欲望的律法——论拉康的《康德同萨德》介绍部分——Dany Nobus（机翻改）
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 difficult text’ and ‘an 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. 在构成雅克·拉康的著作的 28 篇实质性论文和 6 篇较短的论文中，题为“Kant avec Sade”（《康德同萨德》）的文章通常被认为是最难破解的难题之一，这一观点得到了一些对拉康作品有最杰出和最渊博知识的评论家的认同。 1985 年，拉康的女婿兼文学执行人雅克·阿兰·米勒 (Jacques-Alain Miller) 在里约热内卢向观众发表讲话时，将这篇论文称为“一篇困难的文本”和“一篇没有得到太多利用的论文”，暗示第一个特征很可能是第二个的原因（Miller，1998，第 201 页）。1 四年后，在俄亥俄州肯特州立大学的一次会议上，米勒证实了这一观察结果——尽管，或者也许凭借他的研究和在巴黎的研讨会上，他对这篇论文煞费苦心地讨论了近五年，从而做出了接近官方的初步结论：“雅克·拉康的《康德同萨德》可能是文献中最难的文本之一”（Miller，1996，第 17 页）。 212）。 如果《Écrits》中的其他文本很容易阅读，那么“困难”的限定在这种情况下可能不会很重要，但由于其他文本已经被广泛认为是明显神秘的，所以“困难”一词在这里只能是同义词 “难以接近”或“难以穿透”。 值得注意的是，这一限定与拉康本人在 1974 年 10 月向一位意大利记者所说的相去不远：至于《康德同萨德》，“我无法理解”（拉康，2013a，第 83 页）。 在这里，我不想反思为什么拉康的文本困难的原因——它们应该从本书的内容中变得清楚——或者反思我自己承担揭示拉康“最黑暗”时刻的任务的动机，我因此需要从一开始就告知读者，澄清《康德同萨德》构成了相当大的挑战。 如果我的评论和解释未能解开其中的一些谜团，我也应该提前道歉。 然而，应该强调的是，《康德同萨德》可能是《Écrits》中为数不多如果没有详细的评论和解释，就无法完全理解其重要性的文本之一，因为拉康在其中所说的内容还很不清楚，而且这种持续的模糊性对于法语读者来说是一种考验，对于那些只能阅读翻译文本的人来说也是一种考验。 我只能希望，我自己在这本书中对《康德同萨德》的批判性分析对于读者来说不会像拉康的原文那样令人畏惧，而不会因此分散任何读者对这一最苛刻的批评的探索，哪怕只是因为这个举动无疑会产生更多的澄清和替代的解释。 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-François 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 (Garçon, 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》中的许多其他论文一样，《康德同萨德》带有其写作环境的印记。 因此，在认真考虑其内容之前，有必要重构其背景。 1958 年，比利时、华裔、法国裔编辑 Claude Tchou 创建了 Cercle du livre précieux 出版社，目的是通过私人订阅生产和销售文学和科学作品的豪华评论版本，这些作品通常涵盖色情主题。 1961 年，该出版社宣布将在法国诗人 Gilbert Lely 的总编辑下出版 Donatien Alphonse-François de Sade（1740-1814）的全集（Lely，1961）。 在 19 世纪上半叶，萨德臭名昭著的放荡小说中令人震惊的内容促使作家们创造了“施虐狂”这个新的临床类别（Azar，1993，第 42-45 页），而在20 世纪 60 年代，法国仍然禁止公开销售他的书籍。2 事实上，二战结束后不久，另一位法国出版商让-雅克·波维尔 (Jean-Jacques Pauvert) 亲自以易于阅读的平装本出版了萨德的全集，这一举措引起了高度关注。该法庭案件虽然在上诉时有所缓和，但最初下令没收和销毁有罪的书籍，并判处其出版商支付巨额罚款（Garçon，1963 年；Brochier，1991 年；Pauvert，2004 年，第 248 页） 251 & 第 260–264 页）。 通过 Cercle du livre précieux 的版本，可以避免该项目受到法律干预的风险，因为这些书籍不是公开发行的，而是通过读书俱乐部以限量版 2,000 册的形式出售。 