Chartier_Paper.doc

8/10/2019 Chartier_Paper.doc

1/12

WHAT IS A BOOK ?

By Roger Chartier

cole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris) and University of

Pennsylvania.

Kant raised the uestion in !"#" in his Science of Right1. His ans$er

distinguished %et$een t$o natures of any %oo&. 'n the one hand a %oo&

is an opus mechanicum* an +roduct of ,echanical art and a ,aterial

(krperlich*) o%-ect $hich can %e re+roduced %y anyone $ho is in the

rightful +ossession of a co+y. 'n the other hand a %oo& is a discourse

addressed to the +u%lic %y its author or %y the +u%lisher $ho has received

a ,andate given %y the author and $ho is authoried for s+ea&ing in the

author/s na,e. 0t is the a%sence of such a mandatum* $ho ,ade illegal

the unauthoried (i.e. +irated) editions of %oo&s +rinted %y +u%lishers $ho

$ere not entitled %y the author to address their $riting to the +u%lic.

1t the end of the eighteenth2century in the conte3t of the de%ate

over the +ro+erty rights of $riters and +u%lishers Kant fra,ed in a legal

and -uridical language the a,%ivalence of the %oo& $hich $as e3+ressed

,eta+horically one hundred years earlier. 1round !456 1lonso 78ctor de

Paredes $ho $as co,+ositor and then +rinter in Sevilla and 9adrid

e3+ressed the dou%le nature of the %oo& 2 as ,aterial o%-ect and as

discourse 2 than&s to an original i,age. He turned u+side do$n the

classical ,eta+hor $hich descri%ed the hu,an %ody or face as a %oo& as

for e3a,+le in Romeo and Juliet or Richard the Second and he

considered not the hu,an %eing as a %oo& %ut the %oo& as a hu,an

creature : Asimilo yo un libro a la fbrica de un hombre* 0 co,+are a

%oo& to the ,a&ing of a ,an*. Both the %oo& and the ,an have a

rational soul (anima racional*) and a %ody $hich ,ust %e elegant

handso,e and har,onious (un cuerpo galan, hermoso, y apacible*). ;he

soul of the %oo& is not only the te3t as it $as i,agined $ritten or dictated

!0,,anuel Kant Metaphysik der Sitten (!"#") in Kant esammelte Schriften (!#6ruyter !#45 7olu,e 70 ++.


2/12

%y his author the buena doctrina* it is this te3t given in a acertada

disposici"n* an adeuate +resentationod created

hu,an nature in the sa,e ,anner than a +rinter +rints a %oo&. 0n !4"F

9elchor de Ca%rera Gue de >u,an $ho $as la$yer in the Royal

Council of the King of S+ain +u%lished a +a,+hlet $hich ai,ed at +roving

that +rinting $as not a ,echanical trade %ut a li%eral art $hich deserved

the rene$al of the Iscal +rivileges and e3e,+tions granted to the ,aster

+rinters the correctors the co,+ositors or the +ress,en@. or Ca%rera

,an&ind is one of the si3 %oo&s $ritten %y >od. ;he other ones are the

#ea$en co,+ared to an i,,ense chart of $hich the stars are the

al+ha%et the %orld itself $hich is a universal li%rary or co,+endiu,*

enco,+assing the entire Creation the Boo& of &ife$hich has the for,at

of a register containing all the na,es of the disci+les of Christ 'hrist

hi,self $ho is %oth an e(emplar* to %e co+ied and e(emplum* to %e

follo$ed and the Irst of all the %oo&s the )irgin $hose creation $as

decided even %efore the creation of the =orld in the Mente *i$ina* in

the Divine 9ind. Manis the only %oo& +rinted %y >od : >od +ut his i,age

and seal on the +ress in order that the co+y $ould %e true to $hat it had

to %e* and he desired to re-oice hi,self $ith a great nu,%er and a great

variety of co+ies of his ,ysterious 'riginal*.


