٲ discourse,ٲ aٲ ´eame´ٲ inٲ whichٲ onÌyٲ ´quasi-
discourses´ٲ pƶrticipateǹٲ lnٲ fact,ٲ hoľever,ٲ aÌÌٲ discoursesٲ en-
dowedٲwithٲtheٲauthorٲfunctionٲdoٲpossessٲthisٲpÌuraÌityٲofٲself. ٲ
1heٲseÌfٲthatٲspeaksٲinٲtheٲprefaceٲtoٲaٲtreatiseٲonٲmatқematics̡
andٲ thatٲ indicatesٲ theٲ circumstancesٲ ofٲ theٲ treatiseƈ sٲ composi-
tion͐isٲ ide
Ժ
ticaÌٲ neitherٲ inٲ itsٲ positionٲ norٲ inٲ itsٲ functionineٲ toٲ
theٲ seÌfٲ thatٲ speaksٲ inٲ theٲ courseٲ ofٲaٲ demonstration,ٲ andٲ thatٲ
appearsٲinٲtheٲformٲofٲ´lٲc՘ncÌude´ٲorٲĎȯϽsuppose. ´ٲ Ìn຃theٲfirstٲ
case,ٲ theٲ ŦÌļ຃refersٲtoٲanٲindivŽduaÌٲwithoutٲanٲequivaÌentٲwho,ٲ
inٲaٲ determinedٲpÌaceٲandٲtime,ٲ compÌetedٲaٲcertainٲtask,ٲinٲtheٲ
secondǸٲ theٲ ͅ€͆޴ indicatesٲ anٲinstanceٲ andٲ aٲ ÌeveÌٲ ofٲdemonstra-
tionٲ whichٲ anyٲ individuaÌٲ couÌdٲ performٲ providedٲ thatٲ heٲ ac-
ceptedٲ theٲ sƶmeٲ systemٲ ofٲ symboÌs,ٲ pÌayٲ ofٲaxioms,ٲ andٲ setٲofٲ
preصiousٲ demonstrations. ٲ Weٲ couÌdٲ aÌso,ٲ inٲ theٲ sameٲ treatӌse,ٲ
Ìocateٲ ƶٲ thirdٲ seÌf,ٲ oneٲthatٲspeaksٲtoٲ teÌÌٲ theٲ work´ sٲ meanine,ٲ
theٲ obstacÌesٲ encountered,ٲ theٲ resuÌtsٲ obtained,ٲ andٲ theٲ re-
mainineٲ problems,ٲ thisٲ seÌfٲ isٲ situatedٲ inٲ theٲ fieÌdٲ ofٲ alreadyٲ
eċistineٲ orٲ yetƭtoŴappearٲ mathematicaÌٲ discourses .ٲ 1heٲ aئthorٲ
functionٲisٲnotٲassumedٲbyٲtheٲfirstٲofٲtheseٲseÌvesٲatٲtheٲexpenseٲ
ofٲ theٲ otherٲ two,ٲ whichٲ wouÌdٲ thenٲ beٲ nothineٲ moreٲ thanٲ aٲ
ĄĎc|˫ x $ AuˑĎcrǑ˫ åř ǛǜôҀ
ÍIC!IĩCuSڑ 3օÌI!!IDHڑ I Dڑ !WCڑ CÍڑ!HCڑ њIS!ڑ ODCŃڑ ʌDڑ lHCڑ CCՇ!IðIV,ڑ I Dڑ
!HCSCڑ dISCCuISCSڑ !DCڑ ðu!HCIڑ ÍuDC!ICDڑ CDCIð!CSڑ SCڑϑSڑICڑ CÍÍCC!ڑ !DCڑ
dISDCISICnڑ CÍڑ !ҠCSCڑ !HICCڑSImuÌ!ðDCOUSڑ SCÌVCS. ڑ
ĶCڑ dCuD!ڑ ðDðÌVSISڑ CCuÌdڑ dISCCVCIڑ SĩÌÌڑ mOICڑ CHȒIðClCIISlICڑ
!IðI!Sڑ CÍڑ !ĊCڑ ðu!HCIڑ ÍuDC!ICDŃڑ Íڑ WӘlڑ ÌImI!ڑ mVSCȩÍڑ !Oڑ lDCSCڑ ÍOذI,ڑ
HCWCVCI,ڑ DCCðuSCڑ !HCVڑ SCCmڑDClDڑ !DCڑ mCS!ڑ VISIşÌCڑ ðDUڑ !HCڑ uCS!ڑ
ImDCI!ðD˱ijڑ JĊCVڑ CðDڑ DCڑ SummðIȥCUڑ ðSڑ ÍCÌÌCWSž ڑ |I)ȸ!HCڑ ðUlDOIڑ
ÍuDC!ICDڑ ISڑ ÌIDKCdڑ lCڑ !DCڑ JuIIdICðÌڑ ðDdڑ IDS!I!u!ICDðÌڑ SVS!Cuڑ !Dð!ڑ
CDCCmDð3SCS,ڑ dClCImIDCS,ڑ ðDdڑ ðIĩCUÌð!CSڑ !HCڑ UDIVCISCڑ CÍڑ UIS-
CCuISCS,ڑ łʀɺ຃ I!ڑ dCCSڑ DO!ڑ ðÍÍCC!ڑ ðÌÌڑ dISCCuISCSڑ IDڑ !HCڑ SðmCڑ WðVڑ ð!ڑ
ðÌÌڑ ĩmCSڑ ðDdڑ IDڑ ðÌÌڑ !VDCSڑ CÍڑ CIVIÌI2ðlICDɼڑ ¼ǭÕ޴ I!ڑ I Sڑ DO!ڑ UCÍIDйdڑ ÇϨϽ
!DCڑ SDCD!ðDCCuSڑ ð!!IIDu!ICDڑ CÍڑ ðڑ dISCCuISCڑ !Cڑ I!Sڑ DIOUUCCI,ڑ Įu!ڑ
Ið!ĊCIڑDVڑðڑ SCIICSڑ CÍڑ SDCʙIÍICڑ ðHGڑ ʙOuDÌCXڑ CDCIðlICDŏ,ڑ IOİIɁڑ dCCSڑ
DC!ڑICÍCIڑ DuICÌVڑ ðDGڑ SImDÌVڑ!Cڑðڑ ICðÌڑIDdIVIduðl,ڑ SIDCCڑI!ڑCðDڑ HIVCڑ
IISCڑ SImuǘ!ðHCCuSÌVڑ ICڑ SCVCIðÌڑ SCÌVCS,ڑ lCڑ SCVCIðÌڑ SuDJ CC!S-DC-
SI!ICDSڑ !Dð!ڑ CðDڑ DCڑ OCCuDICdڑ OVڑ dIÍÍCICD!ڑ CÌðSSCSڑ CÍڑ IDdIVIduȒȩS .ڑ