3因此，在 1962 年至 1964 年间，萨德全集以15卷的无罪“最终版”形式出版，由莱利总编辑，他自己为所谓的“神圣侯爵”撰写的不朽传记开创了这本珍贵的书集。 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，拉康在进行 L'identification（认同）研讨会时告诉听众，他已承诺写下他在 1959 年至 1960 年精神分析伦理学研讨会上开始的对萨德作品的讨论。 （拉康，1992），在序言中他承诺出版萨德作品的一个版本（拉康，1961-1962，1962年3月28日会议）。 毫无疑问，这里所说的版本是周和莱利正在准备的版本，因为波维尔的项目已经完成，萨德作品的其他版本还没有推出。 1962 年 3 月，拉康没有表明他的文章是否会作为整个版本、特定卷或卷中特定文本的序言。 然而，1963 年 1 月 16 日，在他随后的研讨会 L'angoisse（焦虑）的一次演讲中，他透露，他的听众将能够在萨德的《闺房里的哲学》的序言中读到他与康德和萨德之间的和解，该序言会在不久的将来出版（拉康，2014b，第 104 页） 。然而，当年晚些时候，萨德全集第三卷（包含《贾斯汀·乌斯汀·乌斯汀·乌斯汀·乌斯汀·乌斯·马鲁斯·德拉维尔图》和《闺房里的哲学》）出版时，其中没有拉康文本的踪迹，也没有被收录在任何著作中，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 让事情变得更加复杂的是，1963 年 6 月 12 日，拉康告诉他的听众，一篇题为《康德同萨德》的论文发表在《批判》杂志四月号上（拉康，2014b，第 281 页）。 根据该杂志发表深入学术评论文章的政策，拉康的文本实际上是作为萨德作品的新完整版的介绍而出现的，尽管当时计划的 15 卷中只出版了三卷，该系列的前两本是莱利的侯爵传记。 在文本前面的长脚注中，拉康详细介绍了第三卷的内容，包括为萨德文本撰写序言的三位学者（安吉洛·赫斯纳德、莫里斯·海涅和皮埃尔·克罗索夫斯基）的名字，但没有提及他自己的论文的最初目的地。（拉康，1963，第 291 页）.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 française, 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. 假设《批判》的编辑们至少需要一个月的时间来审查一期的内容并指导其完成印刷过程，那么拉康一定已经被告知他的论文不会出现在萨德全集第三卷中的某个时间。1963 年 1 月和 3 月初。究竟为什么拉康的文本被拒绝，以及被谁拒绝，仍然有些神秘。1985年，米勒在里约热内卢发表讲话，声称萨德全集的编辑吉尔伯特·莱利拒绝了拉康的论文，因为他认为它难以理解，拉康随后试图让其在《法国新评论》上发表。《法国新评论》是法国领先的文学杂志，由当时法国杰出作家和评论家让·保朗主编。仍然根据米勒的说法，当该文本再次被拒绝时，拉康随后将其提供给《批判》，据称由于某种“家庭关系”而设法确保其被接受（米勒，1998，第205-206页）5。然而，西尔维·佩特伦在她对法国文学理论家让·鲁道的采访中，在她对《批判》前50年的详细叙述历史中指出，拉康的文本最初是“以难以理解为借口”被拒绝的，他 “或多或少地把它强加给了《批判》的编辑（Patron，2000，第169页）。如果赞助人是对的，“难以理解”只是一个借口，那么了解拒绝的真正原因是什么将会很有趣。 让·阿卢奇在这方面推测，拉康的文本可能被排除在萨德全集第三卷之外，
因为作者没有遵守编辑和出版商期望他做的事情，即对萨德的临床精神分析做出解释
。La philosophie dans le boudoir (Allouch, 2001, p. 45)。事实上，如果拉康被期望“与弗洛伊德”一起阅读萨德——无论是在弗洛伊德见解的经典意义上应用于《闺房哲学》，以揭示其无意识的、潜在的潜台词，还是以典型的流行心理传记方式，参考作者生活史中未解决的（创伤性）事件来解释文学文本的风格和内容——那么这将不是论文所概括的内容，也许除了萨德书中最后一幕的解读，即母亲的阴道和肛门被缝合，拉康毫不犹豫地将其解释为母体（欲望的终极客体）再次落入父系法则的魔咒之下，并受到严格禁止，而这 从很多方面来说，它都是本文中最薄弱、最传统、最平淡的部分。