第六讲 1976.2.11 历史与“反历史”（counterhistory）
一、特洛伊的神话
1、中世纪的特洛伊神话
I am not interested in what this story might have meant in the Middle Ages, or in the role that might have been played by the legend of the wanderings of the Trojans and of the founding of the fatherland.（115）
上述叙事在中世纪可能意味着什么，或特洛伊人的流浪史诗与建国神话可能具有什么意义，并非我感兴趣的问题
中世纪的史诗传统——流浪与建国，对埃涅阿斯纪的“增殖”
2、特洛伊神话在文艺复兴时期的法兰西的复苏
It elides the Gaul that was the enemy of Rome, the Gaul that invaded Italy and laid siege to Rome; it also elides the Roman colony of Gaul,Caesar, and imperial Rome. And as a result, it elides an entire Roman literature; even though it was perfectly well known at this time.（115-116）
上述的叙事略去了曾与罗马人为敌乃至入侵意大利并占领了罗马的高卢人；也略去了罗马对高卢的殖民，以及（在这一基础上兴盛起来的）恺撒与其帝国。最终，罗马文学（的所有实质内容）被略去了，尽管在文艺复兴时期，罗马文学得到了相当广泛的关注与了解。
福柯首先指的是恺撒的《高卢战记》，此书记载了高卢地区的战争与叛乱，核心是三方——罗马人、高卢人与北方日耳曼人——的战争；维吉尔，史诗中的种族叙事，特洛伊人与希腊人的战争，特洛伊人与拉丁努斯原住民间的种族战争与种族融合；李维，《从建城到建国》的种族叙事，罗马与阿尔巴之战（联想到米底亚与波斯）、抢夺萨宾女子
罗马文学的核心内容：种族斗争与文明对抗
3、特洛伊叙事的功能与其特点
It seems to me that, on the contrary, it is a discourse with a specific function.
Basically, the story is a lesson in public right.（116）
特洛伊的叙事是一套有明确功能的话语。
这一叙事根本上是关于公法的教导。
哲学-法律语言让罗马缺席了/无需提及历史上的罗马
But Rome is also present in a displaced form, like a double outline or a twin: Rome is there, but it is there in the way that an image is there in a mirror. （116）
不过罗马依然存在，以一种偏离（其实际历史）的形式，如同（法兰西的）外廓-范型或双生子：罗马在那里，却有如镜中的图像。
被抹去的是什么？——种族战争与种族融合、征服与统治权的建立，历史的罗马即战争与种族的罗马
留下的是什么？——公法及公法史的罗马、哲学与法律的罗马
The sovereignty of the king of France is of the same type as the sovereignty of the Roman emperor.（116）
（基于特洛伊起源的叙事，）法兰西国王的统治权与罗马皇帝的“主权”是同一类型。
But the Roman Gaul of Caesar, the Gaul that was colonized, also had to be elided, as it might suggest that Gaul and the heirs of the Gauls had once been, or might be, subordinate to an empire.（117）
但恺撒缔造的罗马-高卢——被殖民的高卢，同样需要被抹去
高卢-法兰西的独立性——必须略去罗马与高卢间的殖民与战争历史
最终的目标，公法性的目标：法兰西的政治权力与权力形式根本上是以独立与（同罗马）平等的形式得到的，并非被罗马人-恺撒“灌输”进去的
4、日耳曼国家的“一元性”
哈布斯堡的日耳曼论点：日耳曼-法兰克人（Germanic Franks）与高卢
But on the one hand and to the extent that they were German, they remained German.一种日耳曼普世主义？对日耳曼内部的差异性的抹煞；凯尔特人问题
Right of conquest and victory, and the Germanic origins of the Franks.（征服与胜利的权利，以及法兰克人的日耳曼起源）
法兰克人征服了高卢，法兰克人是日耳曼人；因此，日耳曼人具有对高卢与法兰克-高卢的控制权
上述三段论是关于战争与征服的公法课程，忽视了种族战争继续的可能
5、日耳曼“一元性”的扩张与变形
霍特曼的论点：日耳曼vs罗马
Hotman does not say thatthe Franksdefeated the Gauls; he says that they defeated the Romans.
It was a way of outlining a juridical model of government, as opposed to the Roman absolutism that the French monarchy wanted to reconstruct.