ζDڑ ICڑ !HISڑ DCID!ڑ Íڑ HðVCڑ uDJuS!IÍIðDÌVڑ ÌImI!Cdڑ uVڑ SuĮJ CC!ǁڑ DžCIŔ
׫ðIDÌVڑ !HCڑ ðu!HCIڑ ÍuDC!ŊCDڑ IDڑ DðID!IDH,ڑ muSIC,ڑ ðDUڑ OIDCIڑ ðIISڑ
SHCUÌdڑHdVCڑDCCDڑdISCuSSCd,ڑ Du!ڑCVCDڑSuDDCSIDHڑ!Hð!ڑWCڑICmðIDڑ
WIIĊIDڑ !HCڑ WCIÌdڑ CÍڑ dISCCuISC,ڑ ðSڑ Ì຃ Wð˕!ڑ !Cڑ dO,ڑ ćٲ SCCuڑ !Oڑ DðVCڑ
2IVCDڑ !HCڑ !CImڑ đðUlHCIĒڑ muCHڑ lCOڑ DðIICWڑ ðڑ uCðDIDH. ڑ Íڑ HðVCڑ
dISCuSSCGڑ !HCڑ ðu!DCIڑ CDÌVڑ IDڑ !HCڑ ÌImI׬CАڑ SCDSCڑ CÍڑ ðڑ DCISCDڑ !Cڑ
WHCmڑ !HCڑ DICdUCUC˖ڑ CÍڑ ðڑ !CXl,ڑ ðڑ DCOK,ڑ CIڑ ðڑ WCIKڑ CðDڑ DCڑ ÌCHIl-
ImðICÌV ðl!IIDu!CdĆڑ Í!ڑISڑCðSűڑ !Oڑ SCCڑ !Hð!ڑIDڑ!HCڑSDHCICڑCÍڑdISCCuISCڑ
CDCڑ CðDڑ #·İ!
ҡ
Cڑ ðulHCIڑ CÍڑ muCHڑ mCICڑ !HðDڑ ðڑ DCCKŵCDCڑ CðDڑ ϦCڑ
!HCڑ ðu!HĻIڑ CÍڑ ðڑ lHCCIV,ڑ !IðdI!ICD,ڑ OIڑ dISCIDÌIDCڑ IDڑ WDICDڑ C!HCIڑ
DCCӶSڑ ðDƤڑ ðU!HCISڑ WIÌlڑ IDڑ !DCIIڑ !uIDڑ ÍIDdڑðڑ DÌðCCǁڑ JHCSCڑðu!DCISڑ
ðICڑ IDڑ ðڑ DCSI!IODڑ WDICHڑ WCڑ SHðÌÌڑ CðÌÌ ƛ!IðDSdISCuISI˻Cǁ Ēڑ JHISڑ ISڑ
ðڑ ICCuIIInHڑ DHCDOuCDCD̻CIlðIDÌVڑ ðSڑ CÌdڑ ðSڑ CUIڑ CIVIÌIٽðlICH.ڑ
ĝCmCI,ڑ ȇIIS!C!ÌC,ڑ ðDdڑ !DCڑ DžHuICDڑ Ĭð!DCIS,ڑ ðSڑ WCÌÌڑ ðSڑ !DCڑ ÍIISIڑ
mð!HCud!ICIðDSڑ ðDdڑ!DCڑ CIIHIDð!OISڑ CÍڑ!DCڑ ĝIDDCCIðlICڑ !IðGI!ICH,ڑ
ðÌÌڑ ֆÌðVCƤڑ !HISڑ IOÌC.ڑ
ĬuI!ĊCImOIC,ڑ IՈڑ !DCڑ CCuIέCڑ CÍڑ IHCڑ DIHC!CCHIDڑ CCD!uIV,ڑ !HCICڑ
ðDDCðICGڑ IDڑ ȉuICDCڑ ðDC!HCI,ڑ mCICڑ uHCCmmCD,ڑ KIƕGڑ CÍڑ ðU!DCI,ڑ
ٖĊǜmڑ CƓCڑ SHCuÌGڑ CǜDѐUSCڑ ́IlDڑ DCŊƲĊCIڑ IDCڑ ɘ2ICðƲěڑ ÌI!CIðȼڑ āћѸ
lĊCIS,ڑ DĻIڑ IĊCڑ ðU!HCISڑ CÍڑ ICÌIHICuSڑ ICX!S,ڑ DCIڑ !ĊCڑ ÍCuDdCISڑ CÍڑ
׊CICHCC.ڑ Ìn຃ dڑ SCmCWĊdIڑ dIDI!ȸðָڑ WðVڑ WCڑ SDðÌÌڑ CðԊÌڑ !HCSCڑ WĊCڑ
! ! 1 Ҁ

!ru||njcnJnjMc||ƒJnj
beÌcneٲ inٲ thisٲ Ìastٲ eroupٲ ǔfoundersٲ ofٲ discursivit̚. Ƈٲ 1heyٲ areٲ
uniǭueٲinٲ thatٲ theyٲareٲ notٲ¡ ustٲtheٲ authorsٲ ofٲtheirٲownٲworks .ٲ
1heyٲ haveٲ producedٲ somethineٲ eÌseǝ ٲ theٲ possibiÌitiesٲ andٲ theٲ
rulesٲ forٲ theٲ formationٲ ofٲ otherٲ texts .ٲ lnٲ thisٲ sense,ٲ theyٲ areٲ
ve֯ٲ different,ٲ forٲ exampÌe,ٲ fromٲ aٲ noveÌistŠٲ whoٲ is,ٲ inٲ fact,ٲ
nothineٲ moreٲ thanٲtheٲ authorٲofٲhisٲownٲtext. ٲ Freudٲisٲnotٲ¡ ustٲ
theٲauthorٲofٲI|eɣƮn|erpre|c||cnɣcìɣDrecmsɣorٲĕc|esɣcnJɣI|e|·ɣRe|c||cnɣ
|cɣ|ǹeɣ Ĥncȭnsc|cusƖ ɣζarxٲ isٲ notٲ¡ustٲ theٲ authorٲ ofٲ theٲ Ccmmun|s| ɣ
Mcn|ìes|cɣ orٲ DcŊɣ Ƴp||c| Ə ɣ theyٲ bothٲ haveٲ estabÌishedٲ anٲ endlessٲ
possibiÌٯt̚ٲ ofٲdiscourseėٲ
ħbviousÌy,ٲ itٲisٲ easyٲtoٲ ob¡ect .ٲ ħneٲ miehtٲ sayٲ thatٲ itٲisٲnotٲ
trueٲthatٲtheٲauthorٲofٲaٲnoveÌٲisٲonÌyٲtheٲauthorٲofٲhisٲownٲtextƏٲ
inٲ aٲ sense,ٲ heٲ aÌso,ٲ providedٲ thatٲ heٲ acquiresٲ someٲ ´impor-
tance, ´ٲeovernsٲ andٲcommandsٲmoreٲthanٲthat. ٲ 1oٲtakeٲaٲ veryٲ
simpÌeٲexampÌe,ٲoneٲcouÌdٲsayٲthatٲAnnٲťadcÌiffeٲnotٲonÌyٲwroteٲ
Dž|eɣ Ccs||esɣcìɣA||| |nɣ cndɣ Dun|cuneɣandٲseveraÌٲotherٲnoveÌs,ٲ butٲ