换句话说，就拉康在《康德同萨德》中依靠精神分析方法来阅读萨德的文本而言，他既没有采用标准的心理传记或心理历史方法，也没有采用典型的弗洛伊德风格的文本分析（也许除了最后一幕是个例外），但转而从事一种精神分析文学批评，这种批评明显利用了非历史主义、叙事形式和互文连通性等陈腐的结构主义原则，尽管拉康使用了自己的概念作为批判工具。6 那么，拉康的文本很可能被拒绝，因为他没有遵守编辑和出版商的简报，而是决定忽略上面的所有指示，只是做自己的事情，感觉自己的方法既没有受到指导，也没有受到限制。并且不对他的读者做出任何让步。在一篇文章中，完全解放、不受约束的欲望的可能性受到质疑，拉康自己对写任何他想写的东西的欲望的不妥协的追求，因此在编辑和出版商对于作者意愿强有力的、不可协商的实施中遇到了限制。如果像拉康在《康德同萨德》中所说的那样，想象一种无法无天的欲望是徒劳的，希望一种能够规避或废除法律的欲望也是徒劳的，那么这可能就是他在向 Cercle du livre précieux 提交论文时亲身经历的事。 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 française 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? 使事情变得更加复杂的是，当伊丽莎白·鲁迪内斯科 (Élisabeth Roudinesco) 1993 年出版了她的拉康知识分子传记时，她声称实际上是让·保兰 (Jean Paulhan) 拒绝了拉康为萨德全集提供的文本，因为它不可读（Roudinesco, 1997, p. 312）。7 在写下这份声明七年后，鲁迪内斯科收到了克劳德·周的一封信，在信中他承担了拒绝拉康文本的全部责任，因为它“配不上他”（indigne de lui），而保兰的后代反过来证实《法国新评论》的编辑与整个事件没有任何关系（Allouch，2001，第 27-29 页）8。尽管出版商对拒绝文本负责似乎完全合理，但确切的理由因为这个决定仍然非常模糊。拉康的文章“配不上他”可能意味着什么？出版商和编辑难道不知道拉康以撰写晦涩难懂、概念性要求高的文本而闻名吗？如果他写出一篇清晰、透明、完全易于理解的论文，岂不是更“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 François 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. 从拉康在 1961-1962 年研讨会上的声明以及他自己在研讨会最后注明的《康德同萨德》的日期来看，他在 1962.9 年春夏期间完成了这篇论文。 作为它的第一个原始版本发表在《批判》上，我在上面翻译的实际“文本的文本”之前的冗长脚注足够清楚地表明拉康重新审视了它，即使只是因为它对这个脚注没有意义 被包含在他将提交给萨德全集编辑的手稿中。 纯粹由于时间原因，拉康不太可能在将其论文提交（或强加）给批判之前对其进行广泛修改，但我们仍然需要假设，如果文本出现在其最初打算出现的地方，那么它将会是一个 10 至于 Écrits 中收录的《康德同萨德》，该书于 1966 年 11 月 15 日在法国书店出现（Roudinesco，2014 年，第 98 页），这是对 Critique 论文的大幅修改版本。 对于 Écrits 版本，整个段落都由拉康重写，通常是根据他思想的最新发展。 许多段落也被弗朗索瓦·瓦尔（François Wahl）纠正，他是拉康的前分析者，也是他在 du Seuil 出版社的指派编辑（Roudinesco，1997 年，第 321-328 页）。11有趣的是，在 1966 年夏天，Cercle du livre précieux 宣布 萨德全集的新更新版，其第二卷于当年10月31日出版，即比《Écrits》早两周出版。该卷有效地将两卷合为一卷，包括萨德的《Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu》、《La philosophie dans le boudoir》和《Aline et Valcour》，以及与全集第一版相同的评论，一个值得注意的例外：现在《闺房里的哲学》还包含雅克·拉康题为《康德同萨德》的后记（拉康，1966b）。 