Of the 28 substantial papers and six shorter contributions that make up Jacques Lacan’s écrits, the piece entitled ‘Kant avec Sade’ (‘Kant with Sade’) is generally regarded as one of the toughest nuts to crack, and this opinion is shared by some of the most eminent and knowledgeable commentators on Lacan’s work. Addressing an audience in Rio de Janeiro in 1985, Lacan’s son-in-law and literary executor Jacques-Alain Miller referred to the paper as ‘a(chǎn) difficult text’ and ‘a(chǎn)n écrit that has not been utilized very much’, insinuating that the first characteristic may very well be responsible for the second (Miller, 1998, p. 201).1 Four years later, at a conference at Kent State University in Ohio, Miller confirmed this observation—despite, or perhaps by virtue of his having studied and discussed the paper painstakingly for almost five years at his seminars in Paris—thus making the initial verdict next to official: ‘Jacques Lacan’s “Kant with Sade” is probably one of the most difficult texts in the écrits’ (Miller, 1996, p. 212). The qualification of ‘difficult’ would probably not be very significant in this context, if the other texts in écrits were an easy read, but since the others are already widely considered to be distinctly cryptic the word ‘difficult’ could only be synonymous here with ‘inaccessible’ or ‘impenetrable’. Remarkably, this qualification would not be too far removed from how Lacan himself put it to an Italian journalist in October 1974: as to ‘Kant with Sade’, ‘I am incomprehensible’ (Lacan, 2013a, p. 83). Without wanting to reflect, here, upon the reasons as to why Lacan’s text is difficult—they should become clear from the contents of this book—or upon my own motives for taking on the task of shedding light on Lacan’s ‘darkest’ moment, I thus need to inform the reader from the start that clarifying ‘Kant avec Sade’ constitutes a considerable challenge. And I should also apologize in advance if my commentary and interpretation fail to unravel some of its mysteries. It should be emphasized, however, that ‘Kant with Sade’ may be one of the few texts in écrits whose import cannot be fully appreciated without detailed commentary and interpretation, because it is far from clear what Lacan is saying in it, and this persistent obscurity is as testing for a francophone readership as it is for those who can only access the text in translation. I can only hope that my own critical analysis of ‘Kant with Sade’ in this book will be a less daunting experience for the reader than Lacan’s original text, without it therefore detracting any reader from exploring this most demanding of écrits, if only because this exercise will undoubtedly generate additional clarifications and alternative interpretations. 在構(gòu)成雅克·拉康的著作的 28 篇實(shí)質(zhì)性論文和 6 篇較短的論文中，題為“Kant avec Sade”（《康德同薩德》）的文章通常被認(rèn)為是最難破解的難題之一，這一觀點(diǎn)得到了一些對(duì)拉康作品有最杰出和最淵博知識(shí)的評(píng)論家的認(rèn)同。 1985 年，拉康的女婿兼文學(xué)執(zhí)行人雅克·阿蘭·米勒 (Jacques-Alain Miller) 在里約熱內(nèi)盧向觀眾發(fā)表講話時(shí)，將這篇論文稱為“一篇困難的文本”和“一篇沒有得到太多利用的論文”，暗示第一個(gè)特征很可能是第二個(gè)的原因（Miller，1998，第 201 頁）。1 四年后，在俄亥俄州肯特州立大學(xué)的一次會(huì)議上，米勒證實(shí)了這一觀察結(jié)果——盡管，或者也許憑借他的研究和在巴黎的研討會(huì)上，他對(duì)這篇論文煞費(fèi)苦心地討論了近五年，從而做出了接近官方的初步結(jié)論：“雅克·拉康的《康德同薩德》可能是文獻(xiàn)中最難的文本之一”（Miller，1996，第 17 頁）。 212）。 如果《écrits》中的其他文本很容易閱讀，那么“困難”的限定在這種情況下可能不會(huì)很重要，但由于其他文本已經(jīng)被廣泛認(rèn)為是明顯神秘的，所以“困難”一詞在這里只能是同義詞 “難以接近”或“難以穿透”。 值得注意的是，這一限定與拉康本人在 1974 年 10 月向一位意大利記者所說的相去不遠(yuǎn)：至于《康德同薩德》，“我無法理解”（拉康，2013a，第 83 頁）。 在這里，我不想反思為什么拉康的文本困難的原因——它們應(yīng)該從本書的內(nèi)容中變得清楚——或者反思我自己承擔(dān)揭示拉康“最黑暗”時(shí)刻的任務(wù)的動(dòng)機(jī)，我因此需要從一開始就告知讀者，澄清《康德同薩德》構(gòu)成了相當(dāng)大的挑戰(zhàn)。 如果我的評(píng)論和解釋未能解開其中的一些謎團(tuán)，我也應(yīng)該提前道歉。 然而，應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，《康德同薩德》可能是《écrits》中為數(shù)不多如果沒有詳細(xì)的評(píng)論和解釋，就無法完全理解其重要性的文本之一，因?yàn)槔翟谄渲兴f的內(nèi)容還很不清楚，而且這種持續(xù)的模糊性對(duì)于法語讀者來說是一種考驗(yàn)，對(duì)于那些只能閱讀翻譯文本的人來說也是一種考驗(yàn)。 我只能希望，我自己在這本書中對(duì)《康德同薩德》的批判性分析對(duì)于讀者來說不會(huì)像拉康的原文那樣令人畏懼，而不會(huì)因此分散任何讀者對(duì)這一最苛刻的批評(píng)的探索，哪怕只是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)舉動(dòng)無疑會(huì)產(chǎn)生更多的澄清和替代的解釋。 ? Much like so many other papers in écrits, ‘Kant avec Sade’ bears the stamp of the circumstances under which it was written. Hence, before any serious consideration is given to its contents, it is necessary to reconstruct its context. In 1958, the Belgian-Chinese-French editor Claude Tchou created the imprint Cercle du livre précieux, with the purpose of producing and selling, through private subscription, luxury critical editions of literary and scientific works, often covering erotic subject matters. In 1961, it was announced that this imprint would make available, under the general editorship of the French poet Gilbert Lely, the complete works of DonatienAlphonse-Fran?ois de Sade (1740–1814) (Lely, 1961). During the first half of the nineteenth century, the shocking contents of Sade’s infamous libertine novels had prompted writers to coin the new clinical category of ‘sadism’ (Azar, 1993, pp. 42–45), and during the 1960s the public sale of his books was still banned in France.2 Indeed, when shortly after World War II another French publisher, Jean-Jacques Pauvert, had taken it upon himself to release Sade’s complete works in an accessible paperback edition, the initiative resulted in a high-profile court case which, although relaxed on appeal, initially ordered for the incriminating books to be confiscated and destroyed, and their publisher to be sentenced to pay a very large fine (Gar?on, 1963; Brochier, 1991; Pauvert, 2004, pp. 248– 251 & pp. 260–264). With the edition of the Cercle du livre précieux the risk of legal interference with the project would have been avoided on account of the fact that the books were not publicly available, but only sold in a limited edition of 2,000 numbered copies via a book club to private subscribers.3 In consequence, between 1962 and 1964, the complete works of Sade were released in an exculpatory, ‘definitive edition’ of 15 volumes, under the general editorship of Lely, whose own monumental biography of the so-called ‘divine Marquis’ inaugurated the precious set. ? 就像《écrits》中的許多其他論文一樣，《康德同薩德》帶有其寫作環(huán)境的印記。 因此，在認(rèn)真考慮其內(nèi)容之前，有必要重構(gòu)其背景。 