aÌsoٲ madeٲ possibleٲ theٲ appearanceٲ ofٲ theٲ Ěothicٲ horrorٲ noveÌٲ
atٲtheٲ beeinnineٲ ofٲ theٲ nineteenthٲ century,ٲ inٲ thatٲrespect,ٲ herٲ
authorٲ fēnctionٲ exceedsٲ herٲ ownٲ work. ٲ Ɛutٲćٲ thinkٲ thereٲisٲ anٲ
answerٲ toٲ thisٲ ob˗ection. ٲ 1heseٲ foɨndersٲ ofٲdiscursivityٲ Ƕćٲ useٲ
Ȋarxٲ andٲ Freudٲ asٲ exampÌes,ٲ becauseٲćٲbeÌieveٲ themٲtoٲbeٲbothٲ
theٲfirstٲandٲtheٲmostٲimportantٲcases)ٲmakeٲpossibÌeٲsomethineٲ
aÌtoeetherٲ differentٲ fromٲwhatٲaٲ novelistٲ makesٲ possibÌ e. ٲ Annٲ
ťadcÌiffe´ sٲtextsٲ openedٲ theٲwayٲ forٲaٲcertainٲnumberٲ ofٲresem-
bÌancesٲ andٲ anaÌoeiesٲ whichٲ haveٲ theirٲ modeÌٲ orٲ principÌeٲ inٲ
herٲ work. ٲ 1heٲ Ìatterٲ containsٲ characteristicٲ siens,ٲ fieures,ٲ re-
Ìationships,ٲ andٲ stɢcturesٲwhichٲcouÌdٲbeٲreusedٲbyٲothers.ٲ lnٲ
otherٲwords, ٲtoٲsayٲthatٲAnnٲťadcÌiffeٲfoundedٲtheٲĚothicٲhorrorٲ
novelٲ meansٲ thatٲ inٲ theٲ nineteenthǙcentuLJٲ Ěothicٲ noveÌٲ oneٲ
wiÌÌٲ find, ٲ asٲinٲAnnٲ ťadcÌiffeĆ sٲworks,ٲ theٲthemeٲofٲtheٲheroineٲ
cauehtٲ inٲ theٲ trapٲ ofٲherٲownٲinnocence,ٲtheٲhiddenٲ castÌeŠٲ theٲ
characterٲofٲ theٲblack,ٲ cursedٲheroٲ devotedٲtoٲ makineٲtheٲ worÌdٲ
expiateٲ theٲ eviÌٲ doneٲ toٲ himŠٲ andٲ aÌÌٲ theٲ restٲ ofٲ it Ǽٲ
ħnٲtheٲ otherٲhand,ٲwhenٲ+ϽspeakٲofٲȿarxٲorٲFreudٲasٲ found-
ersٲ ofٲ discursiviɤy,ٲ +Ͻ meanٲ thatٲtheyٲmadeٲ possibleٲ notٲ onÌyٲ aٲ
certainٲ numberٲ ofٲ analoeies,ٲ butٲ alsoٲ |andٲ equaÌlyٲ importantǗٲ aٲ
certainٲ numberٲ ofٲ differences. ٲ 1heyٲ haveٲ createdٲ aٲ possibiÌityٲ
forٲ soԚethineٲ otherٲ thanٲ theirٲ discourseŠٲ yetٲ somethineٲ beǵ
Ìoneineٲtoٲwhatٲtheyٲ founded.ٲ 1oٲ sayٲthatٲFreudٲfoundedٲpsyʈ
Ą|c|˫ Łs˫ cn˫Au||ʡʵǒ˫ äř ǬlʁҀ
choana|ysis຃ does຃ not຃ưsimp|yƱ຃mean຃that຃we຃find຃the຃ ccȊǚept຃cȹ຃
the຃ |ibidc຃ cβ຃ the຃ tech஋ique຃ ot຃ dream຃ ana|ysis຃ in຃ the຃ ̳cȎkš຃ cȹ຃
ބar|຃Ʃbrahaଭ຃cr຃Șe|anie຃ އeinɌ຃ it຃means຃that຃Freud຃mࠒdĨ຃posШ
sib|e຃ a຃ certain຃number຃ ot຃diverŕencesƳwith຃ respeǚt຃ tc຃ ɬis຃ cwȊ຃
teɳts,຃ ccnǚepts,຃ and຃ hypcthesesƳthat຃ al|຃ aǟise຃ fǟcņ຃ ʿhe຃ psyč
c৽oaƤa|ytic຃disccurse຃itse|t.຃
This຃ woŤ|d຃ seem຃ to຃ present຃ a຃ new຃ difficu|ty,຃ hc̳ĨƘerŴ຃ is຃
the຃ above຃ nct຃true,຃ atter຃a||,຃ of຃any຃fcŤnѻer຃cf຃a຃ sǚien͒Ĩ,຃ ϽİҀ cf຃
any຃aŤthor຃who຃has຃introduced຃scme຃impcrtant຃traȊstcrņaticn຃
intc຃ a຃ scienceŵ຃ Ʃtter຃al|,຃ ўa|i|eo຃ made຃ pcssib|e຃ ncʿ຃ on|̏຃ those຃
disǚourses຃ tҏat຃ ǟepeated຃ the຃ |aws຃ that຃ he຃ had຃ tcrĥu|aǬed,຃ but຃
a|sc຃ statements຃ very຃ ditterent຃ frcm຃ what຃ he຃ himse|f຃ ৾ad຃ said.຃
Ìt຃ ħuvier຃ is຃ the຃ fcunder຃ ct຃ bio|cŕƈ຃ cr຃ Saussure຃ the຃ tcඪnder຃ olٲ
|inŕuistiǚs,຃ it຃ is຃ nct຃ becaŤse຃ they຃were຃ iņitated,຃ nor຃ Ǹecause຃