3/12

or Paredes $hen he descri%es his art for Ca%rera $hen he -ustiIes

the +rivileges of the +rinters or for don Oui3ote $hen he visits a +rinting2

sho+ in Barcelona te3tual +roduction is a ,aterial +rocess $hich involves

+laces ,achines and $or&ers. Bet$een the authors genius and the

ca+acity of the reader* as $rote 9o3onF a ,ulti+licity of technical

o+erations deInes the +rocess of +u%lication as a +rocess in $hich the

te3tuality of the o%-ect and the ,ateriality of the te3t4 cannot %e

se+arated.

or a long ti,e ho$ever in the =estern tradition the inter+retation

of te3ts $hether they $ere canonical or not $as se+arated fro, the

analysis of the technical and social conditions of their +u%lication and

circulation. ;here are ,any reasons for this dissociation : the +er,anence

of the o++osition %et$een the +urity of the idea and its corru+tion %y the

,atter"the invention of co+yright that esta%lished the author/s +ro+erty

on a te3t considered as al$ays identical to hi, $hatever the for, of its

+u%lication5 or the triu,+h of an aesthetics that -udged $or&s

inde+endently of their dierent and successive ,aterialities#.

Parado3ically the t$o critical a++roaches that have %rought to %ear

the ,ost sustained attention to the ,aterial ,odalities of the inscri+tion

of the $ritten $ord have reinforced rather than co,%atted this +rocess of

te3tual a%straction. Bi%liogra+hy has ,o%ilied the rigorous study of the

various states of the sa,e $or& (editions issues co+ies) in order to Ind

an ideal te3t +uriIed of alterations inQicted through the +rocess of

+u%lication and su++osedly in confor,ity $ith the te3t $ritten dictated or

drea,ed of %y the author!6. Hence $ithin a disci+line dedicated al,ost

Fose+h 9o3on Mechanick 0(ercises on the %hole Art of -rinting 31456789 Edited %yHer%ert Davis and Harry Carter Mondon '3ford University Press !#F5 ++. ?!!2raia et Peter Stally%rass ;he 9ateriality of the Sha&es+earean ;e3t*Shakespeare :uartely 7olu,e @@ Gu,%er ? !##? ++.


4/12

e3clusively to the co,+arison of +rinted o%-ects the o%session for lost

,anuscri+ts and the radical distinction %et$een the essence of the $or&

and the accidents that have defor,ed or altered it.

;he deconstructionist a++roach for its +art has forcefully insisted

on the ,ateriality of $riting and the dierent for,s of the inscri+tion of

the language!!. But in its eorts to a%olish or to shift the ,ost i,,ediate

o++ositions (%et$een orality and $riting %et$een the s+eech acts and

the re+roduci%ility of $riting) such an a++roach has +ro+osed

enco,+assing conce+tual categories (archi2$riting* itera%ility*) that

divert fro, the +ossi%le +erce+tion of the eects +roduced %y the

e,+irical dierences that they are eacing.

1gainst such an a%straction of discourse it is necessary to recall that

the +roduction not only of %oo&s %ut funda,entally of te3ts the,selves

is a collective +rocess that i,+lies dierent ,o,ents dierent

techniues and dierent interventions : that of the %oo& +u%lisher the

,aster +rinter the co+y editors the co,+ositors the +roofreaders. ;he

transactions %et$een the $or&s and the social $orld do not consist then

only in the aesthetic and sy,%olic a++ro+riation of o%-ects of languages

and of rituals or daily +ractices as the Ge$ Historicis,* ,ight $ish! +ntroduction to ?ibliography '3ford 1tthe Clarendon Press !#"


5/12

to its readers or listeners!?. ;his dou%le and often contradictory +erce+tion

of te3ts divides %oth literary criticis, +hilological critiue and editorial

+ractices o++osing t$o +ositions.

or so,e +hilologists for e3a,+le ean Bollac&!@or rancisco Rico!F

it is necessary to recover the te3t as its author co,+osed it i,agined it

desired it ,ending the $ounds inQicted u+on it as ,uch %y ,anuscri+t

trans,ission as %y the co,+osition and +rinting in the +rinting sho+. 0t is

a uestion then of confronting the various states of the te3t in order to

recu+erate the $or& that the author has $ritten or $ished to $rite and

that the +rinted %oo& has defor,ed or %etrayed.

or others for e3a,+le the ,ost recent Sha&es+earean critiues

the for,s in $hich a $or& has %een +u%lished* constitute its dierent

historical incarnations. 1ll the states of a te3t even the ,ost inconsistent

and the ,ost %iarre should %e understood and eventually +u%lished

since they are the $or& as it has %een trans,itted to its readers or

s+ectators. ;he uest for a te3t that e3isted outside of its ,aterialities is

therefore futile. Editing a $or& is not an atte,+t to Ind an i,+ossi%le

ideal co+y te3t* %ut to e3+lain the +reference given to one or another of

its versions as $ell as the choices ,ade %y tradition or the conte,+orary

editor as to the lay2out the divisions of the te3t its +unctuation or its

ty+ogra+hic and orthogra+hic for,s!4.

1 sa,e tension %et$een the i,,ateriality of the $or& and the

,ateriality of the te3t characteries the relationshi+ of the readers $ith

!? David Scott Kastan Shakespeare and the ?ook Ca,%ridge Ca,%ridge UniversityPress


6/12

their %oo&s even $hen they are neither critics nor editors. 0n a lecture

delivered in !#"5 titled 0l libro* orge Muis Borges states: 0 have thought

a%out $riting a history a%out %oo&s*. But i,,ediately he se+arates

radically this history of %oo&s* fro, all consideration of the ,aterial

for,s of the $ritten $ord: 0 a, not interested in the +hysical as+ect of

%oo&s (es+ecially not the %oo&s of %i%lio+hiles that are ha%itually $ithout

any ,easure) %ut rather in the various $ays acording to $hich the %oo&

$as considered*!". or hi, $or&s that for, the heritage of hu,anity are

irreduci%le to the series of o%-ects that have trans,itted the, to readers

or listeners. ;hen a Platonist* Borges.

1nd yet. =hen in the frag,ent of auto%iogra+hy he dictated to

Gor,an ;ho,as di >iovani the sa,e Borges recalls his encounter $ith

one of the %oo&s of his life *on :ui(ote it is the o%-ect itself that Irst

co,es to his ,ind: 0 still recall the red %inding and the titles in gold

lettering of the >arnier edition. ;here ca,e a day $hen ,y father/s li%rary

$as dis+ersed and $hen 0 read *on :ui(otein another edition 0 had the

feeling that it $as not the real *on :ui(ote. Mater a friend o%tained for ,e

the >arnier edition $ith the sa,e illustrations the sa,e footnotes and the

sa,e errata. or ,e all these things $ere +art of the %oo& for ,e it $as

the real *on :ui(ote*!5. ;he story $ritten %y Cervantes $ill %e forever for

Borges this co+y of one of the editions that the >arnier e3+orted to the

S+anish2s+ea&ing $orld and $hich $as the reading of a reader $ho $as

still a child. ;he Platonist +rinci+le counts for little $hen confronted %y the

+rag,atic recall of ,e,ory.

;he contradiction set forth %y Borges hel+s us thin& that the conQict

%et$een Platonis,* and +rag,aticis,* is +erha+s a false uarrel. 1

$or& is al$ays a++ro+riated read or heard in one of its +articular states.

=ith regard to ti,es and genres their variations are ,ore or less

i,+ortant and concern se+arately or si,ultaneously the ,ateriality of

the o%-ect the s+elling or the literality of the te3t itself. But eually

!" orge Muis Borge El li%ro* in ?orges oral 9adrid 1liana Editorial !##5 ++. #2


7/12

al$ays nu,erous discourses (+hiloso+hical aesthetic -udicial) try to

reduce this diversity %y +ostulating the e3istence of a $or& identical to

itself inde+endently of its for,. 0n the =est Geo2Platonis, Kantian

esthetics and the deInition of co+yright $ere the ,ost +o$erful

contri%utions to the construction of this ideal te3t that readers recognie

inevita%ly in each of its +articular states.

0n !"#! ichte has given a ne$ for,ulation to such tension. He

fra,ed a distinction not only %et$een the +hysical (krperlich*) and

ideal (geistig*) as+ects of a %oo& %ut also $ithin the te3t itself %et$een

the ideas and the for, given to the, %y the author. ;he ideas are the

,aterial (materiell*) as+ect of the $or& its content. Universal %y their

nature their destination and their utility the ideas cannot %e the o%-ect of

any +ersonal +ro+erty. ;he only legiti,acy for such o$nershi+ derived

fro, the for, in $hich the ideas $hich are as a co,,on ,aterial are

e3+ressed : each individual has his o$n thought +rocesses his o$n $ay

of for,ing conce+ts and connecting the, L...N Hence each $riter ,ust

give is thoughts a certain for, and he can give the, no other for, than

his o$n %ecause he has no other. But neither can he %e $illing to hand

over this for, in ,a&ing his thoughts +u%lic for no one can a++ro+riate

his thoughts $ithout there%y altering their for,. ;his latter thus re,ains

forever his e3clusive +ro+erty*!#*. ;hus +arado3ically it is only %y

se+arating the te3ts fro, any ,ateriality either the +hysical reality of the

%oo& as o%-ect or the ,ateriality* of the ideas as collective re+ertoire

that they could %e considered and o$ned as $ere the real estates.

Gevertheless literary $or&s +hiloso+hical discourse and -uridical

categories re,ind us of the ,aterial o+erations that contri%ute to the

collective +roduction not only of the %oo&s %ut of the te3ts the,selves.

;hey %eco,e co,,odities +ro+osed to their readers only than&s to the

+er,anent negotiations %et$een the intellectual and aesthetic deInitions

of the $or& and the +rosaic $orld of +ens and +resses in& and ty+es

!#ohann >ottlie% ichte ?e>eis der EnrechtmIssigkeit der ?chernadrucks. 0inRIsonnement und eine -arabel !"#!. rag,ents of ichte/s essay are translated and

co,,ented %y 9artha =ood,ansee !he Author, Art, and the Market. Rereading the#istory of Aesthetics o+. cit. ++. F!2F? and %y Bernard Edel,an &e Sacre de lauteurParis Editions du Seuil


8/12

co+ysts and co,+ositors. 0n this +rocess $hat is at sta&e is not only the

circulation of social energy %ut ,ore funda,entally the ,odes of

inscri+tion of te3tual vitality and not only the co,+etitions characteristic

of the %oo&2trade %ut also the ,eaning of the $or&s.

0n this sense a closer relation %et$een history of the %oo& and

intellectual history or literary criticis, does not invert the inherited

hierarchies %y granting +rivilege to the ,ateriality of sy,%olic +roductions

at the e3+ense of their inter+retation. 1s ose+h Meo Koerner has o%served

focussing attention on the ,odalities of te3tual inscri+tion ,ight %e a

$ay of saving the soul %y loo&ing at ,aterial %ut Inding it haunted %y

su%-ectivity*such a +lurality of ,eanings can %e fully achieved only if $e are a%le to

retrieve in all their singularity and dierences the conce+tual categories

and ,aterial for,s that gave to any te3t canonical or not its successive

historical identities.


9/12

;radu[\o ,ec]nica

Kant levantou a questo em 1797, em sua cincia do direito. Sua resposta a distino entreduas natureas de qualquer livro. !or um lado, um livro " um #mec$anicum opus#, um

produto da arte mec%nica e material '(rperlic$#) o*+eto que pode ser reproduido porqualquer pessoa que este+a na posse le-tima de uma cpia. !or outro lado, um livro " umdiscurso diriido ao p/*lico pelo autor ou pela editora que ten$a rece*ido um mandato dado

pelo autor e que est0 autoriado para alar em nome do autor. 2 a ausncia de um #mandatum#tal que e ileal as edi3es no autoriados &ie piratas) de livros impressos por editoras queno tin$am direito pelo autor para tratar a sua escrita para o p/*lico.

o inal do s"culo , no conteto do de*ate so*re os direitos de propriedade de escritorese editores, Kant enquadrado em uma linuaem leal e +ur-dico a am*ivalncia do livro queoi epressa metaoricamente cem anos antes. !or volta de 168, :lonso -ctor de !aredes,que era compositor e impressora no Sevilla e ;adrid, epressa a dupla naturea do livro omeu e ?ulieta ou >ic$ard o seundo luar, e ele considerou, no o ser$umano como um livro, mas o livro como um ser $umano criatura@ #:similo Ao un li*ro de laB0*rica de un $om*re#, #=u comparo um livro para a ormao de um $omem#. Canto o livrocomo o $omem, tem uma alma racional anima racional#) e um corpo que deve ser eleante,

*onito e $armonioso alan cuerpo un, $ermoso, A apaci*le#). : alma do livro no " apenas oteto como oi imainado, escrito ou ditada por seu autor, o #*uena doctrina#D " este tetodado em um #disposicin acertada#, uma apresentao adequada. Se o corpo -sico do livro "o produto do tra*al$o realiado pelos impressores ou os encadernadores, sua alma no "moldado apenas pela inveno do autor, mas tam*"m pelas decis3es tomadas pelasimpressoras, compositores ou revisores que tomam cuidar da pontuao, ortoraia, ou laA


10/12

do o*+eto e da materialidade do teto no podem ser separados.Eurante muito tempo, no entanto, na tradio ocidental, a interpretao de tetos, se eles eramcanNnicos ou no, oi separada da an0lise das condi3es t"cnicas e sociais de sua pu*licao ecirculao. O0 muitas ra3es para essa dissociao@ a permanncia da oposio entre a pureada ideia ea sua corrupo pela mat"ria, a inveno do autor que esta*eleceu a propriedade do

autor so*re um teto considerado como sempre idntico a ele, qualquer que se+a a orma desua pu*licao, ou o triuno de uma est"tica que +ularam o*ras independentemente de suasmaterialidades dierentes e sucessivos.!aradoalmente, as duas a*ordaens cr-ticas que vieram a epressar a ateno mais sustentada

para as modalidades materiais da inscrio da palavra escrita, em ve de ter reoradocom*atido esse processo de a*strao tetual. Mi*lioraia mo*iliou o rioroso estudo dev0rios estados de uma mesma o*ra &edi3es, edi3es, cpias), a im de encontrar um tetoideal, puriicado de altera3es provocadas pelo processo de pu*licao e, supostamente, emconormidade com o teto escrito, ditado, ou son$ado pelo autor. :ssim, dentro de umadisciplina dedicada quase que eclusivamente para a comparao dos o*+etos impressos, ao*sesso por manuscritos perdidos ea distino radical entre a essncia do tra*al$o e os

acidentes que tm deormado ou alterados


11/12

pontuao, ou suas ormas tipor0icas e ortor0icas.: mesma tenso entre a imaterialidade do tra*al$o e da materialidade do teto caracteria arelao dos leitores com seus livros < mesmo quando eles no so nem cr-ticos, nem oseditores. =m uma palestra proerida em 1978, intitulado #=l li*ro#, ?ore uis Mores airma@#=u pensei em escrever uma $istria so*re livros#. ;as imediatamente ele separa

radicalmente esta #$istria dos livros# de toda a considerao das ormas materiais da palavraescrita@ #=u no estou interessado no aspecto -sico de livros &especialmente no os livros de*i*liilos, que so $a*itualmente sem qualquer medida), mas em ve das v0rias maneirasmonitores seundo a qual o livro oi considerado #. !ara ele, as o*ras que comp3em o

patrimNnio da $umanidade so irredut-veis J s"rie de o*+etos que ten$am transmitido


12/12

prprios tetos. =les tornaram

Documents

Chartier_Paper.doc