1958 年，比利時(shí)、華裔、法國裔編輯 Claude Tchou 創(chuàng)建了 Cercle du livre précieux 出版社，目的是通過私人訂閱生產(chǎn)和銷售文學(xué)和科學(xué)作品的豪華評(píng)論版本，這些作品通常涵蓋色情主題。 1961 年，該出版社宣布將在法國詩人 Gilbert Lely 的總編輯下出版 Donatien Alphonse-Fran?ois de Sade（1740-1814）的全集（Lely，1961）。 在 19 世紀(jì)上半葉，薩德臭名昭著的放蕩小說中令人震驚的內(nèi)容促使作家們創(chuàng)造了“施虐狂”這個(gè)新的臨床類別（Azar，1993，第 42-45 頁），而在20 世紀(jì) 60 年代，法國仍然禁止公開銷售他的書籍。2 事實(shí)上，二戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后不久，另一位法國出版商讓-雅克·波維爾 (Jean-Jacques Pauvert) 親自以易于閱讀的平裝本出版了薩德的全集，這一舉措引起了高度關(guān)注。該法庭案件雖然在上訴時(shí)有所緩和，但最初下令沒收和銷毀有罪的書籍，并判處其出版商支付巨額罰款（Gar?on，1963 年；Brochier，1991 年；Pauvert，2004 年，第 248 頁） 251 & 第 260–264 頁）。 通過 Cercle du livre précieux 的版本，可以避免該項(xiàng)目受到法律干預(yù)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，因?yàn)檫@些書籍不是公開發(fā)行的，而是通過讀書俱樂部以限量版 2,000 冊(cè)的形式出售。 3因此，在 1962 年至 1964 年間，薩德全集以15卷的無罪“最終版”形式出版，由萊利總編輯，他自己為所謂的“神圣侯爵”撰寫的不朽傳記開創(chuàng)了這本珍貴的書集。 ? At the end of March 1962, when pursuing his seminar L’identification (Identification), Lacan informed his audience that he had committed himself to writing up the discussion of Sade’s works he had commenced in his seminar of 1959–1960 on the ethics of psychoanalysis (Lacan, 1992), in a preface he had promised for an edition of Sade’s works (Lacan, 1961–1962, session of 28 March 1962). There can be no doubt that the edition in question, here, was the one being prepared by Tchou and Lely, since Pauvert’s project had already been completed, and no other edition of the works of Sade was being launched. In March 1962, Lacan did not indicate whether his article would be included as a preface to the entire edition, to a specific volume or to a particular text within a volume. Yet on 16 January 1963, in a lecture that was part of his subsequent seminar L’angoisse(Anxiety), he disclosed that his listeners would be able to read all about his rapprochement between Kant and Sade in a preface to Sade’s La philosophie dans le boudoir, which would be published in the not-too-distant future (Lacan, 2014b, p. 104). However, when later that year Volume III of Sade’s complete works, containing Justine ou les Malheurs de la Vertu and La philosophie dans le boudoir, came off the press, there was no trace of Lacan’s text in it, and it was not included in any of the other volumes either. ? 1962 年 3 月底，拉康在進(jìn)行 L'identification（認(rèn)同）研討會(huì)時(shí)告訴聽眾，他已承諾寫下他在 1959 年至 1960 年精神分析倫理學(xué)研討會(huì)上開始的對(duì)薩德作品的討論。 （拉康，1992），在序言中他承諾出版薩德作品的一個(gè)版本（拉康，1961-1962，1962年3月28日會(huì)議）。 毫無疑問，這里所說的版本是周和萊利正在準(zhǔn)備的版本，因?yàn)椴ňS爾的項(xiàng)目已經(jīng)完成，薩德作品的其他版本還沒有推出。 1962 年 3 月，拉康沒有表明他的文章是否會(huì)作為整個(gè)版本、特定卷或卷中特定文本的序言。 然而，1963 年 1 月 16 日，在他隨后的研討會(huì) L'angoisse（焦慮）的一次演講中，他透露，他的聽眾將能夠在薩德的《閨房里的哲學(xué)》的序言中讀到他與康德和薩德之間的和解，該序言會(huì)在不久的將來出版（拉康，2014b，第 104 頁） 。然而，當(dāng)年晚些時(shí)候，薩德全集第三卷（包含《賈斯汀·烏斯汀·烏斯汀·烏斯汀·烏斯汀·烏斯·馬魯斯·德拉維爾圖》和《閨房里的哲學(xué)》）出版時(shí)，其中沒有拉康文本的蹤跡，也沒有被收錄在任何著作中，也包括其他卷。 ? To complicate matters, on 12 June 1963, Lacan told his audience that a paper entitled ‘Kant avec Sade’ had appeared in the April issue of the journal Critique (Lacan, 2014b, p. 281). In conformity with this journal’s policy of publishing in-depth scholarly review essays, Lacan’s text had effectively appeared there as a presentation of the new complete edition of Sade’s works, despite the fact that only three of the 15 planned volumes had been published at the time, and that the first two in the series were taken up by Lely’s biography of the Marquis. In a long footnote preceding his text, Lacan detailed the contents of Volume III, including the names of the three scholars (Angelo Hesnard, Maurice Heine and Pierre Klossowski) who had written prefaces to Sade’s texts, yet without saying anything about the original destination of his own paper (Lacan, 1963, p. 291).4 ? 讓事情變得更加復(fù)雜的是，1963 年 6 月 12 日，拉康告訴他的聽眾，一篇題為《康德同薩德》的論文發(fā)表在《批判》雜志四月號(hào)上（拉康，2014b，第 281 頁）。 根據(jù)該雜志發(fā)表深入學(xué)術(shù)評(píng)論文章的政策，拉康的文本實(shí)際上是作為薩德作品的新完整版的介紹而出現(xiàn)的，盡管當(dāng)時(shí)計(jì)劃的 15 卷中只出版了三卷，該系列的前兩本是萊利的侯爵傳記。 在文本前面的長(zhǎng)腳注中，拉康詳細(xì)介紹了第三卷的內(nèi)容，包括為薩德文本撰寫序言的三位學(xué)者（安吉洛·赫斯納德、莫里斯·海涅和皮埃爾·克羅索夫斯基）的名字，但沒有提及他自己的論文的最初目的地。（拉康，1963，第 291 頁）.4 ? Assuming that the editors of Critique would have required at least a month to review the contents of an issue and steer it through the printing process, Lacan must have been informed that his paper would not appear in Volume III of Sade’s complete works sometime between mid-January and the beginning of March 1963. Why exactly Lacan’s text was refused, and by whom, is still somewhat couched in mystery. Speaking in Rio de Janeiro in 1985, Miller claimed that the editor of Sade’s complete works, i.e. Gilbert Lely, had rejected Lacan’s paper, because he had deemed it to be unintelligible, and that Lacan had subsequently tried to get it accepted for publication in La nouvelle revue fran?aise, France’s leading literary magazine, which was edited at the time by the distinguished French writer and critic Jean Paulhan. When, still according to Miller, the text was again refused, Lacan would have subsequently offered it to Critique, allegedly managing to secure its acceptance there because of a certain ‘family relationship’ (Miller, 1998, pp. 205–206).5 However, drawing on an interview with the French literary theorist Jean Roudaut, Sylvie Patron has pointed out in her detailed narrative history of the first 50 years of Critique that Lacan’s text had originally been refused ‘under the pretext of unintelligibility’, and that he had ‘more or less imposed it’ onto the editor of Critique (Patron, 2000, p. 169). Were Patron to be right, and ‘unintelligibility’ had only been a pretext, then it would be interesting to know what the real reason for the refusal had been. Jean Allouch has speculated in this respect that Lacan’s text may have been excluded from Volume III of Sade’s complete works, because the author had not complied in it with what the editor and publisher had expected him to do, i.e. formulating a clinical-psychoanalytic interpretation of La philosophie dans le boudoir (Allouch, 2001, p. 45). And indeed, were it to be the case that Lacan had been expected to read Sade ‘with Freud’—either in the classical sense of Freudian insights being applied to La philosophie dans le boudoir with a view to revealing its unconscious, latent subtext, or in the quintessentially popular psycho-biographical fashion, of the style and