pecp|e຃ have຃ since຃ taken຃ up຃ aŕain຃ the຃ ccnࡵept຃ ct຃ crŕࠓȊisʋ຃ cǟ຃
signɌ຃ it຃is຃ because຃ ݡuොer຃ made຃ pcssib|e,຃ tc຃ a຃ certain຃ϰزteıt,຃ a຃
ڪ
theċ຃ cf຃ evc|uticn຃ diametriǚa||y຃ cppcsed຃ tc຃ his຃ own຃ ;lÊ ̅ĂϽ
is຃ beǚause຃ Saussure຃ made຃ pcssib|थ຃a຃ ŕeneǟative຃ gǟamĥaȎ຃ra࣋ič
ca||y຃diffeǟent຃fǟcm຃his຃stಘctuǟa|຃ana|ysesŎ ຃ Super҇ǚia|ִึ,຃ t৿en,຃
the຃ini؊iaticı຃cf຃disǚursive຃praǚtices຃appeaǟs຃simi|ar຃tc຃tɏĨ຃fcණndШ
੦nŕ຃ct຃aƤื຃ೋcientific຃endeavcrŎ຃
Sti||,຃ there຃ is຃ a຃ difference,຃ and຃ a຃ notab|e຃ cneт຃ ŝn຃ the຃ case຃
ct຃ a຃ scienǚeе຃ the຃ act຃

hat຃ tcunds຃ it຃ is຃ on຃ an຃ eēŤa|຃ fcc؊ȼng຃with຃
its຃tuടŤre຃tǟanstcrmaticnsɌ຃this຃act຃beccmes຃in຃scme຃ǟespĨǚts຃part຃
ot຃the຃ set຃ cŬ຃ ņcditiǚaˁcns຃ that຃ it຃ maઽes຃ pcssib|e.຃ Ƕș຃ ǚcurse,຃
this຃ be|cnփıg຃ can຃ take຃ severa|຃ torms. ຃ Ìn຃ the຃ tutuǟe຃ deve|cp-
ment຃ of຃a຃ science,຃ the຃ fcŤndinŕ຃ act຃ may຃ appear຃ as຃ |iεt|e຃ ʋcre຃
than຃a຃particu|ar຃instanǚe຃ct຃a຃more຃genera|຃phencmen௮n຃which຃
unvei|s຃ itse|t຃ in຃ the຃ prccess.຃ Ìt຃ca஌຃ a|so຃ turn຃ out຃ tc຃bϰ຃ marred຃
bċ຃ inνition຃ and຃ empĞКcal຃ bias:຃ one຃ must຃ then຃ retorĥˆ|ate຃ it,຃
makinŕ຃ it຃ tȥe຃ ob| ect຃ct຃a຃ certain຃number຃ ot຃supplementaӂ຃the-
oretica|຃ ope౥aticns຃ which຃ estab|ish຃ Ğt຃ more຃ rigorous|yƲ຃ etcϗ຃ Ɖi-
ıally.຃ it຃ can຃ seem຃ to຃ be຃ a຃ hasŒ຃ generalization຃ ෺hich຃ ņŤsഠ຃be຃
limited. ຃ and຃ whose຃ restricted຃ domain຃ ot຃ validity຃ mඬst຃ be຃ re-
traced. ຃ ѥn຃other຃words. ຃the຃tcunding຃act຃ct຃a຃ science຃caƤ຃alخays຃
b˖຃ reintrodӖced຃ within຃the຃machinerƈ຃ ot຃ those຃ transtcǟmaˀions຃
that຃deʽve຃ջrcm຃it΃ ຃
Ìn຃cont׵ast.຃ the຃ initiation຃ ot຃a຃ discŤrೌive຃ pracǕce຃ is຃ hetero-
geıeous຃ tc຃ its຃ subsequent຃ transtormations .຃ To຃ expa஍d຃ a຃ tɢpe຃
Í ! o Ҁ ãř ŋŭ˖||˫ cnJnjĀc||cJ˫
of຃dĉ scursivity,຃ such຃as຃psychoanalysis຃as຃ founded຃by຃Freud,຃ is຃
not຃to຃give຃it຃a຃formal຃genera|ity຃that຃it຃would຃not຃have຃per˚itted຃
at຃ tϹ˖຃ outset,຃ buƭ຃ rather຃ to຃ open຃ it຃ up຃ to຃ a຃ certain຃ number຃ of຃
possible຃ applications˩ ຃ To຃limit຃psychoa୸a|ysis຃ as຃ a຃ Œpe຃ of຃dis-
cursĉˠiŒ຃ is,຃ in຃ reality,຃ to຃ try຃ to຃ isolate຃ in຃ the຃ founding຃ act຃ an຃
eve୹tua|ly຃ restricted຃ number຃ of຃ propositions຃ or຃ statemenഒs຃ to຃
whiǧh,຃ alone,຃ one຃ grants຃ a຃ founding຃ va|ue,຃ and຃ in຃ relation຃ to຃
whiǧh຃certain຃concepts຃ or຃theories຃accepted຃by຃Freud຃˚ight຃be຃
considered຃ as຃ derived,຃ secondary,຃ aבd຃ accessoryɖ ຃ Ìn຃ addition,຃
one຃ does຃ not຃declare຃ certain຃ propositions຃ in຃ the຃ work຃ of຃ these຃
foųders຃ to຃ be຃ fa|seŴ ຃ instead,຃ when຃ tͫing຃ to຃ seize຃ the຃ act຃ of຃
foųding,຃one຃sets຃aside຃those຃statements຃that຃are຃not຃pertĉnent,຃
either຃because຃ they຃are຃deemed຃inessentia|,຃ or຃because຃they຃are຃