日耳曼与罗马代表了两种不同的政治传统，关于统治形式的公法课程
Hotman certainly raises the problem of the twoforeign nations that exist within the State——but I do not think that the problem he raises is any different, or very different, from that of the cyclical nature and precarious existence of States.
霍特曼的真正关切——国家的周期性与非连续性，罗马公法国家之于日耳曼政权的异质性，以及罗马绝对主义的非正当
This was the Germanic constitution that the king subsequently violated in order to construct the absolutism to which the French monarchy of the sixteenth century bore witness. It is true that the story told by Hotman is not designed to establish a duality. On the contrary, it is intended to establish very strong ties of Germanic French unity, Franco-Gaulish or Franco-Gallic unity, as he puts it.
霍特曼将国家的“二元性”转化为征服、侵略与解放的问题，基于日耳曼-法兰克、法兰克-高卢的统一性，罗马被视作“外来民族”与侵略者，法兰克人则是解放者；霍特曼拒绝的是罗马-高卢
霍特曼对经典文明叙事的反转：罗马拒绝日耳曼——日耳曼拒绝罗马，其中高卢被日耳曼民族“消化了”；日耳曼国家内的罗马-日耳曼的二元最终转化为国王的背叛；霍特曼既制造延续性又破坏延续性
6、第三种叙事：高卢（凯尔特）起源说与高卢-罗马文明
What was at issue was a deep nostalgia,and also a desire to enjoy a flourishing Gallo-Romancivilization.
法兰克人的入侵变成了“回归”；古高卢为国王-皇帝的同一提供依据
高卢-罗马-日耳曼的连续性，全新的文明体被构建起来，高卢人不再是未经开化的土著，罗马人与法兰克人都不再是入侵者
日耳曼的政治模式与罗马的政治模式的差异被抹去了，普遍化帝国在同最初的叙事大相径庭的新叙事中回归，连续性被重建
7、英国与法国的政治叙事与权力观点
There is, however, one basic difference between England and France.In England, the Conquest and the Norman/Saxon racial duality was history’s essential point of articulation, whereas in France there was,until the end of the seventeenth century, no heterogeneity within the body of the nation.
英法差异：17世纪英国对征服叙事与国家的“二元性”的强调，与同时期法国对异质性的忽视或有意掩盖
英法的共性：It is up to the invasion to define the nature, rights, and limits of monarchical power, it is up to the history of the invasion to define the role of royal councils, assemblies, and sovereign courts. It is up to the invasion to define the respective roles of the nobility, the rights of the nobility, royal councils, and the people, as opposed to the king.In short, the invasion is being asked to define the very principles of public right.（征服—法律的异质性/新颖性，回归—法律的继承性）
侵略-征服-战争-暴力决定了真理，进而决定公法的历史（见第七讲）
二、国王的知识与历史
费奈隆的《忒勒马科斯纪》——风土志与政治笔记，影射了路易十四时代的法国政治状况，根本上指向国家的“二元性”
行政部门与官员报告——行政国家-公法国家的“一元性”（罗马性）
布兰维里耶——法兰西的国家问题、贵族的起源与权利
布兰维里耶学说的核心：The protest against the fact that the knowledge given to the king, and then to the prince, is a knowledge manufactured by the administrative machine itself. It is a protest against the fact that the king’s knowledge of his subjects has been completely colonized, occupied, prescribed, and defined by the State’s knowledge about the State.
国王变成了行政机器的心脏或大脑，国王接受了行政机器的知识，即法官与官员的知识，即公法的知识与公法的历史
三、贵族的“反知识”与“反历史”
本质：对国王的知识即公法与行政的历史的抨击与抵抗
内容：国王对贵族的背叛
意义：重新强调了国家内部的“异质性”，从利益斗争的角度，破坏了高卢起源或特洛伊起源的法兰西民族神话
The history of right will therefore be a denunciation of betrayals, and of all the betrayals that were born of the betrayals.
施米特：“真相不久就会为自己复仇。”（手稿Rw265，Nr.26712）
第七讲 1976.2.18 史学叙事中的民族、封建与战争
一、贵族反动（nobiliary reaction）与民族
1、法国贵族的历史研究：本质上是反抗，对抗行政-公法历史
法官与书记员的历史：a preexisting historical discourse whose function had until then been to sing the praises of Rome
对假想罗马——单一文明体——因而也是对君主的颂扬
2、百科全书派的民族概念：数量、领土、行政管理、共同生活
3、贵族与平民的民族概念：政治体内对立的两个群体，真正用以划分贵族与平民的是生活方式
But this vague,fluid, shifting notion of the nation, this idea of a nation that does not stop at the frontiers but which, on the contrary, is a sort of mass of individuals who move from one frontier to another, through States, beneath States, and at an infra-State level,persists long into the nineteenth century.