12 这个版本的文本与 Écrits 版本略有不同，并默默地纠正了一些明显的问题 13 在《编辑》的版本中，无论是在序言还是其他地方，拉康都没有提到他的文本毕竟已经包含在萨德全集中，尽管是作为后记，这表明萨德的文本这篇后记（更正也证明了这一点）的日期比 Écrits 中的后记要晚，尽管它出版得更早。 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. 当 1969 年计划出版两卷本的袖珍版《Écrits》时，拉康再次修订了《康德同萨德》，在序言中添加了一个脚注，其中他表示 1966 年 Cercle du livre précieux 决定重新委托文本 “当我的 Écrits 的成功使它变得可信时（......对于取代我的人？）”（Lacan，2006g，第 668 页，注 1）。14 不到两周的时间就售出了5,000 份（Roudinesco， 1997 年，第 328 页），《Écrits》的出版无疑是非常成功的。然而，这一编辑的成功不可能影响到 Cercle du livre précieux 重新委托《康德同萨德》的决定，因为正如我上面提到的，新版萨德的第二卷，其中包括拉康的文本，实际上是比 Écrits 早两周出版。拉康说，《Écrits》的成功突然使《康德同萨德》对“取代我的人”来说更加可信，这也暗示了皮埃尔·克罗索斯基——他是《闺房里的哲学》第一部的序言作者。萨德全集的版本，尽管只是间接的，因为这篇序言实际上是他之前出版的《萨德蒙普罗链》中的一章的重印——他曾请求编辑重新委托该文本，但没有证据支持这一说法。 15 1999 年，拉康去世 18 年后，出版了两卷本《Écrits》的新版本，其中包括另一个稍加修改的版本《康德同萨德》——这些修改有时会恢复 1966 年版本的文本，但并不总是完全准确。并且只能假设出版社 (du Seuil) 的编辑和/或 Jacques-Alain Miller 对此负责。 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，总的来说，《康德同萨德》有六种不同的版本：（1）拉康最初提交给Cercle du livre précieux出版的手稿，作为萨德第一版《闺房中的哲学》的序言的完整的作品，但被拒绝（并且从未出版过）； (2)《批判》杂志1963年发表的文本； (3) 1966 年在 Écrits 上发表的文本； （4）1966年更正后的文本，作为萨德全集第二版《闺中的哲学》的后记出版； (5) 1971年为Écrits袖珍版准备的版本； (6) 1999 年版本包含在 Écrits 袖珍版的重印本中。布鲁斯·芬克 (Bruce Fink) 的《康德同萨德》(Kant avec Sade) 的标准英文译本，也就是我一直提到的译本，大体上遵循 1971 年版本的文本，同时保留了 1966 年 Écrits 版本的所有文本划分，但不幸的是，它也保留了1971年版本的文本。重复了后者的一些（诚然是轻微的）编辑错误。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 Gaëtan 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 française 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 当然，所有这些并不能解释拉康最初是如何参与这个项目的。为什么萨德全集的出版商和编辑委托拉康为《闺房中的哲学》撰写序言？该文集的大多数其他贡献者要么是著名的萨德学者，如莫里斯·海涅和皮埃尔·克洛索夫斯基，要么是对性学做出重大贡献的临床医生，如安杰洛·赫斯纳德，要么是知名散文家和文学评论家，如伊夫·博纳福伊和 盖坦·皮孔。 1962年，拉康的所有主要著作都出现在专门的精神分析期刊上，他只出版了两本“精神分析文学批评”的实质性著作，特别是“Séminaire sur“Lalettrevolée”（“关于“被盗的信”的研讨会） ”）（拉康，2006c）和“Jeunesse de Gide ou la lettre et le désir”（“纪德的青年，或信与欲望”）（拉康，2006d），后者同样发表在《批判》上（拉康） ，1958）。 在20世纪50年代，拉康对各种文学哲学作品进行了大量详细分析，例如莎士比亚的《哈姆雷特》（拉康，2014a，第277-419页）、索福克勒斯的《安提戈涅》（拉康，1992，第241-287页）和柏拉图的《会饮篇》 （Lacan，2015，第 17-163 页），但这些只是作为巴黎圣安妮医院精神分析培训项目的一部分，提供给相对较小的人群。