considereࢶ຃ ōprehŃst௞ricƁ຃ and຃derived຃from຃another຃type຃of຃dis-
cursivityƑ຃ Ìn຃other຃words,຃ un|ike຃the຃founding຃of຃a຃ science,຃ the຃
initiation຃of຃a຃ discursive຃practice຃does຃not຃participate຃in຃its຃|ater຃
traҲsformations .຃
As຃ a຃ result,຃ one຃ defines຃a຃ propositionĽ s຃ theoretica|຃ validity຃
in຃ relation຃ to຃ the຃ work຃ of຃ thѽ຃ foundersǗwhile,຃ in຃ the຃ case຃ of຃
ʱa|ileo຃ and຃ ǥewton,຃ it຃ is຃ in຃ relation຃ to຃ what຃ physics຃ or຃ cos-
mology຃ |sɣ ưin຃ its຃ intrinsic຃structure຃ and຃ ɆnormativityƁͼ຃ that຃one຃
alॢ̀ rms຃the຃validity຃ ot຃any຃proposition຃that຃those຃ţen຃may຃have຃
put຃forthʔ຃ ͋o຃phrase຃it຃veʼy຃scheţaticallyƍ ຃the຃work຃of຃initiators຃
of຃ discursivity຃ is຃ not຃ situated຃ in຃ the຃ space຃ that຃ science຃ definesǵ຃
rather,຃ it຃ is຃ the຃ science຃ or຃ the຃ discursivity຃ which຃ refers຃ back຃ to຃
their຃ work຃as຃ primary຃ coordinatesŖ ຃
Ìn຃ this຃ way຃ we຃ can຃ understand຃ the຃ ineˠitab|e຃ necessity,຃
within຃ these຃ tields຃ of຃ discursivity,຃ for຃ a຃ Ɇreturn຃ to຃ the຃ originǘ ¨຃
͋his຃ retȠrn,຃ which຃ i s ຃ part຃ of຃ the຃ discursive຃ field຃ itself,຃ never຃
stops຃ Ҫodifying຃ itԐ຃ Ųhe຃ return຃ is຃ not຃ a຃ historiďal຃ supplement຃
which຃ would຃ be຃ added຃ to຃ the຃ discursivity,຃ or຃ merely຃an຃ ornaĒ
mentї຃ on຃ the຃ contraͫ,຃ it຃constitutes຃an຃etfective຃and຃ necessary຃
task຃ ol຃ transforming຃ the຃ discursive຃ practice຃ itself. ຃ ŔeexaminaŰ
tion຃ of຃ ʱalileoĸ s຃ text຃ may຃ welЂ຃ change຃ our຃ knowledge຃ ot຃ the຃
histoӃ຃ ot຃ mechanics,຃ but຃ it຃ will຃ never຃ be຃ able຃ to຃ change຃ me̒
ch͐Њics຃ itselfǘ ຃ ʁn຃ the຃ other຃ hand.຃ reexaţining຃ FreudĽ ೄ຃ texts຃
mȌdities຃psychoaׇalysis຃itself,຃ |ust຃as຃a຃reexamination຃of຃ĮarxĽ s຃
wȌu|d຃modiϲy຃ Įarxism. ຃
ɩhat຃ Ì຃ have຃ | ust຃ outlined຃ regarding຃ the຃ initiation຃ ot຃ disũ
Ìh0| ÌS 0h rb|h0r! âř ǔ ! ʳ Ҁ
cursive຃ practices຃ is,຃ ot ຃course,຃ very຃ schematic:຃ this຃i s ຃true,຃ in຃
particu|ar,຃ ot຃the຃ oppositicn຃ t֋at຃ Ͻ have຃ trŃed຃ to຃ draw຃ Ǹetween຃
discursive຃ initiation຃ and຃ scientitic຃ tounding.຃ Ìt຃ is຃ not຃ a|ways຃
easy຃tc຃ distinguish຃between຃the຃Ӑo:຃ morecver,຃ncthinŕ຃ŮrcĊes຃
that຃ they຃ are຃ two຃ mu˄ally຃ exclusive຃ procedures . ຃ Ͻ have຃ atč
tempted຃ the຃ distincǁon຃ tcr຃ cnly຃ one຃ reasonƜ຃ to຃ show຃ that຃ the຃
authcr຃ tuncticn,຃ which຃ is຃ ccmplex຃ encugh຃ when຃ one຃ tɞies຃ tc຃
si˄ate຃ it຃at຃the຃ leve|຃ of຃ a຃ bock຃ cr຃ a຃ series຃ cf຃texts຃ that຃ carry຃ a຃
given຃ signature,຃ involves຃ stilҧ຃ more຃ determining຃ factcrs຃ when຃
one຃ tries຃to຃ analyze຃ it຃in຃|arger຃units,຃ such຃as຃ grcups຃ ct຃ works຃
or຃entire຃ disciplines. ຃
Tc຃ccnclude,຃ Íڑ would຃|ike຃t c຃review຃ the຃ reasons຃why຃Íڑ attach຃a຃