但这种模糊的、流动与变化的民族概念，这种将民族视为跨越国家边界的、遍布诸国、处于国家幕后、同时保持在低于国家层面的群体的概念，一直持续到19世纪。——例如大革命前后路易十六宫廷与欧洲宫廷的联系
欧洲的贵族联姻历史与政治历史的耦合关系
欧洲的民众的反动/革命意识的传导性——从种族战争到阶级斗争
二、英法比较
1、英国的问题：
（历史）诺曼征服建立的政治秩序与前征服的政治秩序的“公法”问题
（现实）斯图亚特王朝末期，政治与经济双重压力下的国内势力分裂
——民族叙事作为反动/革命-政治行动的正当性基础
2、法国的问题：
（历史）高卢、罗马与日耳曼的连续性问题即侵略问题
（现实）旧制度晚期的贵族对抗国王与民众的需要
贵族反动的历史语言中的自我矛盾：（对国王）has to lay claim to an almost constitutional right to basic freedoms——贵族发明了一套基本自由的语言；（对第三等级与其他平民）must be an absolute victor with unrestricted rights
三、布兰维里耶的历史叙事
The right that prevailed there was in no sense a consensual sovereignty; it was the result of domination.
在高卢发挥作用的权利绝非基于同意，而是基于统治的事实。
1、罗马高卢的问题，对霍特曼叙事有选择性的延续
原始高卢：军事贵族与平民
罗马高卢的最初阶段——恺撒带来的“民主”对“自由”的伤害
罗马高卢的第二阶段——新的行政贵族的成型，高卢的真正意义上的罗马化
布兰维里耶叙事的转向：从公法叙事转向经济-政治叙事——罗马衰亡论
2、法兰克人的问题
日耳曼（法兰克）传统与罗马传统的张力
日耳曼——The great blond ferocity/Barbarians，军事-政治传统，与罗马公法传统之间的断裂
封建制的发明——高卢人成为佃农，法兰克人成为地主，法兰克人取代罗马政府在行省扮演的角色，军事体制所需的实物地租适应了高卢地区的经济状况；相互适应的过程，而非完全源于国王（自上而下）的封赏
3、日耳曼军事国家的罗马化与其转折
For all these reasons, the warrior aristocracy began to find itself being squeezed between a monarchic power that was trying to preserve its absolute character, and the Gaulish people,who were gradually being asked by the monarch himself to support his absolute power……The absolute monarch is born at the moment when the military form of power and discipline begins to organize civilian right.（军事体制之中至高权力的常规化，军事—行政）
君主与旧高卢贵族（并非最初的高卢贵族，而是罗马高卢的行政-法律贵族）结成同盟，罗马式权力架构的复归；历史巧合（？）：语言-知识-权力，日耳曼国家的拉丁化，如同罗马国家的希腊化，都造成军事贵族与军事共和的衰落
四、布兰维里耶的历史叙事的根本意义
1、战争与历史的转型：战争不是“中断”，而是“起源”；“历史”本质的模式并非基于自然法的“普遍”与“连续”模式，而是斗争模式
History is, if you like, Germanity, as opposed to nature. So, a first generalization: Rather than disturbing or interrupting it, war conceals history completely.
2、战争不再仅是事件性的“战役”，军事制度成为国家制度的根本性内容，与经济-政治分析的入口，侵略/征服/战争决定了公法
Knights, for example, are synonymous with lances and heavy armor but also with a numerically small army of rich men.”Archer,” in contrast, is synonymous with light armor and a large army. As we can see, this points to a whole series of economic and institutional problems.
It is war insofar as it is a way of waging war, a way of preparing for and organizing war.
3、侵略-反抗系统
侵略-反抗背后力量关系的动态演变，从新旧秩序的“公法”问题变为社会内部的力量均衡问题——霍布斯问题与战争的永恒性（参见第五讲）
rediscover the war that goes on within societies
力量均衡关系与利益同盟关系的不断崩溃-重建，战争在战役后的政治秩序中不断发挥作用，布兰维里耶式政治-经济叙事的深层逻辑——“战争实际上是历史话语的真值表（truth-matrix/Matrice de vérité du discours historique ）”
只有战争（与战争关系）能够确认某种历史话语的真正起源，自然法或自然权利仅是形式上的起源
第八讲 1976.2.25 知识与权力
一、布兰维里耶的重要意义
Historico-political field——历史-政治的而非公法的视域
History of subjects——To look at power from the other side
He thus began to give a historical status to something.