从1959年11月开始，拉康专门举办了为期一年的“精神分析伦理学”研讨会（拉康，1992），期间他对萨德的著作给予了极大的关注，但这一年他对萨德的阅读仍未出版，也不会被出版。 已经在出席的受训精神分析师的有限圈子之外为人所知。 我无法证明这一点，但我倾向于认为，拉康被要求为《闺房里的哲学》写一篇序言，部分原因是他是法国精神分析学会——“另一种”精神分析学派的思想领袖。法国的一个团体，该团体已与安杰洛·赫斯纳德所属的巴黎精神分析学会分离，部分原因是他与超现实主义者终生有联系，超现实主义者通过纪尧姆·阿波利奈尔发现了萨德，并赞扬了侯爵作为一个有远见的天才，一个真正的自由精神和人类欲望的革命解放者（Brighelli，2000，第179-200页）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 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，尽管拉康的论文从未在其应有的位置发表，但他坚持维持其最初的目的，作为《闺房中的哲学》的序言。换句话说，无论文本通过不同的出版渠道——评论文章、独立的评论文章、后记——而获得了不断变化的地位，也不管其原始内容发生了无数的变化，拉康从未改变过他的文本的风格、语气和功能。在揭露萨德著作的局限性时，他仍然相当谨慎，因为他觉得这不是序言作者应该做的事情。例如，当他有一次质疑萨德的“喜剧感”时，他停下来说“序言无意伤害作者”（第661页）。18 同样，当在文章的最后，他暗示萨德未能理解欲望与法律之间不可分割的联系的一些关键问题，他承认：“我禁止自己对萨德在这里缺失的东西说一句话”（第667页）。对于拉康来说，序言的目的是介绍、定位、语境化和梳理文本的复杂性，以对作者及其作品的广泛同情的欣赏，并解释其影响和意义。对于读者来说，在阅读本文时牢记《康德同萨德》的这一批判功能非常重要，因为它使人们能够理解文本的特定焦点和主要发展。 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 Königsberg, 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 ‘art’, 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，《康德同萨德》这个标题实际上是一个双重转喻。 拉康对于比较和对比柯尼斯堡著名学术哲学家伊曼努尔·康德（相对平静）的生活和在监狱里度过了 27 年的人生的臭名昭著的法国侯爵萨德（相对动荡）生活毫无兴趣。当他从文本第8节（第656页）开始断断续续地提到萨德一生中的关键事件时，主要是为了证明他的“艺术”的局限性，就拉康而言，人们不应该假设淫荡的内容 萨德小说中的性倾向是作者道德、政治和生活方式的可靠指标，更不用说萨德作品中盛行的性倾向只是他自己精神经济的虚构延伸——小说中的“虐待狂”已经被由一个本身就是根深蒂固的“虐待狂”的人创建的。 拉康在《康德与萨德》中论证的关键线索之一正是萨德的放荡小说的内容，他也将其称为“萨德幻想”（第653页），即萨德在其中以文学文本的方式表达的幻想。他的创作想象空间，无法直接映射到作者的生活中。更具体地说，事实上，萨德的放荡英雄的“虐待狂”幻想往往在萨德幻想中占主导地位——其全部范围还包括受害者更“受虐”的一面，正如永远善良的贾斯汀所集中体现的那样——确实，对拉康来说，这并不是证明这也是一种“实践理性”，在文学叙事的虚构空间之外，这种理性会主导他的日常生活。尽管萨德对浪荡子的绝对毁灭的“虐待狂”幻想的不断阐述不可避免地在作者自己的世界观中发挥了至关重要的作用，但对拉康来说，后者更多地围绕萨德与他自己的写作行为以及他与他的特定功能的关系来构建。他想要将他的放荡小说视为幻想的独特“工具”，而不是把他的虚构英雄的残酷和野蛮幻想的个人实现。 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 就像论文标题中的“康德”指的是康德的著作和思想而不是康德本人一样，《康德同萨德》中的“萨德”也因此主要被理解为萨德的作品以及其中被由许多虚构人物表达的观点。