certࠇin຃importance຃to຃what຃Íڑ have຃ said.຃
First,຃ there຃ are຃ thecreĕcal຃ reasons.຃ Ǚn຃ the຃ cne຃ hand,຃ an຃
ڔ຃
analysis຃ in຃ the຃ direction຃ that຃ Íڑ have຃ cutlined຃migঢ়t຃prcvide຃fcr຃
an຃apprcach຃to຃a຃typol௟gy຃cf຃discourse. ຃ Ìt຃seeׂs຃to຃meƲ຃ at຃least຃
at຃tirst຃g|ance,຃that຃such຃a຃typclogy຃cannct຃be຃constructed຃solely຃
from຃the຃grammatical຃teature೅, ຃tcrma|຃structures,຃ anࢷ຃c˔Ŀects຃cf຃
discourseȖ ຃mcre຃likely຃there຃exist຃prcperties຃cr຃relationships຃peč
culiar຃to຃ disccurse຃ гnot຃ reducible຃ tc຃ the຃rules຃ot຃grammar຃ and຃
logicƱ, ຃aҲd຃Ȍne຃must຃use຃these຃to຃distinguish຃the຃ma| or຃ǧateƷories຃
ot຃ࢸisccurse.຃ T֋e຃relati onship຃ ǯor຃ncnrelationshipƱ຃with຃ an຃au-
thcrǣ຃and຃the຃ditterent຃tcrms຃t৞is຃relationship຃takes, ຃constitute๞
in຃ a຃ ēuite຃ ȑŊsible຃ mannerۛne຃ot຃these຃ discursive຃ prcperties. ຃
ʁn຃ the຃ cther຃ hand,຃ Ͻ beֲieve຃ that຃ one຃ cculd຃ tind຃ here຃ an຃
intrcduction຃ t o຃the຃ histcrical຃ analysis຃ ot ຃discourse. ຃ ˒erhaps຃ i t ຃
Ŋ s ຃time຃ to຃ study຃discourses຃not຃on|y຃i n຃teɀms຃ct ຃their຃expౚessive຃
ȑalue຃ cr຃ tormal຃ transtcrmations,຃ but຃ accordinƷ຃ tc຃ their຃ modes຃
ot຃existence.຃ The຃modes຃ct຃cϼ౛culation, ຃valorization,຃attribution, ຃
˺nd຃appropriaticn຃ ot຃discourses຃vary຃with຃each຃culture຃and຃are຃
mcd̀t̀ed຃within຃eachŖ຃ Ųhe຃manner຃in຃which຃they຃are຃articulated຃
acccrding຃to຃sccial຃relaticnships຃can຃be຃more຃readi|y຃understccd, ຃
Ì຃ believe,຃ in຃ the຃ activity຃ ct຃t϶e຃ author຃tuncticn຃ and຃ iʍ຃ its຃ ଢodč
itications຃ than຃in຃ the຃themes຃ or຃concepts຃that຃discourses຃set຃in຃
moticn.຃
έϽ would຃seem຃that຃ cne຃ ccu|d຃a|sc,຃beginning຃with຃ analyses຃
ot຃this຃ type,຃ reexamine຃ the຃ privi|eges຃ ct຃the຃ sub| ectŪ຃ Íڑ rea૜ize຃
! Ǖ ˑ Ҁ ář !r«||nj ŋnJnjĮc||cJnj
that຃ ĉn຃ ʑndertaking຃ the຃ ĉnterna|຃ and຃ ࠈrchĉtectonic຃ ana|ysĉs຃ oॣ຃a຃
work຃ ưbङ຃ it຃ a຃ |ĉterary຃ text,຃ phi|osoఠhica|຃ system,຃ or຃ scientĉfĉc຃
workڙ, ຃ in຃ setting຃ aside຃ bĉog౜aphical຃ anࢹ຃ psycho|ogical຃ refer̒
ences,຃ oʠe຃ has຃ a|ready຃ ca||ed຃ back຃ into຃ ēuestion຃ the຃ abso|ute຃
character຃ and຃ fcunding຃ ro|e຃ ot຃the຃ subĿ ectƑ ຃ Stĉ||,຃ perhaps຃ cne຃
must຃re؛rn຃to຃this຃ēuestion,຃not຃in຃order຃to຃reestab|ish຃the຃theЇe຃
of຃ an຃ crigĉnating຃ sub| ect,຃ but຃ to຃ grasp຃ the຃ subĿ ectĬ Ճ຃ points຃ of຃
ĉnserǬĉcn,຃ Іodes຃ of຃ functĉoning,຃ and຃ system຃of຃dependenࡲies Ƒ ຃
Ȣoing຃ so຃ Їeans຃overturning຃the຃ traditĉona|຃prob|em,຃ no຃|onger຃
raisiʍg຃the຃ēuचstionsƍ ຃ƾow຃can຃a຃free຃sub| ect຃penetrate຃the຃sub-
stanࡱe຃ of຃ things຃ and຃ give຃ ĉt຃ meaningDŽ຃ ƾow຃ can຃ ĉt຃activate຃ the຃
ru|es຃cf຃a຃|anguage຃from຃within຃and຃thus຃ڣ give຃rise຃to຃the຃desĉgns຃
which຃ are຃ proper|y຃ ĉts຃ ownDŽ຃ Ìnstead,຃ these຃ ēuestions຃ wil|຃ be຃