contents of a literary text being explained with reference to an unresolved (traumatic) event in the author’s life-history—then this would not be what the paper encapsulated, except perhaps for the interpretation of the final scene in Sade’s book, when the mother’s vagina and anus are sewn shut, which Lacan unhesitatingly construed as the maternal body (the ultimate object of desire) falling again under the spell of the paternal law and becoming strictly prohibited, and which in many ways comes across as the weakest, most conventional and prosaic part of the essay. In other words, insofar as Lacan relied in ‘Kant with Sade’ on a psychoanalytic methodology to read Sade’s text, he adopted neither a standard psycho-biographical or psychohistorical approach, nor a typically Freudian style of textual analysis (with the exception, perhaps, of the final scene), but engaged instead in a type of psychoanalytic literary criticism that clearly drew on the hackneyed structuralist principles of a-historicism, narrative form and intertextual connectivity, despite Lacan employing his own concepts as critical tools.6 It may very well be the case, then, that Lacan’s text had been refused, because instead of complying in it with the editor’s and publisher’s briefs, he had decided to ignore all instructions from above, simply doing his own thing, feeling neither directed nor restricted in his approach, and not making any concessions to his readership. In an essay where the possibility of a fully liberated, unconstrained desire is being put into question, Lacan’s own uncompromising pursuit of the desire to write whatever he wanted would have thus encountered its limit here in the editor’s and publisher’s forceful and non-negotiable implementation of an authorial directive. If, as Lacan argued in ‘Kant with Sade’, it is futile to conceive of a lawless desire, and fruitless to hope for a desire that will circumvent or undo the law, then this may be what he himself experienced firsthand when he submitted his paper to the Cercle du livre précieux. ? 假設(shè)《批判》的編輯們至少需要一個(gè)月的時(shí)間來審查一期的內(nèi)容并指導(dǎo)其完成印刷過程，那么拉康一定已經(jīng)被告知他的論文不會(huì)出現(xiàn)在薩德全集第三卷中的某個(gè)時(shí)間。1963 年 1 月和 3 月初。究竟為什么拉康的文本被拒絕，以及被誰拒絕，仍然有些神秘。1985年，米勒在里約熱內(nèi)盧發(fā)表講話，聲稱薩德全集的編輯吉爾伯特·萊利拒絕了拉康的論文，因?yàn)樗J(rèn)為它難以理解，拉康隨后試圖讓其在《法國新評(píng)論》上發(fā)表?！斗▏略u(píng)論》是法國領(lǐng)先的文學(xué)雜志，由當(dāng)時(shí)法國杰出作家和評(píng)論家讓·保朗主編。仍然根據(jù)米勒的說法，當(dāng)該文本再次被拒絕時(shí)，拉康隨后將其提供給《批判》，據(jù)稱由于某種“家庭關(guān)系”而設(shè)法確保其被接受（米勒，1998，第205-206頁）5。然而，西爾維·佩特倫在她對(duì)法國文學(xué)理論家讓·魯?shù)赖牟稍L中，在她對(duì)《批判》前50年的詳細(xì)敘述歷史中指出，拉康的文本最初是“以難以理解為借口”被拒絕的，他 “或多或少地把它強(qiáng)加給了《批判》的編輯（Patron，2000，第169頁）。如果贊助人是對(duì)的，“難以理解”只是一個(gè)借口，那么了解拒絕的真正原因是什么將會(huì)很有趣。 讓·阿盧奇在這方面推測(cè)，拉康的文本可能被排除在薩德全集第三卷之外，

因?yàn)樽髡邲]有遵守編輯和出版商期望他做的事情，即對(duì)薩德的臨床精神分析做出解釋

。La philosophie dans le boudoir (Allouch, 2001, p. 45)。事實(shí)上，如果拉康被期望“與弗洛伊德”一起閱讀薩德——無論是在弗洛伊德見解的經(jīng)典意義上應(yīng)用于《閨房哲學(xué)》，以揭示其無意識(shí)的、潛在的潛臺(tái)詞，還是以典型的流行心理傳記方式，參考作者生活史中未解決的（創(chuàng)傷性）事件來解釋文學(xué)文本的風(fēng)格和內(nèi)容——那么這將不是論文所概括的內(nèi)容，也許除了薩德書中最后一幕的解讀，即母親的陰道和肛門被縫合，拉康毫不猶豫地將其解釋為母體（欲望的終極客體）再次落入父系法則的魔咒之下，并受到嚴(yán)格禁止，而這 從很多方面來說，它都是本文中最薄弱、最傳統(tǒng)、最平淡的部分。換句話說，就拉康在《康德同薩德》中依靠精神分析方法來閱讀薩德的文本而言，他既沒有采用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的心理傳記或心理歷史方法，也沒有采用典型的弗洛伊德風(fēng)格的文本分析（也許除了最后一幕是個(gè)例外），但轉(zhuǎn)而從事一種精神分析文學(xué)批評(píng)，這種批評(píng)明顯利用了非歷史主義、敘事形式和互文連通性等陳腐的結(jié)構(gòu)主義原則，盡管拉康使用了自己的概念作為批判工具。6 那么，拉康的文本很可能被拒絕，因?yàn)樗麤]有遵守編輯和出版商的簡(jiǎn)報(bào)，而是決定忽略上面的所有指示，只是做自己的事情，感覺自己的方法既沒有受到指導(dǎo)，也沒有受到限制。并且不對(duì)他的讀者做出任何讓步。在一篇文章中，完全解放、不受約束的欲望的可能性受到質(zhì)疑，拉康自己對(duì)寫任何他想寫的東西的欲望的不妥協(xié)的追求，因此在編輯和出版商對(duì)于作者意愿強(qiáng)有力的、不可協(xié)商的實(shí)施中遇到了限制。如果像拉康在《康德同薩德》中所說的那樣，想象一種無法無天的欲望是徒勞的，希望一種能夠規(guī)避或廢除法律的欲望也是徒勞的，那么這可能就是他在向 Cercle du livre précieux 提交論文時(shí)親身經(jīng)歷的事。 ? To complicate matters further, when élisabeth Roudinesco published her intellectual biography of Lacan in 1993 she claimed that it was actually Jean Paulhan who had refused Lacan’s text for Sade’s complete works, on account of it being unreadable (Roudinesco, 1997, p. 312).7 Seven years after writing this statement, Roudinesco received a letter from Claude Tchou, in which he assumed full responsibility for rejecting Lacan’s text, because it had been ‘unworthy of him’ (indigne de lui), whereas Paulhan’s descendants in turn confirmed that the editor of La nouvelle revue fran?aise had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole matter (Allouch, 2001, pp. 27–29).8 Although it seems entirely reasonable for the publisher to be responsible for the rejection of a text, the precise grounds for the decision still remain terribly vague. What could it possibly mean for Lacan’s essay to have been ‘unworthy of him’? Didn’t the publisher and editor know that Lacan had a reputation for writing arcane, conceptually demanding texts? Wouldn’t it have been more ‘unworthy of him’ if he had produced a lucid, transparent and altogether accessible paper? ? 使事情變得更加復(fù)雜的是，當(dāng)伊麗莎白·魯?shù)蟽?nèi)斯科 (élisabeth Roudinesco) 1993 年出版了她的拉康知識(shí)分子傳記時(shí)，她聲稱實(shí)際上是讓·保蘭 (Jean Paulhan) 拒絕了拉康為薩德全集提供的文本，因?yàn)樗豢勺x（Roudinesco, 1997, p. 312）。7 在寫下這份聲明七年后，魯?shù)蟽?nèi)斯科收到了克勞德·周的一封信，在信中他承擔(dān)了拒絕拉康文本的全部責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗芭洳簧纤保╥ndigne de lui），而保蘭的后代反過來證實(shí)《法國新評(píng)論》的編輯與整個(gè)事件沒有任何關(guān)系（Allouch，2001，第 27-29 頁）8。盡管出版商對(duì)拒絕文本負(fù)責(zé)似乎完全合理，但確切的理由因?yàn)檫@個(gè)決定仍然非常模糊。拉康的文章“配不上他”可能意味著什么？出版商和編輯難道不知道拉康以撰寫晦澀難懂、概念性要求高的文本而聞名嗎？如果他寫出一篇清晰、透明、完全易于理解的論文，豈不是更“配不上他”？ ? Judging by Lacan’s announcement in his 1961–1962 seminar, and his own dating of ‘Kant avec Sade’ at the very end of it, he completed the paper during the Spring and Summer of 1962.9 Tempting as it may be to consider the article that was published in Critique as the first, original version of it, the lengthy footnote preceding the actual ‘text of the text’, which I have translated above, makes sufficiently clear that Lacan revisited it, if only because it does not make sense for this footnote to have been included in the manuscript that he would have submitted to the editor of Sade’s complete works. Purely for reasons of time, it is unlikely that Lacan extensively revised his paper before submitting (or imposing) it to Critique, but we nonetheless need to assume that, had the text appeared where it was originally meant to appear, it would have been a different text.10 As to the ‘Kant avec Sade’ that was included in écrits, which appeared in French bookstores on 15 November 1966 (Roudinesco, 2014, p. 98), this is a substantially modified version of the Critique paper. For the écrits version, entire paragraphs were rewritten by Lacan, often in light of the most recent developments in his thought. Many passages were also corrected by Fran?ois Wahl, a former analysand of Lacan’s and his assigned editor at the du Seuil publishing house (Roudinesco, 1997, pp. 321–328).11 Interestingly, during the Summer of 1966 the Cercle du livre précieux announced a new, updated edition of the complete works of Sade, the second volume of which was published on 31 October that year, i.e. exactly two weeks before écrits. This volume, which effectively combined two volumes into one, included Sade’s Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu, La philosophie dans le boudoir and Aline et Valcour, as well as the same set of commentaries as in the first edition of the complete works, with one notable exception: now La philosophie dans le boudoir also contained a postface entitled ‘Kant avec Sade’ by Jacques Lacan (Lacan, 1966b).12 This version of the text is slightly different from the écrits version, and silently corrects some of the obvious editorial errors in the latter.13 In the écrits version, Lacan did not mention—neither in the preamble nor elsewhere—that his text had been included in the complete works of Sade after all, albeit as a postface, which suggests that the text of this postface (and this is also evinced by the corrections) is of a later date than the one included in écrits, despite its having been published earlier. ? 從拉康在 1961-1962 年研討會(huì)上的聲明以及他自己在研討會(huì)最后注明的《康德同薩德》的日期來看，他在 1962.9 年春夏期間完成了這篇論文。 作為它的第一個(gè)原始版本發(fā)表在《批判》上，我在上面翻譯的實(shí)際“文本的文本”之前的冗長(zhǎng)腳注足夠清楚地表明拉康重新審視了它，即使只是因?yàn)樗鼘?duì)這個(gè)腳注沒有意義 被包含在他將提交給薩德全集編輯的手稿中。 純粹由于時(shí)間原因，拉康不太可能在將其論文提交（或強(qiáng)加）給批判之前對(duì)其進(jìn)行廣泛修改，但我們?nèi)匀恍枰僭O(shè)，如果文本出現(xiàn)在其最初打算出現(xiàn)的地方，那么它將會(huì)是一個(gè) 10 至于 écrits 中收錄的《康德同薩德》，該書于 1966 年 11 月 15 日在法國書店出現(xiàn)（Roudinesco，2014 年，第 98 頁），這是對(duì) Critique 論文的大幅修改版本。 對(duì)于 écrits 版本，整個(gè)段落都由拉康重寫，通常是根據(jù)他思想的最新發(fā)展。 許多段落也被弗朗索瓦·瓦爾（Fran?ois Wahl）糾正，他是拉康的前分析者，也是他在 du Seuil 出版社的指派編輯（Roudinesco，1997 年，第 321-328 頁）。11有趣的是，在 1966 年夏天，Cercle du livre précieux 宣布 薩德全集的新更新版，其第二卷于當(dāng)年10月31日出版，即比《écrits》早兩周出版。該卷有效地將兩卷合為一卷，包括薩德的《Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu》、《La philosophie dans le boudoir》和《Aline et Valcour》，以及與全集第一版相同的評(píng)論，一個(gè)值得注意的例外：現(xiàn)在《閨房里的哲學(xué)》還包含雅克·拉康題為《康德同薩德》的后記（拉康，1966b）。 12 這個(gè)版本的文本與 écrits 版本略有不同，并默默地糾正了一些明顯的問題 13 在《編輯》的版本中，無論是在序言還是其他地方，拉康都沒有提到他的文本畢竟已經(jīng)包含在薩德全集中，盡管是作為后記，這表明薩德的文本這篇后記（更正也證明了這一點(diǎn)）的日期比 écrits 中的后記要晚，盡管它出版得更早。 ? When a two-volume pocket edition of écrits was planned in 1969, Lacan again revised ‘Kant avec Sade’, whereby he added a footnote to the preamble, in which he stated that in 1966 the Cercle du livre précieux had decided to recommission the text ‘when the success of my écrits rendered it plausible (... to the person who had replaced me?)’ (Lacan, 2006g, p. 668, note 1).14 With 5,000 copies sold in less than a fortnight (Roudinesco, 1997, p. 328), the publication of écrits was admittedly extraordinarily successful. However, it is impossible for this editorial success to have informed the decision by the Cercle du livre précieux to recommission ‘Kant avec Sade’, because as I mentioned above the second volume of the new edition of Sade, which included Lacan’s text, was actually published two weeks before écrits. Lacan’s remark that the success of écrits had suddenly made ‘Kant avec Sade’ more plausible ‘to the person who had replaced me’ also insinuates that it was Pierre Klossowski—the person who had written the preface to La philosophie dans le boudoir in the first edition of Sade’s complete works, although only indirectly, since this preface was effectively a reprint of a chapter from his previously published Sade mon prochain—who had petitioned the editors to recommission the text, yet there is no evidence to support this claim.15 In 1999, 18 years after Lacan’s death, a new edition of the two-volume écrits was published, including yet another, slightly modified version of ‘Kant avec Sade’—modifications which on occasion restore the 1966 version of the text, yet not always exactly, and for which one can only assume the editors of the publishing house (du Seuil) and/or Jacques-Alain Miller to be responsible. ? 當(dāng) 1969 年計(jì)劃出版兩卷本的袖珍版《écrits》時(shí)，拉康再次修訂了《康德同薩德》，在序言中添加了一個(gè)腳注，其中他表示 1966 年 Cercle du livre précieux 決定重新委托文本 “當(dāng)我的 écrits 的成功使它變得可信時(shí)（......對(duì)于取代我的人？）”（Lacan，2006g，第 668 頁，注 1）。14 不到兩周的時(shí)間就售出了5,000 份（Roudinesco， 1997 年，第 328 頁），《écrits》的出版無疑是非常成功的。然而，這一編輯的成功不可能影響到 Cercle du livre précieux 重新委托《康德同薩德》的決定，因?yàn)檎缥疑厦嫣岬降?，新版薩德的第二卷，其中包括拉康的文本，實(shí)際上是比 écrits 早兩周出版。拉康說，《écrits》的成功突然使《康德同薩德》對(duì)“取代我的人”來說更加可信，這也暗示了皮埃爾·克羅索斯基——他是《閨房里的哲學(xué)》第一部的序言作者。薩德全集的版本，盡管只是間接的，因?yàn)檫@篇序言實(shí)際上是他之前出版的《薩德蒙普羅鏈》中的一章的重印——他曾請(qǐng)求編輯重新委托該文本，但沒有證據(jù)支持這一說法。 15 1999 年，拉康去世 18 年后，出版了兩卷本《écrits》的新版本，其中包括另一個(gè)稍加修改的版本《康德同薩德》——這些修改有時(shí)會(huì)恢復(fù) 1966 年版本的文本，但并不總是完全準(zhǔn)確。并且只能假設(shè)出版社 (du Seuil) 的編輯和/或 Jacques-Alain Miller 對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)。 ? Thus, all in all, there are six different versions of ‘Kant avec Sade’: (1) The manuscript Lacan originally submitted for publication to the Cercle du livre précieux, as a preface to La philosophie dans le boudoir in the first edition of Sade’s complete works, and which was rejected (and never published as such); (2) The 1963 text published in Critique; (3) The 1966 text published in écrits; (4) The corrected 1966 text published as a postface to La philosophie dans le boudoir in the second edition of Sade’s complete works; (5) The 1971 version prepared for the pocket-edition of écrits; and (6) The 1999 version included in the reprint of the pocketedition of écrits. The standard English translation of ‘Kant avec Sade’ by Bruce Fink, which is the one that I have been referring to, generally follows the 1971 version of the text, whilst preserving all the textual divisions of the 1966 écrits version, yet unfortunately it also repeats some of the latter’s (admittedly minor) editorial errors.16 ? 因此，總的來說，《康德同薩德》有六種不同的版本：（1）拉康最初提交給Cercle du livre précieux出版的手稿，作為薩德第一版《閨房中的哲學(xué)》的序言的完整的作品，但被拒絕（并且從未出版過）； (2)《批判》雜志1963年發(fā)表的文本； (3) 1966 年在 écrits 上發(fā)表的文本； （4）1966年更正后的文本，作為薩德全集第二版《閨中的哲學(xué)》的后記出版； (5) 1971年為écrits袖珍版準(zhǔn)備的版本； (6) 1999 年版本包含在 écrits 袖珍版的重印本中。布魯斯·芬克 (Bruce Fink) 的《康德同薩德》(Kant avec Sade) 的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)英文譯本，也就是我一直提到的譯本，大體上遵循 1971 年版本的文本，同時(shí)保留了 1966 年 écrits 版本的所有文本劃分，但不幸的是，它也保留了1971年版本的文本。重復(fù)了后者的一些（誠然是輕微的）編輯錯(cuò)誤。16 ? All of this does not explain, of course, how Lacan had become involved in the project in the first place. Why did the publisher and editor of Sade’s complete works commission a preface to La philosophie dans le boudoir from Lacan? The majority of the other contributors to the collection were either renowned Sade-scholars, such as Maurice Heine and Pierre Klossowski, clinicians who had made substantial contributions to sexology, such as Angelo Hesnard, or established essayists and literary critics, such as Yves Bonnefoy and Ga?tan Picon. In 1962, all of Lacan’s major texts had appeared in specialized psychoanalytic journals, and he had only published two substantial works of ‘psychoanalytic literary criticism’, notably the ‘Séminaire sur “La lettre volée”’ (‘Seminar on “The Purloined Letter”’) (Lacan, 2006c) and ‘Jeunesse de Gide ou la lettre et le désir’ (‘The Youth of Gide, or the Letter and Desire’) (Lacan, 2006d), the latter having been published in Critique no less (Lacan, 1958). During the 1950s, Lacan produced numerous detailed analyses of various literary-philosophical works, such as Shakespeare’s Hamlet (Lacan, 2014a, pp. 277–419), Sophocles’ Antigone (Lacan, 1992, pp. 241–287), and Plato’s Symposium (Lacan, 2015, pp. 17–163), yet these had been delivered to a relatively small group of people, as part of a psychoanalytic training programme at the SainteAnne Hospital in Paris. Starting in November 1959, Lacan had devoted a yearlong seminar to the‘ethics of psychoanalysis’ (Lacan, 1992), in which he paid a great deal of attention to Sade’s works, yet his reading of Sade during this year remained unpublished and would not have been known outside the limited circle of psychoanalysts-in-training that was in attendance. I have no way of proving this, but I am inclined to think that Lacan had been asked to write a preface to La philosophie dans le boudoir, partly because of his being the intellectual figurehead of the Société fran?aise de psychanalyse—the ‘other’ psychoanalytic group in France, which had separated itself from the foundational Sociéte psychanalytique de Paris, to which Angelo Hesnard belonged— and partly because of his lifelong association with the surrealists, who had discovered Sade by virtue of Guillaume Apollinaire, and who had celebrated the Marquis as a visionary genius, an authentic free spirit and a revolutionary liberator of human desire (Brighelli, 2000, pp. 179–200).17 ? 當(dāng)然，所有這些并不能解釋拉康最初是如何參與這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的。為什么薩德全集的出版商和編輯委托拉康為《閨房中的哲學(xué)》撰寫序言？該文集的大多數(shù)其他貢獻(xiàn)者要么是著名的薩德學(xué)者，如莫里斯·海涅和皮埃爾·克洛索夫斯基，要么是對(duì)性學(xué)做出重大貢獻(xiàn)的臨床醫(yī)生，如安杰洛·赫斯納德，要么是知名散文家和文學(xué)評(píng)論家，如伊夫·博納福伊和 蓋坦·皮孔。 1962年，拉康的所有主要著作都出現(xiàn)在專門的精神分析期刊上，他只出版了兩本“精神分析文學(xué)批評(píng)”的實(shí)質(zhì)性著作，特別是“Séminaire sur“Lalettrevolée”（“關(guān)于“被盜的信”的研討會(huì)） ”）（拉康，2006c）和“Jeunesse de Gide ou la lettre et le désir”（“紀(jì)德的青年，或信與欲望”）（拉康，2006d），后者同樣發(fā)表在《批判》上（拉康） ，1958）。 在20世紀(jì)50年代，拉康對(duì)各種文學(xué)哲學(xué)作品進(jìn)行了大量詳細(xì)分析，例如莎士比亞的《哈姆雷特》（拉康，2014a，第277-419頁）、索?？死账沟摹栋蔡岣昴罚ɡ?，1992，第241-287頁）和柏拉圖的《會(huì)飲篇》 （Lacan，2015，第 17-163 頁），但這些只是作為巴黎圣安妮醫(yī)院精神分析培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目的一部分，提供給相對(duì)較小的人群。從1959年11月開始，拉康專門舉辦了為期一年的“精神分析倫理學(xué)”研討會(huì)（拉康，1992），期間他對(duì)薩德的著作給予了極大的關(guān)注，但這一年他對(duì)薩德的閱讀仍未出版，也不會(huì)被出版。 已經(jīng)在出席的受訓(xùn)精神分析師的有限圈子之外為人所知。 我無法證明這一點(diǎn)，但我傾向于認(rèn)為，拉康被要求為《閨房里的哲學(xué)》寫一篇序言，部分原因是他是法國精神分析學(xué)會(huì)——“另一種”精神分析學(xué)派的思想領(lǐng)袖。法國的一個(gè)團(tuán)體，該團(tuán)體已與安杰洛·赫斯納德所屬的巴黎精神分析學(xué)會(huì)分離，部分原因是他與超現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者終生有聯(lián)系，超現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者通過紀(jì)堯姆·阿波利奈爾發(fā)現(xiàn)了薩德，并贊揚(yáng)了侯爵作為一個(gè)有遠(yuǎn)見的天才，一個(gè)真正的自由精神和人類欲望的革命解放者（Brighelli，2000，第179-200頁）17 ? Also, despite the fact that Lacan’s paper was never published in its rightful place, he insisted on maintaining its original purpose, as a preface to La philosophie dans le boudoir. In other words, regardless of the changing status the text acquired with its varying publication outlets—review essay, stand-alone écrit, postface—and irrespective of the numerous changes to its original contents, Lacan never altered the style, tone and function of his paper, and he remained rather cautious when it came to exposing the limitations of Sade’s work, because he felt that this is not what the writer of a preface is supposed to do. For example, when, at one point, he questioned Sade’s ‘sense of comedy’, he stopped in his tracks by saying that ‘a(chǎn) preface is not meant to do the author a disservice’ (p. 661).18 Likewise, when, at the very end of his text, he suggested that Sade had failed to understand something crucial about the inextricable link between desire and the law, he confessed: ‘I have forbidden myself to say a word about what Sade is missing here’ (p. 667). For Lacan, a preface is designed to introduce, situate, contextualize and tease out the intricacies of a text, in a broadly sympathetic appreciation of the author and his work, also explicating its impact and significance. It is important for the reader to bear this critical function of ‘Kant avec Sade’ in mind when approaching the paper, because it allows one to understand the particular focus and the main developments of the text. ? 此外，盡管拉康的論文從未在其應(yīng)有的位置發(fā)表，但他堅(jiān)持維持其最初的目的，作為《閨房中的哲學(xué)》的序言。換句話說，無論文本通過不同的出版渠道——評(píng)論文章、獨(dú)立的評(píng)論文章、后記——而獲得了不斷變化的地位，也不管其原始內(nèi)容發(fā)生了無數(shù)的變化，拉康從未改變過他的文本的風(fēng)格、語氣和功能。在揭露薩德著作的局限性時(shí)，他仍然相當(dāng)謹(jǐn)慎，因?yàn)樗X得這不是序言作者應(yīng)該做的事情。例如，當(dāng)他有一次質(zhì)疑薩德的“喜劇感”時(shí)，他停下來說“序言無意傷害作者”（第661頁）。18 同樣，當(dāng)在文章的最后，他暗示薩德未能理解欲望與法律之間不可分割的聯(lián)系的一些關(guān)鍵問題，他承認(rèn)：“我禁止自己對(duì)薩德在這里缺失的東西說一句話”（第667頁）。對(duì)于拉康來說，序言的目的是介紹、定位、語境化和梳理文本的復(fù)雜性，以對(duì)作者及其作品的廣泛同情的欣賞，并解釋其影響和意義。對(duì)于讀者來說，在閱讀本文時(shí)牢記《康德同薩德》的這一批判功能非常重要，因?yàn)樗谷藗兡軌蚶斫馕谋镜奶囟ń裹c(diǎn)和主要發(fā)展。 ? It rapidly becomes clear, then, that the title ‘Kant avec Sade’ is effectively a double metonymy. Lacan was not at all interested in comparing and contrasting the (rather uneventful) life of Immanuel Kant, the famous academic philosopher of K?nigsberg, with the (rather tumultuous) life of D.A.F. de Sade, the infamous French Marquis who spent 27 years of his life behind bars. When, starting from Section 8 in the text (p. 656), he intermittently referred to key events in Sade’s life, it was primarily to demonstrate the limits of his ‘a(chǎn)rt’, insofar as to Lacan one should not assume that the licentious content of Sade’s novels is a reliable indicator of the author’s morals, his politics and his life-style, much less that the prevailing sexual tendencies in Sade’s work are but a fictional extension of his own mental economy—the ‘sadists’ in the novels having been created by a man who is himself an inveterate ‘sadist’. One of the crucial lines of Lacan’s argument in ‘Kant with Sade’ is precisely that the contents of Sade’s libertine novels, which he also designated as ‘the Sadean fantasy’ (p. 653), i.e. the fantasy Sade articulated as a literary text within the space of his creative imagination, cannot be mapped directly onto the author’s life. More specifically, the fact that it is the ‘sadistic’ fantasy of Sade’s libertine heroes that tends to dominate within the Sadean fantasy—whose full spectrum also includes the more ‘masochistic’ side of the victims, as epitomized by the perennially virtuous Justine—did not, for Lacan, demonstrate that this is also the type of ‘practical reason’ which would have presided over his daily routines, outside the fictional space of the literary narrative. Although Sade’s incessant articulation of the libertines’ ‘sadistic’ fantasy of absolute destruction inevitably played a crucial part in the author’s own Weltanschauung, for Lacan the latter was much more constructed around Sade’s relationship to his own act of writing, and to the specific function he wanted to accord to his libertine novels, as exclusive ‘instruments’ of fantasy, than to the personal realization of the cruel and barbaric fantasy of his fictional heroes. ? 那么，很快就可以清楚地看出，《康德同薩德》這個(gè)標(biāo)題實(shí)際上是一個(gè)雙重轉(zhuǎn)喻。 拉康對(duì)于比較和對(duì)比柯尼斯堡著名學(xué)術(shù)哲學(xué)家伊曼努爾·康德（相對(duì)平靜）的生活和在監(jiān)獄里度過了 27 年的人生的臭名昭著的法國侯爵薩德（相對(duì)動(dòng)蕩）生活毫無興趣。當(dāng)他從文本第8節(jié)（第656頁）開始斷斷續(xù)續(xù)地提到薩德一生中的關(guān)鍵事件時(shí)，主要是為了證明他的“藝術(shù)”的局限性，就拉康而言，人們不應(yīng)該假設(shè)淫蕩的內(nèi)容 薩德小說中的性傾向是作者道德、政治和生活方式的可靠指標(biāo)，更不用說薩德作品中盛行的性傾向只是他自己精神經(jīng)濟(jì)的虛構(gòu)延伸——小說中的“虐待狂”已經(jīng)被由一個(gè)本身就是根深蒂固的“虐待狂”的人創(chuàng)建的。 拉康在《康德與薩德》中論證的關(guān)鍵線索之一正是薩德的放蕩小說的內(nèi)容，他也將其稱為“薩德幻想”（第653頁），即薩德在其中以文學(xué)文本的方式表達(dá)的幻想。他的創(chuàng)作想象空間，無法直接映射到作者的生活中。更具體地說，事實(shí)上，薩德的放蕩英雄的“虐待狂”幻想往往在薩德幻想中占主導(dǎo)地位——其全部范圍還包括受害者更“受虐”的一面，正如永遠(yuǎn)善良的賈斯汀所集中體現(xiàn)的那樣——確實(shí)，對(duì)拉康來說，這并不是證明這也是一種“實(shí)踐理性”，在文學(xué)敘事的虛構(gòu)空間之外，這種理性會(huì)主導(dǎo)他的日常生活。盡管薩德對(duì)浪蕩子的絕對(duì)毀滅的“虐待狂”幻想的不斷闡述不可避免地在作者自己的世界觀中發(fā)揮了至關(guān)重要的作用，但對(duì)拉康來說，后者更多地圍繞薩德與他自己的寫作行為以及他與他的特定功能的關(guān)系來構(gòu)建。他想要將他的放蕩小說視為幻想的獨(dú)特“工具”，而不是把他的虛構(gòu)英雄的殘酷和野蠻幻想的個(gè)人實(shí)現(xiàn)。 ? Much like ‘Kant’ in the title of the paper referred to Kant’s books and ideas rather than to the man, the ‘Sade’ in ‘Kant with Sade’ was thus meant to be understood primarily as Sade’s works, and the views expressed within them by a host of fictional characters. As a matter of fact, the focus of Lacan’s paper is even tighter, because rather than aiming to combine all of Kant’s writings with the whole of Sade’s literary output, which also includes much more mainstream short stories, novels, essays and plays, it essentially restricts itself—and this is the second metonymy—to a discussion of the links between a mere two texts: Kant’s Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft, originally published in 1788, and Sade’s La philosophie dans le boudoir, from 1795.19 And because Lacan’s text was always intended as a preface to the latter volume, it should not come as a surprise that the emphasis is firmly placed on this one particular book—Kant’s treatise being placed in a secondary, supporting role.20 ? 就像論文標(biāo)題中的“康德”指的是康德的著作和思想而不是康德本人一樣，《康德同薩德》中的“薩德”也因此主要被理解為薩德的作品以及其中被由許多虛構(gòu)人物表達(dá)的觀點(diǎn)。事實(shí)上，拉康論文的焦點(diǎn)甚至更加緊密，因?yàn)樗哪康牟皇菍⒖档碌乃兄髋c薩德的全部文學(xué)作品（其中還包括更多主流短篇小說、小說、散文和戲?。┙Y(jié)合起來，而是本質(zhì)上 將其自身限制為——這是第二個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)喻——僅僅討論兩個(gè)文本之間的聯(lián)系：康德的《實(shí)踐理性批判》，最初出版于 1788 年，以及薩德的《閨房里的哲學(xué)》，1795.19 年出版。作為后一卷的序言，重點(diǎn)堅(jiān)定地放在這本書上——康德的論文被置于次要的支持角色上，這并不奇怪。20 ? In the fourth paragraph of ‘Kant with Sade’, Lacan mentioned that, to the best of his knowledge, this link between Kant and Sade had ‘never been pointed out as such’(p. 645), thus emphasizing the originality of his direction of inquiry. Either Lacan’s literature study had been too superficial, or he had conveniently decided to ‘forget’ some of his source materials, but the connection between Kant and Sade—their works and ideas, rather than their personalities, of course—had definitely been made before, and moreover along the same lines, notably in ‘Excursus II’ of Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialektik der Aufkl?rung (Dialectic of Enlightenment), which was first published in 1944 (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1997).21 In this remarkable text, the principal proponents of the Frankfurt School drew a parallel between Kant’s Kritik der praktischen Vernunft and Sade’s Juliette ou les prospérités du vice, in order to show that Sade’s libertine heroes sound uncannily like Kant when they profess their moral maxims, with the proviso that they represent the dialectical underside of Kant’s system. Much like Kant, Juliette and her acolytes reject any consideration of extrinsic, socially sanctioned moral values when advancing their doctrine. They believe unreservedly in the power of reason, provided it is stripped of its emotional dimensions (what Kant designated as the ‘pathological’), so that it becomes a formal, rigorous, ‘a(chǎn)pathetic’ faculty. But Adorno and Horkheimer also argued that Sade’s heroes are Kantian philosophers who are actually purer than Kant himself, if only because they do not believe that autonomous, dispassionate, scientific reason will automatically engender moral benevolence and contribute to the establishment of a harmonious world order. According to Adorno and Horkheimer, Sade’s libertines are far more rational than the philosopher of K?nigsberg, insofar as the latter’s conviction that the simple ‘fact’ of pure reason would spontaneously generate a practical, moral law of mutual respect constitutes in itself a point of irrationality.22 These propositions are not at all dissimilar to what Lacan posited in ‘Kant with Sade’, yet I cannot prove that he was familiar with Adorno and Horkheimer’s work, much less that he relied on it when developing his own theses.23 ? 在《康德同薩德》的第四段中，拉康提到，據(jù)他所知，康德和薩德之間的這種聯(lián)系“從未被這樣指出過”（第645頁），從而強(qiáng)調(diào)了他的探索方向的獨(dú)創(chuàng)性。要么是拉康的文學(xué)研究太膚淺，要么是他方便地決定“忘記”一些原始資料，但康德和薩德之間的聯(lián)系——當(dāng)然是他們的作品和思想，而不是他們的個(gè)性——之前肯定已經(jīng)建立了。而且沿著同樣的思路，特別是在阿多諾和霍克海默的《啟蒙辯證法》的“Excursus II”中，該書于 1944 年首次出版（阿多諾和霍克海默，1997 年）。21 在這篇非凡的文本中，主要支持者法蘭克福學(xué)派的學(xué)者將康德的《實(shí)批》與薩德的《朱麗葉或罪惡的繁榮》進(jìn)行了比較，以表明薩德筆下的放蕩英雄在宣揚(yáng)自己的道德格言時(shí)聽起來與康德驚人地相似，但前提是他們代表了康德體系的辯證底面。就像康德一樣，朱麗葉和她的追隨者在推進(jìn)他們的學(xué)說時(shí)拒絕考慮任何外在的、社會(huì)認(rèn)可的道德價(jià)值觀。他們毫無保留地相信理性的力量，只要理性被剝奪情感維度（康德稱之為“病態(tài)的”），從而成為一種正式的、嚴(yán)格的、“冷漠的”能力。但阿多諾和霍克海默也認(rèn)為，薩德的英雄是康德哲學(xué)家，他們實(shí)際上比康德本人更純粹，哪怕只是因?yàn)樗麄儾幌嘈抛灾鞯?、冷靜的、科學(xué)的理性會(huì)自動(dòng)產(chǎn)生道德仁慈，并有助于建立和諧的世界秩序。 根據(jù)阿多諾和霍克海默的說法，薩德的浪蕩子比柯尼斯堡的哲學(xué)家理性得多，因?yàn)楹笳邎?jiān)信純粹理性的簡(jiǎn)單“事實(shí)”會(huì)自發(fā)地產(chǎn)生一種實(shí)用的、相互尊重的道德法則，這本身就構(gòu)成了一個(gè)非理性點(diǎn) .22 這些命題與拉康在《康德同薩德》中所提出的完全沒有什么不同，但我無法證明他熟悉阿多諾和霍克海默的著作，更不用說他在發(fā)展自己的論文時(shí)依賴于這些著作。23 ? Given the cultural prominence of Sartre and de Beauvoir in France during the 1950s, I would definitely be surprised if Lacan had not read de Beauvoir’s seminal essay ‘Faut-il br?ler Sade?’, which was originally published in ‘Les temps modernes’ (de Beauvoir, 1990). In this particular text, de Beauvoir averred, almost in passing and without any further elaboration: ‘With a severity similar to Kant’s, and which has its source in the same puritan tradition, Sade conceives the free act only as an act free of feeling’ (de Beauvoir, 1990, p. 55). Lacan never referred to de Beauvoir’s work on Sade, but the two had met during the 1940s at a private performance of a play by Picasso, and continued to be on friendly terms (Roudinesco, 1997, pp. 168–169). De Beauvoir’s coupling of Kant and Sade was not nearly as tight as Horkheimer and Adorno’s intricate intellectual braid of Kant, Sade and the Holocaust, but at least it demonstrates again that Lacan was clearly mistaken when he claimed that the link between Kant and Sade had never before been made.24 ? 鑒于薩特和德·波伏娃在 20 世紀(jì) 50 年代法國文化中的突出地位，如果拉康沒有讀過德·波伏娃的開創(chuàng)性文章《Faut-il br?ler Sade？》（《

要焚毀

薩德嗎》），我肯定會(huì)感到驚訝，該文章最初發(fā)表于《現(xiàn)代時(shí)代》（德·波伏娃，1990）。 在這篇特別的文本中，德·波伏娃幾乎是順便說一句，沒有任何進(jìn)一步的闡述：“薩德以與康德類似的嚴(yán)厲態(tài)度，并且源于相同的清教傳統(tǒng)，將自由行為視為一種不受感情影響的行為。” （德·波伏瓦，1990 年，第 55 頁）。 拉康從未提及波伏娃對(duì)薩德的研究，但兩人在 1940 年代在畢加索戲劇的私人表演中相識(shí)，并一直保持友好關(guān)系（Roudinesco，1997，第 168-169 頁）。 德·波伏娃對(duì)康德和薩德的結(jié)合并不像霍克海默和阿多諾對(duì)康德、薩德和大屠殺錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的知識(shí)編織那么緊密，但至少它再次表明拉康顯然是錯(cuò)誤的，他聲稱康德和薩德之間的聯(lián)系之前從未被創(chuàng)建過。24 ? It should also be noted, here, that when Lacan associated Kant with Sade for the first time on 23 December 1959 (Lacan, 1992, p. 78), French Sade-scholarship was already highly advanced, by virtue of a series of influential studies by Maurice Heine (1950b), Jean Paulhan (1945), Pierre Klossowski (1947), Maurice Blanchot (1986) and Georges Bataille (1957a, 1957b), and the painstaking biographical work by Gilbert Lely (1952, 1957). It is highly likely that Lacan was introduced to Sade’s works by Bataille, but even without this direct line of influence, he would have been immersed in a post-War cultural and intellectual atmosphere that took Sade very seriously, perhaps for the first time in French history (Marty, 2011). Furthermore, one year before Lacan started writing ‘Kant with Sade’, Michel Foucault published Folie et déraison, his massive thesis for the French State Doctorate, in which Sade featured prominently as a major figure of contestation in the history of French institutional psychiatry (Foucault, 1961). Although he was not in the habit of acknowledging all his sources, Lacan was clearly inspired by all these works when he wrote up ‘Kant with Sade’, and in what follows I will endeavour to show that the contributions of Blanchot, Klossowski and Bataille in particular, constitute an important intellectual backdrop for Lacan’s arguments.25 Finally, I should mention that on 11 April 1961 Adolf Eichmann, one of the most highly ranked Nazi officials, was put on trial in Jerusalem, charged with the mass deportation and large-scale extermination of millions of Jewish people. At one point during the trial, judge Raveh questioned Eichmann about a remark he had made previously under police interrogation, in which he had emphasized that he had only ever lived his life in accordance with the Kantian definition of duty. In response to the judge’s question, Eichmann surprised everyone by reciting, almost verbatim, Kant’s definition of the categorical imperative: ‘I [Adolf Eichmann] meant by my remark about Kant that the principle of my will must always be such that it can become the principle of general laws’ (Arendt, 2006, p. 136). Following this statement, Eichmann declared that he was familiar with Kant’s Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, but that he had stopped complying with its precepts from the moment he was charged with the duty to implement the so-called ‘Final Solution’. In her reading of this extraordinary moment, Hannah Arendt argued that Eichmann never really relinquished his Kantian sense of duty at all, but that he simply ‘distorted it to read: Act as if the principle of your actions were the same as that of the legislator or of the law of the land—or ... ’ ‘Act in such a way that the Führer, if he knew your action, would approve it’ (Arendt, 2006, p. 136). Arendt did not go so far as to say that Eichmann had interpreted Kant in a Sadean fashion, but in her report Eichmann definitely appeared as a diligent, albeit twisted Kantian and, by extension, as a cold and callous, yet rational mass-murderer who incarnated the destructive obverse of Kant’s categorical imperative—the kind of figure Adorno and Horkheimer may have had in mind when, in response to the atrocities of World War II, they exposed the Sadean dangers of Kant’s moral philosophy, and of the Enlightenment values in general. Arendt reported on the case for The New Yorker in February and March 1963, but in France too the newspapers devoted numerous pages to the events in Jerusalem. Lacan had already linked Kant and Sade 16 months before the trial started, but Eichmann’s declared Kantianism may have emboldened him in his views, and may have given him a renewed strength of purpose when he began composing ‘Kant with Sade’ during the Spring and Summer of 1962. ? 這里還應(yīng)該指出的是，當(dāng)拉康于1959年12月23日首次將康德與薩德聯(lián)系起來時(shí)（Lacan，1992，第 78 頁），憑借一系列有影響力的研究，法國的薩德學(xué)術(shù)已經(jīng)非常先進(jìn)。 莫里斯·海涅（Maurice Heine，1950b）、讓·保朗（Jean Paulhan，1945）、皮埃爾·克羅索斯基（Pierre Klossowski，1947）、莫里斯·布朗肖（Maurice Blanchot，1986）和喬治·巴塔耶（Georges Bataille，1957a，1957b）的著作，以及吉爾伯特·雷利（Gilbert Lely，1952，1957）精心撰寫的傳記作品。拉康很可能是通過巴塔耶得知了薩德的作品，但即使沒有這種直接影響，他也會(huì)沉浸在戰(zhàn)后文化和知識(shí)氛圍中，這種氛圍非常重視薩德，這也許是第一次在法國歷史中（馬蒂，2011）。 此外，在拉康開始撰寫《康德同薩德》的前一年，米歇爾·?？掳l(fā)表了他為法國國家博士學(xué)位撰寫的大型論文《Folie et déraison》（《瘋癲與文明》），其中薩德作為法國制度精神病學(xué)史上爭(zhēng)論的主要人物而引人注目（?？?，1961）。 盡管拉康沒有承認(rèn)所有來源的習(xí)慣，但拉康在撰寫《康德同薩德》時(shí)顯然受到了所有這些作品的啟發(fā)，在下文中我將盡力表明布朗肖、克羅索夫斯基和巴塔耶在《康德同薩德》中的貢獻(xiàn)。25 最后，我應(yīng)該提到，1961 年 4 月 11 日，納粹最高級(jí)別官員之一阿道夫·艾希曼 (Adolf Eichmann) 在耶路撒冷受審，罪名是大規(guī)模驅(qū)逐和大規(guī)模驅(qū)逐數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的猶太人被滅絕。在審判期間，拉維法官曾就艾希曼之前在警方審訊時(shí)發(fā)表的言論向艾希曼提出質(zhì)疑，艾希曼在言論中強(qiáng)調(diào)，他只是按照康德式的義務(wù)定義來生活。 在回答法官的問題時(shí)，艾希曼幾乎逐字逐句地背誦了康德對(duì)絕對(duì)命令的定義，這讓所有人感到驚訝：“我[阿道夫·艾希曼]關(guān)于康德的評(píng)論的意思是，我的意志原則必須始終是這樣的，即它可以成為一般法原則”（Arendt，2006，第 136 頁）。發(fā)表此聲明后，艾希曼宣稱他熟悉康德的《實(shí)批》，但從他被賦予執(zhí)行所謂“最終解決方案”的職責(zé)那一刻起，他就不再遵守其中的戒律。漢娜·阿倫特在解讀這一非凡時(shí)刻時(shí)指出，艾希曼根本沒有真正放棄他的康德式責(zé)任感，而他只是“歪曲了它，解讀為：就好像你的行動(dòng)原則與立法者的原則相同一樣”或國家法律——或……“以這樣的方式行事，如果元首知道你的行為，他會(huì)批準(zhǔn)它”（Arendt，2006，第136頁）。阿倫特并沒有說艾希曼以薩德式的方式解釋了康德，但在她的報(bào)告中，艾希曼顯然表現(xiàn)為一個(gè)勤奮的、盡管扭曲的康德主義者，并且推而廣之，表現(xiàn)為一個(gè)冷酷無情、但又理性的大屠殺兇手。體現(xiàn)了康德絕對(duì)命令的破壞性反面——阿多諾和霍克海默在回應(yīng)第二次世界大戰(zhàn)的暴行時(shí)，可能想到的就是這樣的人物，他們揭露了康德道德哲學(xué)和一般啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)價(jià)值觀的薩德危險(xiǎn)。阿倫特于 1963 年 2 月和 3 月為《紐約客》報(bào)道了此案，但在法國，報(bào)紙也用大量版面報(bào)道了耶路撒冷的事件。拉康在審判開始前 16 個(gè)月就已經(jīng)將康德和薩德聯(lián)系起來，但當(dāng)艾希曼宣稱的康德主義在他的觀點(diǎn)里使他更加大膽，并且當(dāng)拉康在1962年的春夏期間開始創(chuàng)作《康德同薩德》時(shí)，這可能給了他新的目標(biāo)力量。 ? Throughout the chapters of this book, I will conduct a step-bystep reading of ‘Kant with Sade’, articulating what I believe to be the central lines of Lacan’s thought, clarifying allusions, borrowings and implicit references, elucidating Lacan’s tacit knowledge, and situating his ideas within their broader intellectual context which, as far as Lacan’s own work is concerned, goes back to his exploration of the ethics of psychoanalysis in his seminar of 1959–1960 (Lacan, 1992). To allow the reader to use the book as a running commentary and conceptual travel guide, I have decided to structure it in accordance with Lacan’s own textual divisions. As such, each chapter in the book covers one specific section of Lacan’s text in the English edition of écrits, so that a simple numbering of these sections will allow the reader to go straight to the corresponding chapter. However, because the twelfth section of ‘Kant with Sade’ (p. 663) is just one sentence, and serves as an introduction to the following part of the paper, I have taken the twelfth and thirteenth sections as one in Chapter 12 of the book, so that Chapters 13 and 14 of the book refer respectively to Sections 14 and 15 of Lacan’s text. Unlike Lacan’s article, my own text is not primarily intended as a preface, yet many readers will no doubt employ it in this way. Echoing Lacan, I could have decided, therefore, not to be critical about the text that is being introduced, since prefatory remarks are allegedly not meant to do a disservice. Be that as it may, I have felt it necessary to alert the reader on occasion to those passages in ‘Kant with Sade’ where Lacan’s own explanations and elaborations are rather contentious and problematic, because otherwise my text would have been in quite a few places no more than a paraphrase of Lacan’s. 26 At the same time, I do not wish to claim, of course, that my critical analysis of ‘Kant with Sade’ is the only possible interpretation of the text, let alone that it is the most accurate exegesis of what remains an exceptionally demanding écrit. The reader will undoubtedly benefit from alternative interpretations, as well as from the three yearlong seminars held by Miller between 1982 and 1985 (Miller, 1982–1983, 1983–1984, 1984–1985), and the two contemporary texts mentioned above (Miller, 1996, 1998). Some of these books and papers will also provide the reader with scholarly discussions of one or the other aspect of Lacan’s text that are much more elaborate than what my own contribution allows.27 在本書的各個(gè)章節(jié)中，我將循序漸進(jìn)地解讀《康德同薩德》，闡明我認(rèn)為的拉康思想的中心線，澄清典故、借用和隱含的引用，闡明拉康的隱性知識(shí)，將他的思想置于更廣泛的知識(shí)背景中，就拉康自己的工作而言，這可以追溯到他在 1959-1960 年的研討會(huì)上對(duì)精神分析倫理學(xué)的探索（拉康，1992）。為了讓讀者能夠?qū)⑦@本書用作連續(xù)的評(píng)論和概念旅行指南，我決定按照拉康自己的文本劃分來構(gòu)建它。因此，書中的每一章都涵蓋了英文版《écrits》中拉康文本的一個(gè)特定部分，因此對(duì)這些部分的簡(jiǎn)單編號(hào)將允許讀者直接進(jìn)入相應(yīng)的章節(jié)。然而，由于《康德同薩德》（第663頁）第十二節(jié)只是一句話，并且作為本文以下部分的引言，因此我在本書第十二章中將第十二節(jié)和第十三節(jié)作為一個(gè)部分。本書的第 13 章和第 14 章分別引用了拉康文本的第14節(jié)和第15節(jié)。與拉康的文章不同，我自己的文章主要不是作為序言，但許多讀者無疑會(huì)以這種方式使用它。因此，響應(yīng)拉康的觀點(diǎn)，我本可以決定不對(duì)正在引入的文本提出批評(píng)，因?yàn)閾?jù)稱序言并不是為了造成傷害。不管怎樣，我覺得有必要偶爾提醒讀者注意《康德同薩德》中拉康自己的解釋和闡述相當(dāng)有爭(zhēng)議和有問題的段落，因?yàn)榉駝t我的文本中的很多地方就只不過是拉康文本的釋義。26 同時(shí)，當(dāng)然，我并不想聲稱我對(duì)《康德同薩德》的批判性分析是對(duì)文本的唯一可能的解釋，更不用說這是對(duì)仍然要求嚴(yán)格的《écrit》的最準(zhǔn)確的注釋。毫無疑問，讀者將受益于不同的解釋，以及米勒在 1982 年至 1985 年間舉辦的為期三年的研討會(huì)（米勒，1982-1983、1983-1984、1984-1985），以及上面提到的兩本當(dāng)代文本（米勒，1996 年、1998年）。 其中一些書籍和論文還將為讀者提供對(duì)拉康文本的一個(gè)或另一個(gè)方面的學(xué)術(shù)討論，這些討論比我自己的貢獻(xiàn)所允許的要詳細(xì)得多。 27