权力=话语——共同体/团契——利益、习俗、法律
But he analyzed this new form of history not as though it were an inert substance, but as a force-or forces.
布兰维里耶的分析，对比霍特曼对高卢的分析：The Gauls, whom Hotman had described as important partners in this prehistory of the French monarchy, were in a sense an inert matter or substratum.
历史分析的动态与永恒性：征服、侵略、解放或阶级的衰落不能一劳永逸地解决深层内容的冲突与张力；政治与战争在深层次的延续性
二、布兰维里耶的权力学说——权力的去中心化
1、权力不能用法律-公法的语言来诠释
Power is the power of the little group that exercises it but has no force; and yet, ultimately,this power becomes the strongest force of all, a force that no other force can resist, except violence or rebellion.
Power is never anything more than a relationship that can and must, be studied only by looking at the interplay between the terms of that relationship.
2、历史话语与政治权力
Not in juridical terms of sovereignty but in historical terms of domination and the play of relations of force.
For Machiavelli, history simply records relations of force and the calculations to which they gave rise.
可参见阿尔都塞：“（马基雅维利）既把理论看成是能够用来阐明在斗争中占统治地位的主要社会现实的东西，又把它看成是这场斗争的从属环节，被写在这场斗争中的某个地方。”
对布兰维里耶来说，historical narratives and political calculations have exactly the same object，历史叙事本身就是政治行动，而且是复仇的中心
举例来说，提比略通过追述奥古斯都在曾任保民官时期拯救粮食危机的事迹，论证皇帝对粮食配给制的控制对罗马国家稳定的重要性，从而占据了“公益”的优势地位/中心地位，经典的譬喻——大海上的航船与舵手
Syme则揭露了罗马城时期的皇帝在粮食控制上存在专有的利益，这一利益是元首制的真相，然而贵族缺乏知识-权力，因而无法对抗提比略。
或参照马克思对路易·波拿巴的讨论：直接可见的阶级统治只在美国，表面来看统治旧大陆的仍是历史的幽灵；与阿尔都塞对《共产党宣言》的讨论，历史知识/叙事的权力：波拿巴的幽灵与共产主义的幽灵掌握其物质力量
话语的斗争——不断争抢，中心的不断转移——形成了真正的权力格局
参照霍布斯的自然状态理论：力量-权力关系不断发生变化，没有群体能够永远占据权力中心（尽管中心的确存在），因此权力斗争不断持续
三、历史主义问题
历史主义的定义：Well, I think that historicism is nothing other than what I have just been talking about: the link, the unavoidable connection, between war and history,and conversely, between history and war.
福柯理论的疑点：“The fact that history is stronger than nature explains, ultimately, why history has completely concealed nature……There is a relationship of force between nature and history, and it is definitely in history’s favor.”（158）
谱系学追溯，历史的深层连续性与其斗争的本质
四、经典戏剧中的公法意识
例如：莎士比亚——《哈姆雷特》、《麦克白》、格吕菲乌斯——《被弑的国王》（前三部都与詹姆士相关）；拉辛与高乃依的宫廷剧
经典模型：提供安定的僭主——克勒翁与埃癸斯托斯形象的再造；正义还是法律——厄勒克特拉、俄瑞斯忒斯与哈姆雷特的后果；权威的超人格性——君主中心位置的强化与弑君难题
施米特：莎士比亚与高乃依、莱辛的差别，“野蛮=非稳定的主权传递”与“文明=主权”——莎士比亚对弑君问题的“遮掩”，法国悲剧中对“合法性”的持续关注与强调（《哈姆雷特还是赫库芭》）
五、国王对历史学重新殖民的尝试
Royal power’s objective was to discipline historical knowledge, or historical knowledges, and thus to establish a State knowledge.
The difference between this and technological knowledge is that insofar as history was indeed-I think-an anti-State knowledge, there was a perpetual confrontation between the history that bad beendisciplinarized by the State and that had become the content of official teaching, and the history that was bound up with struggles because it was the consciousness of subjects involved in a struggle.
来自豆瓣用户: 鸿渐