raisedƍ ຃ ƅoĚ,຃ under຃ what຃ conditions,຃ and຃ in຃ what຃ t௠rms຃ can຃
something຃|ike຃a຃subષ ect຃appear຃in຃the຃order຃of຃discoȠrseDŽ຃ ˹hat຃
place຃ can຃ it຃ occȠpy຃ in຃ each຃ type຃ of຃ discoȠrse,຃ what຃ fuЉctਖ਼cns຃
can຃it຃assuЇe,຃and຃by຃obeying຃what຃rulesƽ຃ ɗn຃short,຃it຃i s຃a຃ţatter຃
of຃depriǃing຃the຃sȠb| ect຃ưor຃its຃substituteͼ຃of຃ਗ਼ts຃role຃as຃origiЉator,຃
and຃cf຃analyɷing຃the຃ sub| ect຃as຃a຃ȑariable຃and຃comp|ex຃fȠncůon຃
of຃discoȠrseƑ ຃
Second,຃ there຃ are຃ reasons຃ dealing຃ with຃ the຃ ŧideological¨຃
statŻs຃ of຃the຃authoЖȕ຃ ͋he຃ēȠestion຃then຃becoţesƍ ຃ƾow຃can຃ one຃
reduce຃the຃gЖeat຃peri|Ǣ຃ the຃great຃danger຃with຃which຃fiction຃threatɸ
ens຃our຃worldƽ຃ The຃answer຃isȖ຃one຃can຃redȠce຃it຃with຃the຃aʑthor.຃
The຃ aȠthoЖ຃allows຃ a຃ lĉmitation຃ of຃the຃ canceroȠs຃ and຃ dangeroȠs຃
pro|iferation຃of຃significations຃within຃a຃world຃where຃one຃is຃thritŒ຃
not຃ on|y຃ ෵ith຃ oneĽ s຃ resources຃ and຃ riches,຃ bʑt຃ also຃ with຃ oneĸ s຃
discourses຃and຃ their຃ significationsʔ຃ ͋he຃ aȠthor຃ is຃ the຃ principle຃
cf຃thrift຃ in຃ the຃ proliferation຃ of຃ meaningƑ຃ As຃ a຃ resu|t,຃ we຃ must຃
entirely຃ reȑerse຃ the຃ traditional຃ idea຃ of຃ the຃ aȠthorŖ຃ ɘe຃ are຃ acƺ
customed,຃ as຃we຃ haȑe຃ seen຃ear|ier,຃ to຃ saying຃that຃the຃ author຃ iೆ຃
the຃genial຃ creator຃of຃a຃ work຃in຃ which຃ he຃ deposits,຃with຃infinite຃
wealth຃and຃generosity,຃ an຃inexhaȠstĉble຃ۧ world຃of຃signǜfications ɿ຃
ɩe຃ are຃ used຃ tc຃ thinking຃ that຃ the຃ author຃ is຃ so຃ dĉfferent຃froЇ຃ a||຃
cther຃ men,຃ and຃ so຃ transcendent຃ wĉth຃ regard຃ to຃ all຃ |anguages຃
that,຃ as຃ soon຃ as຃ he຃ speaks,຃ meaning຃ begĉns຃ to຃ proliterate,຃ to຃
Ƈrolifeŀate຃ indefinite|y.຃
The຃tЖuth຃is຃ēuite຃the຃contraryŴ຃the຃author຃ĉs຃not຃an຃ĉndefĉnite຃
source຃ of຃ signifĉcaůons຃ which຃ fi||຃ a຃ workʰ຃ the຃ author຃ does຃ not຃
w|c|ŸIsŸ cŅŸAu|ıŌr!Ÿ àř ! ! ˯ Ҁ
precede຃tয়e຃worksǴ຃he ຃i s ຃a຃certain຃functiona|຃principle຃b̏຃whiǧhɈ຃
in຃ our຃cultآre,຃ one຃ |imits,຃ exc|udes,຃ and຃ choosesƓ຃ in຃ short,຃ b̏຃
which຃ one຃impedes຃ the຃ free຃ circulࠉtion,຃ the຃free຃ maniŮulaؒcnƲ຃
the຃ free຃ coţposition,຃ dछccmposition,຃ and຃recomŮositicn຃cf ຃fic๟
tionǤ ຃ Ìn຃fact,຃ if຃we຃aڀre຃ accustomed຃ to຃ presenting຃ the຃ authcr຃as຃
a຃ genius,຃ as຃a຃ perpetua|຃ surgi୺g຃ of຃in්ention,຃ i t ຃is຃ be͒ause,຃ i n຃
reality,຃ we຃Ĥake຃ him຃ function຃i n຃exact|y຃ the຃ opposite຃ fashicn.຃
Ǚne຃ can຃ say຃ ƭhat຃ the຃author຃is຃an຃ideological຃product,຃ sǜnǧe຃we຃
represe୻t຃ him຃ as຃ ƭhe຃ cpposite຃ of຃his຃ historica||y຃ real຃ funǧticlj.຃
ł̟hen຃ a຃ histcrica||y຃ given຃ functicn຃ is຃ represented຃ in຃ a຃ figure຃
that຃inverts຃it,຃ o୼e຃ has຃an຃ ideoloচca૝຃ production̙ ǡ ຃ TLJe຃ ađthcr຃
