oNE :1'' "TNeOwf@MazeFtafBzTFaUzw aFzf:S@wUa !ouisALhussciBEFORECOMINGtoMarxhimself,ImustspeakofthedetourImade,hadtomake (nowI understandwhy),throughPascal,Spinoza,Hobbes,Rousseau,andperhaps especiallyMachiavelli. I haddulyread Pascalincaptivity(theonlybook I possessed).I wasstllabeliever,butthatwasnotthereason.Whatfascinatedmewascertainly Pascal'stheoryofjusticeandforce,histheoryofrelationsamongmen,butespeciallyhistheoryoftheapparatusofthebody:"Kneelandpray," hichwaslaterto inspire my"theory" of the materialityof ideology (see what Michel Foucault appropriately calls the"disciplinesof thebody" in the seventeenth century;theyhave obviouslynot disappearedsince),ofthe semblance I wasto rediscover later, thatis,furtheron, in Machiavelli. The theoryof the skillfl andsemiskillful, like the theoryof recogniton and misrecognitonthat unbeknownst to me I was to rediscover later nmyownsketch of a theoryof ideology.What do I notoweto Pascal!and in particulartothatastonishingsentence on thehistoryofscience,in whichthemodernsare saidtobe greater than the ancients onlybecause theystand on the latters'shoulders. Butthiswasnotthemostbeautiflthingthere.I foundinthis sentenceatheoryof scientfc experimentatonrelated not toits conditons of possibility(as later in Kant) buttoitsmaterialconditonsofhistoricalexstence,thustheessenceofagenuine

i lil Ii,I I

:,1,I'[,

,'II

1' I !I,'

1'1

IItheoryofhistory:whenPascal,speakingofnewexperimentsthatcontradictthose of theancients,uttersthisextaordinarysentence:"Th1s it is that without contradicting [the ancients} we can advance the contrary of what they said"!Wthout contradicting them:becausethe conditions of ourscientfcexperiments have changed andare no longerthesameasthoseoftheancients.Theyonlymadethetheoryoftheirown experimentsandofthematerialconditionsofexperimentatonwithintheirown limits.Wekowofotherconditions,thatis,limits,certainlymuchlarger,fortme has passed and technology has expanded, and we state resultsand theories quite differently,butwithoutever contradicting the ancients,quitesimplybecausetheconditions ofour experimentsandour experiments themselves are diferent fomtheirs. I didnotstoprefectingonthissentence,infnitelymoreprofoundthanallthat the philosophers of the Enlightenmentwere able 'to say(whichwas ultmatelyverysimple-minded, because teleological) about histor.ButSpinoza,whomIreadforalongtmewithoutunderstandinghimwell,in any casewithoutevermanagingto embracehim,wasto holdquitediferentrevelations instoreforme.I see now, if notwhatSpinozareallywantedtothinkandsay,then theprofoundreasonsformyattactiontoh. I discoveredinhimfrstanastonishingcontadiction:thisman whoreasons more geometico through defnitions, axioms, theorems, corollaries, lemmas,and deductions-therefore, in the most"dogmatic"wayintheworld-was in factanincomparableliberatorofthemind.Howthencoulddogmatismnotonly resultintheexhaltationoffeedombutalso"produce"it?LaterI wastoformulate the sameremark regardingHegel:again adogmatic thinker,but one who had led to Marx'sradicalcritque,whichHegelhadinacertainwayproducedorinduced. Howwasthispossible?I onlyunderstooditlaterwhileelaborating mypersonallittle"theory"of philosophyastheactvityofthepositingofthesestobedemarcated fomexistingtheses.I notedthatthe truthof aphilosophyliesentrelyinitsefct, whileinfactitactsonlyatadistancefromrealobjects,therefore,inthespaceof feedom tat it opens up to research and acton and not in its form of expositon alone. Thisformcouldbe systematicornot,but in anyeventit was initself"dogmatc"to theextentthateveryphilosophy posit,notwithoutreason;butwithoutanypossible empiricalverication,apparentlyarbitartheses,whichinrealityarenotarbitrary, sincetheyareafnctionofthespaceoffeedom(orservitude)thatthephilosophy intendsbyits efcts toopenupattheheartofthespaceofthesesalreadyposedby existngphilosophies witin a given theoretcalconjuncture.Under these conditons, 4,5 systematicexpositoninnowaycontadictsthephilosophicalefectproduced;on thecontary,itcan,throughtherigorofthechainofits reasons,notonlyconstict moretghtlythespaceitintendstoopen,butmakethe consistencyofitsownproduction infnitelymorerigorousand more sensibleand fuitfl(in the strong sense) tothefreedomofthe mnd.And,alsofollowingHegelhimselfinthismatter,I had to understand te reason ofSpinoza's theses as teses antithetical to tose of Descartes, whoseefects heintendedtocombatbysteppingback,justasHegel,withintheapparently"dogmatc"expositionof hisphilosophy,intendedtocombattheefectsof Kant'sphilosophicalthesesbymeansofthesesopposedtohis,andfnallytoopen upanewspaceof feedom. Thus I established a rater stict parallel between Spinoza against DescartesandHegelagainstKant,showingthatinthetwocaseswhatwasinplay and in strugglewas atranscendental subjectivist concepton of"truth" and kowledge. The parallel wentquite far:nomorecogito inSpinoza(butonlythefactualpropositionhomocogitat,"manthinks"),nomoretranscendentalsubjectinHegel,buta subjectasprocess passoverits[immanent]teleology).Notheoryofknowlege (thatis,notheoryofanaprioriguaranteeoftuthanditsscientifc,social,moral, andpoliticalefects)inSpinoza,notheoryofknowledgeinHegel,either,whereas Descartespresentsintheformofadivineguaranteeatheoroftheguaranteeof every truth and, therefore, of every knowledge-whereas Kant produceda juridical theoryofknowledgeunderthe"Ithink"ofthetranscendentalSubjectandthea prioriconditionsofever possibleexperience.D thetwocases,SpinozaandHegel managed -andlittlematter,orratherallthebetter,thattheirdemonstationwas rigorousandthereforeapparently"dogmatc" -tgdisentangethemindfomthe illusionoftanscendentortranscendentalsubjectivityasaguaranteeorfoundation ofeverymeaningoreveryexperience ofpossible truth.lunderstood,then,thereasonforthisapparentparadox,which,ifI cansayit,comfortedmeagainstthehost ofaccusationsof"dogmatism"thathadbeenthrowninmyface.To knowthata philosophycalled "dogmatic" andactuallyhaving the formof a dogmatic expositon canproduceefects offeedom:I hadnever soughtanytngelse. Fromwhat,then,didSpinozaliberatethehumanmind-and notthroughthetermsofhisthesesbutthroughtheefcts ofhisphilosophy?From the illusionsofwhat he calledthe imagination. The imagination notonlyrulesover the frstkind of knowledge, but also over the second, since the"intermediategeneralites"-forexample,theabstactonofteteefomtereductonofalltheimpressionsofindividualtees-arestllrelativelycontaminatedbytheimaginaton andtheword thatuttersthem.The"intermediate"abstractionsofthesecondkind ,: 0 >a 0 U : >--10,1 beganbytakingoverthechiefstrongholdofhisadversary,orratherheestablished himselfthereasifhewerehisownadversary,thereforenotsuspectedofbeingthe sworadversary,andredisposedthetheoreticalfortressinsuchawayastoturit completely around, asone turs around cannons againstthe fortress's own occupant. Thisredispositon consisted inthe theoryof infte substance identcal to God"caua sui" (therefore,withoutexterior)andinteinfniteomnipotenceofGodefectng hisexistenceintheinfniteattributes(infniteinnumber,butwehaveaccessonly totwoofthem,thoughtandextension)andareparallel(thatwhichidentifesthe ordo rerum andtheordoidearum-theorderof thingsandtheorderof ideas-with oneandthesameconnexio), beingefectedthemselves into infnitemodesandthese fnitemodesintoaninfnityoffnitemodes.Aninfnitesubstance(God)thatcannotevenbecalledunique,for ithasnothingelsetocomparewithitinordertodistinguishfromitandtocallitunique(StanislausBreton),therefore,withoutexterior, beingefectedinitselfwithouteverleavingitself, therefore, withoutthisother classical exteriority(inthe illusion of creation) thatis the world or universe.Generallythis isnot the waythatphilosophers proceed:theyalways oppose froma certain exterior teforcesoftheirtheses,whicharedestnedtotakeoverthedomainprotected anddefendedbyprevioustheses,whichalreadyoccupythe terrain.Militarily speaking,thisrevolutionaryphilosophicalstrategyrecallsmorethananythingelse thetheoryoftheurbanguerrillaandtheencirclementofcitiesbythecountryside deartoMaoor certainforms of politico-militarystrateg of Machiavelli (his theory of fortresses in particular).Iwas fascinated bythis unparalleledaudacity, which came to measthe idea oftheextreme essence ofeveryphilosophical strategy, its ackowledged limit-essence, theonethat couldnever be surpassed. Thusitreminded me of thethoughtofa Machiavelli, whoalwaysthinks"inextremes,""atthelimits." And no doubt this strateg cofortedmeinmy personal philosophicaland politcal strateg:to take overthePartyfominsideitsown positions . . . butwhatpretensions! YetIwasnotthroughwithSpinoza.Notonlyhadherejected everytheory of originalfoundationof everymeaning andeverytuth (thecogito) alwaysfnctioning as a guarantee ofeveryestablishedorder,be itscientifc,moral,or inthelastresort social (mediated through other elements guaranteedby Truth),but he wasa nominalist! I hadreadinMarxthatnominalism is the "royalroad" to materialism.Totellthetruth,Ireallybelievethatnominalismisnottheroyalroadto materialismbuttheonly conceivable materialisminthe world. HowdidSpinozaproceed?Withouteversketchingatranscendentalgenesisofmeaning,truth,orthe conditons of possibilitiesof everytuth, of whatever meaningandtuththeremight be,heestablishedhimselfwithinthefactualityofasimpleclaim:"Wehaveatrue idea,""Weholdanormoftuth,"notbyvirteofafoundationlostinthebeginnings, but because itis a factthatEuclid,thank God-God kows why -hasexisted asafactualuniversalsingularity,and[thatthereisnot]evenaquestion,asHusserl willwantto"reactivatetheoriginalmeaning,"[that]itsufcestothinkwithinthe factualresult ofSpinoza's thought, within itscruderesult,inordertodispose of the powerofthining.Thisfactualnominalism wasrediscovered-andwithwhatgenius! -inthefamousdistinction,internaltoeveryconcept,betweentheideatum andtheidea, betweenthething and its concept,beteenthe dog thatbarks and the conceptofthedog,whichdoesnotbark,betweenthecirclethatisroundandthe ideaofthe circle, whichisnotround,andso on.Therebywasopenedandjustifed (alwaysinfact) the distnction betweeninadequateknowledge ofthefrstkind,that is,the passage,in theinterplayandthespace,ofthiscrucial distinction,anda more andmoreadequatekowledge,upto"knowledgeofthethirdkind,"thatis,the passagefromtheimagination-worldtotheworldoftheconceptofthisimaginary inadequation,uptotheintuitionoftheuniversalsingularitiesthatexistfromthe beginningineveryfnitemode,butarethencaughtupandmisrecognizedinthe imagination. Should I add an extaordinaryteory? Yes,that of the body,based .onthefamousparallelismofattributes.Thisbody(ourmaterialorganicbody): of whichwedon'tknow"all the powers," butofwhichwekowthatitis animated by the essential power of the conatus, which is rediscovered inthe conatus of the stateof what corresponds tothemens (anuntranslatableword:mens isneitherthesoulnor te mind but instead te power,the frtitudo, thevirs of tinkng). Nowtis bodySpinozathinksofitas potentiaorvirtus,thatis,notonlyas frtitud,butalsoas [enerositas], thatis,elan, openingtotheworld,feegift.Iwastorediscoveritlater astheastonishinganticipationoftheFreudianlibido( less,totellthetruth,asthe crucialsexualconnotation),justas IfoundinSpinozaan astonishing theoryof ambivalence,since-togiveasingleexample-fearis thesamethingashope,itsdirect opposite, and theyareboth "sad passions," passions ofslaveryundertheimagination, therefore,a kindof"deathinstinct," apttodestroythe joyouselan inalllifeandexpansionoftheconatus thatunites thevitaleffort,thatsealstheefectve unityof the mens and thebodybroughttogetherasare"lips andteeth." One canimagine how wonderfl this theoryofthe bodyseemed tome.InitIrediscovered,infact,myownvitalexperience,in the beginning a slave of a fear and a hope that were excessive, but that were liberated in therecompositon andappropriatonoftheirforcesduringmygrandfather'sexerciseofsociallabors andlater in a prisoner-of-war camp.l That onecanthusliberateandrecompose one's 12,3 own body, formerly fagmentedand deadinthe servitude of an imaginaryand,terefore,slavelike subjectivity,andtakefomthisthemeanstothinkliberationfeely andstrongly,therefore,tothinkproperlywithone'sowbody,inow'sownbody, byone'sownbody,better:thattolive freelwithinthe thoughtof theconatusof one' own body was quite simpl to thinkwithin the feedomand the power of thought-allthat dazzledmeastheincontestablesayingofanunavoidableexperienceandrealityI had lived,which had neverbecomemyown.Itis so true, as Hegel said,that onereallyonlyknowswhatonerecognizeseithertobefalse (knowledgeoftheillusionof theimaginary) ortobetrue (intuitiveknowledgeofone'svirtus, knowledgeofthe thirdkind). In this fantastcphilosophyofthe necessityof the factual stripped ofeverytanscendentguarantee(God)ortanscendentalguarantee(the"Ithink"), Irediscovered oneof my oId formulas.I thought, then, usinga metaphor-for what itwasworth-thatanidealistphilosopherislikeamanwhoknowsinadvanceboth wherethetrainhe isclimbingontois coming fromand where it is going:whatis its statonofdepartureanditsstationofdestnaton(oragain,asforaletter,itsfnal destination). The materialist, onthecontary, is a man whotakesthe trainin motion (the course of the world,thecourse of history, the course of life)but without kowingwherethetrainiscomingfomorwhereitisgoing.Heclimbsontoatainof chance, ofencounter,and discovers initthefactual installationsofthecoachandof whatever companionshe isfactuall surrounded with,ofwhatever the conversations andideasofthese companions andofwhateverlanguage markedbytheirsocialmilieu(astheprophetsoftheBible)theyspeak.Allthatwasforme,orratherbecame littlebylittle,as ifinscribedinfligreeinSpinoza'sthought.ItisthenthatIloved toquoteDietzgen,speakingof philosophyasthe"HolzwegderHolzwege,"anticipatingHeidegger,whonodoubtknewthisformula(whichIoweto Leninforhavingdiscovered,thentothebeautifltranslationby Jean-PierreOsier),"thepathof thepathsthatleadnowhere."Ihaveknown since that Hegel hadpreviouslyforged theprodigiousimageofa"paththat proceedsalalone," openingitsownwaytothe extentof itsown advancement inthe woodsand felds.What"encounters"! Itis assuredlythroughthe encounter with Machiavelli that Iwas toexperiencethefascinationoffascinations.Butthisoccurredmuchlater.Onewill not be astonishedthatonceagain Ianticipatein myassociations,forI am not interestedatallinthechronologicalsequenceofanecdotesofalife,whichinterestno one -notevenme -butinthe repeated insistence of certain affects, whetherthey bepsychicortheoretcalorpolitcal,whicharetrulygraspedandexperiencedonly after thefactand whose order of appearancematters little,sincemostof thetimeit

Ii

" i,I

IV isa subsequent afct thatnotonlygivesmeaningtoapreviousafect,butevenreveals ittoconsciousnessand to memory.Iwould never have fnishedmeditatingon this word of Freud's:"an afct is always in the past." One maywish,therefore,indeed tofollowmein thisnewretrospectiveantcipaton. IdiscoveredMachiavelli for the frsttmein August9+,at Bertnoro,in anextraordinaryold andlargehouse ona hill dominatingthewholeplainofEmelia.Franca livedthere,andIhadknownher forhardlyaweek.AwomanofdazzlingSicilian beauty,black-haired(inSicilyitiscalled"mora"),whohadbeenintoducedtome byhersister-in-lawGiovanna,the companion ofCremonini,the greatpainter, who wasoneofmy oIdfiends.Francahadasplendidbody,afaceofextememobility, andabove all shedisplayeda feedom as a woman I had neverknown-andin Italy! Sheintroducedmetohercountry,andourintenselovesweresometimesdramatic (butofmydoingratherthanhers).Inshort,Iwasdazzledbyher,byherlove,by thecounty,themarvelofitshillsandtowns.Ibecamean Italian, easilyasalways, and we often went down to Cesena,a large town on the plain at thefoot of the hills. One dayshe taught me that Cesena was the little town fom which Cesar Borgia had left for hisgreat adventure.I begantoreada littleGramsci(ontheint, e!lectuals)but quicklyinterrupted myreadinginordertoengagemyself inreading Machiavelli. Eversince Ihave triedtoreadMachiavelli,tounderstand him, I have ceaselesslyreturned to him. I had several courses on him at the Ecole Normale. Heis,withoutdoubt,muchmorethanMarx,theauthorwhohasmostfascinated me.Idonotintend here togive atalk on Machiavelli,aboutwhomperhaps Ishould speakthoroughlyoneday,butI wouldliketoindicatewhyheseemstohavefascinated me.Inaddition Iamtold thatthere are even today,after Lefort'sgreat book,2 a gooddozenthesesbeingcompletedon him!Vhatasuccess. c IcametoMachiavellibymeansofaword,ceaselesslyrepeated, ofMarx's,sayingthatcapitalismwasbornfomthe"encounter between the man with money and fee laborers," fee,thatis,stippedofeverything,of theirmeansoflabor, of theirabodesandtheirfamilies,inthegreatexropriationof the Englishcountsides(thiswashispreferredexample).EncounterAgaina"casus," a"case,"afactual_ accidentwithout orign, cause, orend.I would rediscoverthe same formula inMachiavelliwhenhespeaksofthe"encounter"betweenthegoodoccasion(fortuna,or goodconjuncture)andthemanofvirtu,thatis,amanhavingenoughintelligence (intuition)tocomprehendthatthegoodoccasionpresents itself,andaboveall hav-14,5 ingenoughenergy(virtu) orexcess vigorouslytoexploit itforthebeneftof his vitalproject.Vhatis mostastonishinginMachiavelli,inthetheorythathemadeof thisnewprincebefore founding anewprincipality,is that thisnewman isamanof nothing, without past,without titlesor burdens,ananonymousman,alone -andnaked (thatis, in factfee,withoutdetermination-againthesolitde,frstof Machiavelli, nextofhisprince-thatbearsdownon himandcouldimpedethefeeexerciseof hisvirtu). Notonlyishelikeanakedman,buthefnds himself intervening inone placeasanonymousandas stippedofeveryoutstandingsocialandpoliticaldetermination,whichcouldimpedehisaction.VhencetheprivilegedexampleofCesar Borgia.Ofcoursehewasthesonofapope,butonewhodidnotlovehimand,in ordertoextricate himselffromhim,bequeathedtohimaplotoflandinRomagne, really in Cesena-a partofthe papalestates.Yet,one kows, Machiavelli sufciently insistedonit:thechurchestateswereabsolutelynotgovered,withoutanypoliticalstucture,goveredonlyandstll,hesays,byreligion,inanycasenotbythe pope,norbyanyseriouspolitician:itwasthetotalpoliticalvoid,anothernakedness,inshortanemptyspacewithoutgenuinestructureabletoobstructtheexer ciseofvirtu ofthefturenewprince(Hobbeswillsay:freedomisanemptyspace withoutobstacle).Itisfromthisencounterofamanofnothingandnaked(thatis, feein his interalandexternal movements) andofan emptyspace(that is, without obstacletoopposeCesar'svirtu) that his fortuneandsuccess arise.Cesarknewhow torecognizeinthisencountertheoccasionofafortuneheknewhowtoseize,as oneseizes"awomanbythehair"(Machiavelli).Inthisvoidheknewhowtobuild stuctures,andhe constructed for himself a kngdomthatgrew and, forMachiavelli, wouldhave created Italiannational unityifCesar had notfallenill withfeverinte pestilentialmarshesofRavenna,andhefoundhimselfabsentfromRome,where anotherdecisive"occasion"wouldoccur,atthetimeofthepope'sdeath.Thisbad fortune (the fever) prevented him fom seizing the distant good fortune (Rome where thepopedied),andhisdestinywassealed.Cesarwillvanishfromthehistorythat he wasgoingtoforge,andthis exceptonalman,butfomnow on deprivedof"fortune,"wasleftodieinanobscureSpanishplacewittheanonyityofasimple soldier one last tme deserted by fortune (because of a bullet or an arrow). Anonymity again:atthebeginningandtheend. But howtoguide one'svirtu inorder toproducearealcontnuaton of fortune,thatis,tomaintainin a lasting way (Machiavelli's problem:"a principalitywhichlasts")afavorableconjuncturewellbeyondthemomentwhenthe "feminine" fantasy of fortune is ofered to her conqueror? This is the whole problem ofthe prince as headof astate.I donot want toenter here into detail, wherea numberofspecialists aremore competentthan 1. Ionlywanttonotewhat follows. WeknowthatMachiavelli,takingupagaintheclassicalimage ofthehalf-beast,half-mancentaur, saysthattheprincemustbesuchabeing:halfbeast through the violentforceofwhich hemustbecapable(thelion)andhalf-man throughthehumanmoralitywithwhichhemustbestamped.Butitistooofen overlookedthatthe beast is divided in Machiaveli, whobythisfactcompletelyabandonsthe metaphor ofthe centaur to forge anentrelydiferentone.|fact, the beast isdivided into alionanda fox. What is the fox? The ruse, one might think. But this is too simple. Infact,itappearsthatthefoxisindeedinrealitysomethinglikeathirdinstance thatgovernstheothertwo.|otherwords,it isthefox's instinct(a knd ofhalf-conscious,half-unconsciousintuition)thatindicates to theprincewhatattitde hemust adopt insuch andsucha conjuncturein order to rallytohimself thepeople's assent. Sometimestobemoral,thatis,clothedwithvirtues(inthemoralsense,whichhas nothingtodo withvirtu, thisvirtus whose concept Spinoza obviously borrows from Machiavelliand which is potentia), and sometimes tobe violent, thatis,tomakeuse offorce.Orrather,andthispointisdecisive,toknow how sometimestobe moral and sometimes tobe violent. Orrather,forthispointisevenmoredecisive,toknow/how to appear tobemoralortokowhowto appear tobeviolent,inallthecasesthathe isoneortheotherortheoneandthe other,toknowhowtoappear tobe itatthe decisivemomentinordertowinforoneselfthecontinuationoffortune,torender fortunelasting. Itisherethatthisquietinstinctofthefoxintervenes.Itisthat, in the lastresort,whichinspires intheprince the appearance ofsuchand suchconduct,thatofthevirtuousmanorthatofthe violentman.Thisinstinctisinfactthe instinctiveintuitionoftheconjunctureandofpossiblefortunetobeseized:anew "encounter,"but thistimecontrolledandpreparedas in advance. Thereby the prince consttutes for himself a kind oflasting image. Machiavellisaysthattheprincemustbeneitherlovednorhatedbutonlyfeared, thatis,alwaysatthecorrectdistance, whichatthesametmemaintainshimabove thepeopleandgreatmenandtheirperpetualantagonism,aboveandbeyondthe immediatereactionthatsuchandsuchofhisregularinitiativescanarouse(those which,contrarytohisimage,donotlst),anddefnitelyatadistance fomhimsel fromhisowndesires,drives,andimpulses,andtherefore,inthelanguageofthetime, fromhispassions.Hisimage forceshimto someextenttoremainalwaysfaithful to : o c o I: o 16,7 thisimageofhimself,therefore,torestrainhisown"passions"forhimtoconform tothemin alasting way, forwithoutithecouldnotrenderfortuneandtherefore thefiendshipofhispeopleslasting. ForMachiavelliindeedwants,too,tocallthe people's feara kindof friendship-butneverlove -for theprince. Ifheprovokeshateorlove,theprinceappearstobesubmitted to thepassionshe cannolongercontrol eitherin himself or inthepeople,passions withoutinternallimitation.Thus,Savonarola'sdemagogyoflovehasunleashedin thepeople a true passion of love,which has entailed horrible struggles in thepeople andfnally-theso-calledprincenotbeingabletocontrolthem-hisownexecution.Thus,suchpeople'shate foritstyantandhiscontinualviolencesalwaysends by throwing the people either into the notingness of stuned silence (see later Montesquieu:thesilenceofdespotsm)orintotheinsurrectionalrevoltofriots,which lead inevitably to thedeathofthe tyrantand tothelossofhis regime. Thus,thereexistsanextremelyprof0ndconnectionbeteen the"passions"oftheprinceandthe"passions"ofthepeople.Iftheprincedoesn't controlhispassions,hecannotcontrolthepassionsofthepeople-worse,heunleashesthemandwindsupbeingtheirfrstvictim,andhisstateperisheswithhim. Everyhinghappens,then,as if the absoluteconditon ofthe reignthatlasts, offortunegovernedbytheprinceinorderthatitlast in his favor, proceededbymeansof this fundamentaldistance through which, evenif its being inside ofhim makes everything diferent,theprince mustknow how toappear tobe, conformingtohislasting image:aheadofstatewhomaintainshissubjectsatadistancefomhimself,maintainsthematthesametimeatadistancefomtheirmortalpassions,whetheritbe love or hate(whata beautifulambivalence!). Certainly,Machiavelliiscompletelysilentontheinternalnatureofthefox,unlessoneofhistextshasescapedmeonthispoint.Hethinksof thefoxnotintermsofitsinteralnatureas"cause"butonlyinitsefectsofsemblance.To thinkthatcertainpeopleharponthe"theater" ofpolitics as ifits reality and its discoverywere new things! Having presupposed thatthis man exists, the prince must assume inhisownbehalf"theemptinessof a distance taken" (which ishowIprovisionallydefned philosophyin Lenin andPhilosophy). Thequestion is whether ornotthe prince iscapable ofdoingso,butMachiavelli isequallysilentonthispoint,thatis,onthe appropriatemeanstoproducethisdistance,whichisthemasteryintheprinceof hisown passions, andthe distance with respect to every passion-we wouldsaytodayof everytransrence andespeciallycountertransrence (for the countertansference

,I

I,

,

nottobeharmfl,itmust,whileneutralizingit,anticipatethetransference,in this case, ofthe people's passional reactons). But perhaps here I could turn back to Spinoza, for he is notatallsilenton thisquestion. Oneknows,infact,thatforSpinoza,intheCartesiantradition oftheTreatiseonthe Passionsof the Soul(butinanentirelydiferentsense),itisa questionofgivingtomanthemasteryofhis. passions,ofpassingfomthedomination(oftheimagination)of"sadpassions"over"joyouspassions"tothecontrary dominationof"joyouspassions"over"sadpassions"andthroughthisdisplacement ofguidingmantofreedom.Thecurrentinterpretation,restingoncertainofSpinoza'sformulasisolatedfomtheirmeaning,believesthatthismasteryofthepassions is the efectofan "emendation ofthe intellect," that is, of asimple intellectual kowledge.Thisis the position of thephilosophyofthe Enlightent,which saw in knowledgeanditspublicdiffusionthe soluton toall personal and social contradictions,includingthedissipationofallideologicalillusions.ButSpinozadoesnotaallsharethisopinion.Andtherootofthemistakeinthisinterpretationcanbe foundverypreciselyinthetotalneglectofthemens inSpinoza. Wehaveseenthat thesoul(themens,theactivityofthemind)isinnowayseparatefomtheactivity oftheorganicbody;that,quitethecontrary,thesoulonlythinkstotheextentthat, itisaffectedbytheimpressionsandmovementsof the body, that therefore itthinks onlywiththebodybutin it,consubstantiallyunitedwithitbeforeanyseparation, sincethisunion,whichisneveraproblem,contrarytowhathappensinDescartes, isbasedintheinfnityofattributesofsubstanceandtheirstrictparallelism.The master ofthepassionsinSpinoza, farfrombeingabletobe interpreted asan"intellectual"liberatonofthenegativeeffcacyof thepassions,onthecontraryconsists in their subsumption united withthe interaldisplacement ofthe"sadpassions" into"joyouspassions." JustaslaterinFreudnofantasyeverdisappearsbut-and thisistheefectofthecure -is displaced from adominant positionintoasubordinate position, sotoo inSpinozanopassionever disappears but isdisplaced foma position of"sadness"intoapositonof"joy." Theamor intellectus Dei is innoway an"intellectual"love;itis theloveoftheentire individual,which is a fnite mode of infnite substance-aloveofthebodysubstantiallyunited(fomthemomentofconstitutvesubstance,thatis,God)withtheloveofthemens,andbringingaboutinthe movementsofthemens theverymovementsofthebody,thoseofthefndamental conatus: "Themore power the bodyhas, the more feedom the mind has"(Spinoza). ItisherethatonecouldbringtogetherSpinozawithFreud:forthisconatus,tor betweensadnessandjoy,whatisitthereforebyantcipationifnotthelibidotorn 18,9 between the instincts of death and life,beteen the sadness of Thanatos and te joy of Eros? SoitisthatIlaboriouslyadvanced,acrossmyownfantasies, acrossSpinoza and Machiavelli,toward Freud and Marx,whom I hadneverdissociated fom mypreoccupations.And so each follows his own path,and it would be interestingtocompareourrespectivepaths.Butwilliteverbepossible?Inanycase, for my account,mycards are on the table.Makeofthem whatyouwill.But Iowe it to myfriends and others to help them understand what has befallen me-bothsuccess,perhaps,and drama,surely. Translated byTedStolze Notes 1.Athusser (1992). 2.Lefor t(1972).