事实上，拉康论文的焦点甚至更加紧密，因为它的目的不是将康德的所有著作与萨德的全部文学作品（其中还包括更多主流短篇小说、小说、散文和戏剧）结合起来，而是本质上 将其自身限制为——这是第二个转喻——仅仅讨论两个文本之间的联系：康德的《实践理性批判》，最初出版于 1788 年，以及萨德的《闺房里的哲学》，1795.19 年出版。作为后一卷的序言，重点坚定地放在这本书上——康德的论文被置于次要的支持角色上，这并不奇怪。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 Aufklärung (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, ‘apathetic’ 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 Königsberg, 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《康德同萨德》的第四段中，拉康提到，据他所知，康德和萨德之间的这种联系“从未被这样指出过”（第645页），从而强调了他的探索方向的独创性。要么是拉康的文学研究太肤浅，要么是他方便地决定“忘记”一些原始资料，但康德和萨德之间的联系——当然是他们的作品和思想，而不是他们的个性——之前肯定已经建立了。而且沿着同样的思路，特别是在阿多诺和霍克海默的《启蒙辩证法》的“Excursus II”中，该书于 1944 年首次出版（阿多诺和霍克海默，1997 年）。21 在这篇非凡的文本中，主要支持者法兰克福学派的学者将康德的《实批》与萨德的《朱丽叶或罪恶的繁荣》进行了比较，以表明萨德笔下的放荡英雄在宣扬自己的道德格言时听起来与康德惊人地相似，但前提是他们代表了康德体系的辩证底面。就像康德一样，朱丽叶和她的追随者在推进他们的学说时拒绝考虑任何外在的、社会认可的道德价值观。他们毫无保留地相信理性的力量，只要理性被剥夺情感维度（康德称之为“病态的”），从而成为一种正式的、严格的、“冷漠的”能力。但阿多诺和霍克海默也认为，萨德的英雄是康德哲学家，他们实际上比康德本人更纯粹，哪怕只是因为他们不相信自主的、冷静的、科学的理性会自动产生道德仁慈，并有助于建立和谐的世界秩序。 根据阿多诺和霍克海默的说法，萨德的浪荡子比柯尼斯堡的哲学家理性得多，因为后者坚信纯粹理性的简单“事实”会自发地产生一种实用的、相互尊重的道德法则，这本身就构成了一个非理性点 .22 这些命题与拉康在《康德同萨德》中所提出的完全没有什么不同，但我无法证明他熟悉阿多诺和霍克海默的著作，更不用说他在发展自己的论文时依赖于这些著作。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 brûler 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 鉴于萨特和德·波伏娃在 20 世纪 50 年代法国文化中的突出地位，如果拉康没有读过德·波伏娃的开创性文章《Faut-il brûler Sade？》（《
要焚毁
萨德吗》），我肯定会感到惊讶，该文章最初发表于《现代时代》（德·波伏娃，1990）。 在这篇特别的文本中，德·波伏娃几乎是顺便说一句，没有任何进一步的阐述：“萨德以与康德类似的严厉态度，并且源于相同的清教传统，将自由行为视为一种不受感情影响的行为。” （德·波伏瓦，1990 年，第 55 页）。 拉康从未提及波伏娃对萨德的研究，但两人在 1940 年代在毕加索戏剧的私人表演中相识，并一直保持友好关系（Roudinesco，1997，第 168-169 页）。 德·波伏娃对康德和萨德的结合并不像霍克海默和阿多诺对康德、萨德和大屠杀错综复杂的知识编织那么紧密，但至少它再次表明拉康显然是错误的，他声称康德和萨德之间的联系之前从未被创建过。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. 这里还应该指出的是，当拉康于1959年12月23日首次将康德与萨德联系起来时（Lacan，1992，第 78 页），凭借一系列有影响力的研究，法国的萨德学术已经非常先进。 莫里斯·海涅（Maurice Heine，1950b）、让·保朗（Jean Paulhan，1945）、皮埃尔·克罗索斯基（Pierre Klossowski，1947）、莫里斯·布朗肖（Maurice Blanchot，1986）和乔治·巴塔耶（Georges Bataille，1957a，1957b）的著作，以及吉尔伯特·雷利（Gilbert Lely，1952，1957）精心撰写的传记作品。拉康很可能是通过巴塔耶得知了萨德的作品，但即使没有这种直接影响，他也会沉浸在战后文化和知识氛围中，这种氛围非常重视萨德，这也许是第一次在法国历史中（马蒂，2011）。 此外，在拉康开始撰写《康德同萨德》的前一年，米歇尔·福柯发表了他为法国国家博士学位撰写的大型论文《Folie et déraison》（《疯癫与文明》），其中萨德作为法国制度精神病学史上争论的主要人物而引人注目（福柯 ，1961）。 尽管拉康没有承认所有来源的习惯，但拉康在撰写《康德同萨德》时显然受到了所有这些作品的启发，在下文中我将尽力表明布朗肖、克罗索夫斯基和巴塔耶在《康德同萨德》中的贡献。25 最后，我应该提到，1961 年 4 月 11 日，纳粹最高级别官员之一阿道夫·艾希曼 (Adolf Eichmann) 在耶路撒冷受审，罪名是大规模驱逐和大规模驱逐数以百万计的犹太人被灭绝。在审判期间，拉维法官曾就艾希曼之前在警方审讯时发表的言论向艾希曼提出质疑，艾希曼在言论中强调，他只是按照康德式的义务定义来生活。 在回答法官的问题时，艾希曼几乎逐字逐句地背诵了康德对绝对命令的定义，这让所有人感到惊讶：“我[阿道夫·艾希曼]关于康德的评论的意思是，我的意志原则必须始终是这样的，即它可以成为一般法原则”（Arendt，2006，第 136 页）。发表此声明后，艾希曼宣称他熟悉康德的《实批》，但从他被赋予执行所谓“最终解决方案”的职责那一刻起，他就不再遵守其中的戒律。汉娜·阿伦特在解读这一非凡时刻时指出，艾希曼根本没有真正放弃他的康德式责任感，而他只是“歪曲了它，解读为：就好像你的行动原则与立法者的原则相同一样”或国家法律——或……“以这样的方式行事，如果元首知道你的行为，他会批准它”（Arendt，2006，第136页）。阿伦特并没有说艾希曼以萨德式的方式解释了康德，但在她的报告中，艾希曼显然表现为一个勤奋的、尽管扭曲的康德主义者，并且推而广之，表现为一个冷酷无情、但又理性的大屠杀凶手。体现了康德绝对命令的破坏性反面——阿多诺和霍克海默在回应第二次世界大战的暴行时，可能想到的就是这样的人物，他们揭露了康德道德哲学和一般启蒙运动价值观的萨德危险。阿伦特于 1963 年 2 月和 3 月为《纽约客》报道了此案，但在法国，报纸也用大量版面报道了耶路撒冷的事件。拉康在审判开始前 16 个月就已经将康德和萨德联系起来，但当艾希曼宣称的康德主义在他的观点里使他更加大胆，并且当拉康在1962年的春夏期间开始创作《康德同萨德》时，这可能给了他新的目标力量。 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 在本书的各个章节中，我将循序渐进地解读《康德同萨德》，阐明我认为的拉康思想的中心线，澄清典故、借用和隐含的引用，阐明拉康的隐性知识，将他的思想置于更广泛的知识背景中，就拉康自己的工作而言，这可以追溯到他在 1959-1960 年的研讨会上对精神分析伦理学的探索（拉康，1992）。为了让读者能够将这本书用作连续的评论和概念旅行指南，我决定按照拉康自己的文本划分来构建它。因此，书中的每一章都涵盖了英文版《Écrits》中拉康文本的一个特定部分，因此对这些部分的简单编号将允许读者直接进入相应的章节。然而，由于《康德同萨德》（第663页）第十二节只是一句话，并且作为本文以下部分的引言，因此我在本书第十二章中将第十二节和第十三节作为一个部分。本书的第 13 章和第 14 章分别引用了拉康文本的第14节和第15节。与拉康的文章不同，我自己的文章主要不是作为序言，但许多读者无疑会以这种方式使用它。因此，响应拉康的观点，我本可以决定不对正在引入的文本提出批评，因为据称序言并不是为了造成伤害。不管怎样，我觉得有必要偶尔提醒读者注意《康德同萨德》中拉康自己的解释和阐述相当有争议和有问题的段落，因为否则我的文本中的很多地方就只不过是拉康文本的释义。26 同时，当然，我并不想声称我对《康德同萨德》的批判性分析是对文本的唯一可能的解释，更不用说这是对仍然要求严格的《écrit》的最准确的注释。毫无疑问，读者将受益于不同的解释，以及米勒在 1982 年至 1985 年间举办的为期三年的研讨会（米勒，1982-1983、1983-1984、1984-1985），以及上面提到的两本当代文本（米勒，1996 年、1998年）。 其中一些书籍和论文还将为读者提供对拉康文本的一个或另一个方面的学术讨论，这些讨论比我自己的贡献所允许的要详细得多。 27