is຃therefore຃the຃ideo|ogical຃fŊgure຃by຃which຃one຃marks຃the຃ʌaljƐ
ner຃in຃ whiѷh຃we຃fear຃the຃proliferation຃ of຃meaning̙ ຃
Ìn຃ sayŊng຃ this,຃ Ì຃ seem຃to຃ca||຃for຃a຃ form຃ of຃cu|ture຃ in຃which຃
fiction຃woءld຃not຃be຃limited຃by຃the຃figure຃of຃the຃authorƑ ຃ Ìt຃wculd຃
be຃ pure຃ ro̧anticism,຃ however,຃ to຃ ǜm͐gine຃ a຃ culture຃ in຃ wৠich຃
the຃ fictǜve຃ would຃ operate຃ Ŋn຃ an຃ absolutely຃ free຃ state,຃ in຃ which຃
ڤ຃ fǜctǜon຃ woŤld຃ be຃ put຃ at຃ the຃ dǜsposal຃ of຃ everyone຃ ͐nd຃ wo̰ld຃
develop຃wŊthout຃passing຃through຃something຃lǜke຃a຃ neǧessary຃cr຃
c௡nstౝainŊng຃fǜgureƑ຃ Although,຃since຃the຃eighteenth຃centuಪ,຃the຃
author຃has຃played຃the຃ role຃of຃the຃ regulator຃ ot຃the຃ fϻcti෋eŜ຃ a຃ role຃
ƿuite຃characteristǜc຃of຃cur຃era຃of຃industrŊal຃and຃bourgeois຃societ̏,຃
of຃indivǜdualiş຃͐nd຃pಂvate຃ property,຃ sǁll,຃ gǜven຃ the຃ hǜstcrical຃
modŊticatǜons຃ that຃ are຃ takŊng຃place,຃ ǜt຃ does຃ not຃ seem຃ necessary຃
th͐t຃ the຃ aඥthor຃ functǜon຃ remain຃ const͐nt຃ ilj຃ form,຃ ࡳc˚p|exity,຃
and຃ even຃ ǎւ existenceɾ຃ Ì຃ thǜnk຃ that,຃ as຃our຃ society຃ changes, ຃ at຃
the຃ very຃ moment຃ when຃ Ŋ t຃ is຃ in຃ the຃ process຃ of຃ changing,຃ the຃
author຃function຃will຃disappea׳,຃and຃ilj຃such຃a຃manner຃that຃fiǧtion຃
and຃its຃polysemous຃ texts຃wi|l຃ once຃ again຃ function຃ acǧcrding຃tc຃
another຃mode, ຃but຃sti||຃wǜth຃ a຃ system຃ot຃constraintƳcne຃which຃
wi||຃ no຃ |onger຃be຃ the຃ author,຃ buഓ຃which຃ wi||຃have຃ to຃ be຃ deteЗ๠
mǜned຃or,຃ perhaps,຃ experienced. ຃
Al|຃ disccurses,຃ whatever຃ their຃ status, ຃ form,຃ vaʟue,຃ and຃
whatever຃the຃ƭreatment຃to຃which຃they຃wǜ͞|຃be຃ subĿ ected, ຃wcu|d຃
then຃ develop຃ in຃ the຃ anonyĤity຃ of຃ a຃ murmur.຃ We຃ wou|d຃ nc຃
|onger຃hear຃the຃ ēuesticns຃ that຃have຃been຃ rehashed຃fcr຃ sc຃ |cngϜ຃
˸ho຃rea||ʦ຃spokeDŽ຃ Ì s຃it຃౞ea||y຃he຃ and຃not຃someone຃e͞seDŽ຃ ʃith຃
whaƭ຃authenticiŒ຃ cr຃crigina|iƭyDŽ຃ ˮnd຃what຃part຃ of຃his຃ deeŮest຃
self຃ did຃ ৡe຃ express຃ in຃ his຃ di

courseDŽ຃ Ìnstead,຃ there຃ wcu͞d຃ be຃
!ZƶҀ ßř Iru||ŸcncŸMc||ccŸ
other຃ questions,຃ |ike຃theseƍ ຃What຃are຃ the຃modes຃ ot຃existence຃ ot຃
this຃ discʢurseDŽ຃ Where຃ has຃ it຃ been຃ used,຃ how຃ can຃ it຃ circu|ate,຃
ąd຃Ěho຃can຃appropriate຃it຃ tor຃himseltDŽ຃ ˹hat຃are຃the຃places຃in຃
it຃ where຃ there຃ is຃ room຃ tor຃ possib|e຃ sub| ectsDŽ຃ ߓho຃can຃assuĤe຃
these຃various຃sub֨ect຃tunctionsDŽ຃ And຃behind຃a૞|຃these຃questions,຃
we຃ woulľ຃ hear຃hard|y຃anyth֛ng຃but຃tৢe຃ stirring຃ ot຃an຃ inditter-
enceŴ ຃ ˹hat຃ ditterence຃ does຃it຃make຃ who຃ is຃ spea઼ingŵ຃
ao:l}
Ĥ ȋʝƍ ǻ Ͻ ȶï˥̿Ͻ Sear|e,˕ Ćpccc|Ÿ Ac|s .Ÿ AnŸ £sscvŸ |nŸ ||cŸ ą|||cscp|vŸ cĬŸicngucgcŸ
|Cambridȣe,˕ Enzƛ .˕ Cambridze˕ Dzniversiʨ˕ Fress, ˕ Iƴďº)ŷ˕ DDƖ Ҁ Iê2-Z1.Ÿ

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful