Blanchot Religious Limits

OBFUSCATION: MAURICE BLANCHOT'S RELIGIOUS RE-CITATION OF THE LIMITS
Author(s): S. Brent Plate

Source: Literature and Theology, Vol. 11, No. 3 (September 1997), pp. 239-253
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23926810
Accessed: 06-09-2016 19:15 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Literature
and Theology
This content downloaded from 132.236.27.217 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 19:15:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Literature & Theology, Vol. 11. No. 3, September 1997
OB FUS CATION: MAURICE
BLANCHOT'S RELIGIOUS
RE-CITATION OF THE LIMITS
S. Brent Plate
Abstract
This article suggests that French novelist/theorist Maurice Blanchot writes
at the 'limits of language'. That is, he interrogates the liminal spaces that
fall out between binary oppositions such as being/non-being, human/

animal, creation/destruction, light/dark, and life/death. The limits revealed
in Blanchot's writing challenge each of these borders, but the border most
challenged is that between writer and reader, and between writing and
reading. Blanchot writes in such a way that as the reader reads, the readers
feels her/his self to be read. This challenge to reading is entirely ancient

and entirely contemporary and, in its former and current state, it is the
challenge of what will here be called 'religious reading'. Beginning with a

suggestion made long ago by Cicero, it will be noted that 'reading' and
'religion' have etymological similarities. These similarities are then furthered
through Blanchot's writing. Two texts of Blanchot's will be examined, one
theoretical (the essay 'Two Versions of the Imaginary') and one fictional
(the rcit Thomas the Obscure). What will be suggested through these two
texts is that Blanchot's language is a religious language, that the experience
of the limit between binary oppositions is a religious experience.
The commentator is not being faithful when he faithfully reproduces; words,
sentences, by the fact that they are cited, become immobilized and change
meaning, or, on the contrary, take on too great a value.
Maurice Blanchot1
I. INTRODUCTION
Most mythic Creation stories tell of the crucial role th
play in the origins of the world. From Ancient Ne

cosmos subduing chaos (the imposition of categories
primordiality) to Greco-Roman tales of human and d
the crossing of limits constitute beginnings. Even p
the creation of subjectivity are based on the separat
Furthermore, the language used to relate and recit
Oxford University Press 1997
240 BLANCHOT'S RELIGIOUS RE-CITATION
possible at a basic level through distinctions between p
string of meaningful and communicable words apar
primary level then, limits separate and divide, creating

and property.
But exactly where and what is a limit? What exists at
can be named, does a limit contain anything? Or is it e
purposes here, what would it mean to experience the lim

driving forces of creation and live at the in-between?
ence be shared? Communicated between subjects? If la

on strict limits, is it possible to write of/at the limit
read the limit?2
In the following, the challenge posed by writing of/a

up. This challenge becomes, in turn, a challenge to rea
reading are two sites separated by a limit, and this lim
within language. But when the writing itself steps towards

ating language itself, reading is imperiled. Such is the case
French writer, Maurice Blanchot. With Blanchot, there
distanciation possible, and language begins to threaten t

and borders. As the reader reads, the reader feels her
Blanchot's writing at the limits of language exposes the

as well. This challenge is entirely ancient and entirely
its former and current state, it is the challenge of wh
religious reading.
Beginning with a suggestion made by an ancient (mis)

namely Ciceroit will be noted what 'reading' and 'rel
do with each other and what this relation has to do with lim
writer and reader, and between one and another. T
contemporary age, it will be demonstrated how Blanchot is
who comes closest to a 'writing of/at the limit'. In ot
suggested here, Blanchot's language is a 'religious' la
theoretical writings (roughly from the 1960s to the pre

fiction writings (the 1930s through the 1950s), Blancho
divisions within language to turn language back on itse

very limits that language relies on.
Herein, two texts of Blanchot's will be examined, one
fictional. In order to display his experience of the limits w
essay attempts to rhetorically re-cite Blanchot by refra
distanced historical background about Blanchot an
quickly within the language of Blanchot. This article is
comprehensive account of Blanchot, whose career cross
decades, but an attempt at mining the thought of an ot

thinker for his religious value.3 At the same time, this
S.
BRENT
PLATE
241
radical re-evalu(at)ing of what is re

its possible contaminating effects
'religious'but such is the nature o
II. RE-LIGION
In De Natura Deorum, in merely one sentence, Cicero
etymology of 'religion',4 stating that it has the conn
(stemming from the Latin, legere, 'to read'). And while t
is generally refuted, Cicero's lonely sentence has tra
been referred to by as prominent a source as the curren
English Dictionary. To this it must be asked, what i

sentence containing an etymological misrecognition
such permanence? What is so attractive about Cicero
The beginnings of an answer to these questions can
writings. But before going there it is necessary to
intriguing and more generally accepted etymology of
(from the Latin, tgare, 'to bind'). Related to legal t
'liable', and 'hen', re-tigare begins to move us int
boundaries, the space of limits. Religion can thus be t
and the limit(s) between two things; in other words,
space between. It has therefore also to do with the bo
and with the possibly shifting and interacting boundarie
for instance, writing and reading. This consideration
as it is legal, having to do with touch as much as tran

In approaching Blanchot's literary language, i5 take
gical definitions into account and suggest that Blanch
on each of these levels, and does so simultaneously. Th
and Blanchot's writing is difficult to grasp, but the exp
language becomes itself a religious experience, an exp

the limit. To experience Blanchot's writing is to rem
pended state, causing unbalanced reading and writing

fascinates, draws in and withdraws, creating unstable
Michel Foucault has said that Blanchot's language is
from pole to pole, but that his language 'continually con
'ceaselessly outside itself'.6 Blanchot's writing cre
negativity, a negativity which can only 'exist' at the l

can be said to exist at the limit. Furthermore, my writi
slides, is displaced, and is itself unable to maintain strict
positions. Commentary on Blanchot that presuppose

taken has not entered into what i am calling the reli
limits. My writing is an attempt to delineate and therefore s
meanwhile facing the inevitable binding to Blanchot's wri
Along these lines, Blanchot's rcit, Thomas the Obscure,

in which the limits of creation are experienced. Thomas th
given the designation of the genre rcit, and has therefor
of 're-citing', in this case of communicating a limit-exp

Through the use of obscure language, the reader, like the
is also drawn in and repelled in her or his own experien
language and creation. And if language must be used to ci

the impossible task here is to recite the rcit.
To introduce this fictional writing, i begin by examinin
etical' essay, 'Two Versions of the Imaginary', pointing to the
play in Blanchot's language. For with the image one begin
Blanchot's 'unstructured structure' of writing. Were his w
lacking in structure it would only repel the reader. On th

structured his writing through traditional mimetic met
reader in through a representational story, his writing would
would not call into question writing and literature itself.
the limit between these two methods, repelling and fascinatin
time. The reader is forced to constantly reread sentences

hend, yet feeling pushed away. Simon Critchley relates
'absolutely clear at the level of reading, yet fundamentally
of comprehension'.7 One of the ways Blanchot achiev

recourse to images.
Somewhere at the limit of language, images surface. Wh

to attain inner unity (the unity of form and content, rhe
philosophers and poets alike call on the supplement of

cannot get a point across, or if one wishes to expand on
often relies on images and anecdotes. However, this supp
not entail a fuller presence; instead, the evocation of th
even greater sense of absence on to the scene.
At the beginning of'Two Versions of the Imaginary', Bl
a question which relates the absence of limits and images:
But what is the image? When there is nothing, that is where
condition, but disappears into it. The image requires the ne
effacement of the world, it wants everything to return to the
where nothing is affirmed, it inclines towards the intimacy of

to exist in the void; its truth lies there. But this truth excee
possible is the limit where it ceases. Hence its dramatic aspec

evinces, and the brilliant lie with which it is reproached.8
These initial questions and statements immediately transp
S.
BRENT
PLATE
243
the complicated world of Blanchot'

from the start. In what follows, i
contained in the first paragraph, a
from
The
the
other.
'image'
in
Blanchot's
essay
effaced one); one side displays limi

experience of limitlessness. To draw
and to show the relation to absenc

the 'image' to a corpse, seeing pa
corpse becomes an image of the 'im
to
dialectics
are
dissolved.
The
ambiguity. This ambiguity is the

sometimes the work of truth in t
something that does not tolerate e
a choice between limits or lack of
from one side to the other; it is ra
maintenance of both sides at once
fascinates, allowing a limitless mys
So, on the one side, the image of
of finitude. As 'the work of truth
statement, has a function in the s
being who wanders, the dead body
that
which
is
now
withdrawn.
It
is
Donald
Marshall relates Blanchot's

reduce his indetermin
image, impose a silence on the inc
erring, must close the work (l'oeuv
order for creation to ensue, limits
writer
must
The image on this side of the coin

image as a 'dialectics at a standstil
inaccessible.10 Humans need the im
nothingness
pushed
towards
us
eliminated. It cleans it up, approp

allows us to believe' (79). The image
which provide an order to the wor

On the other side of coin, the co
it
resembles
eliminates
no-thing,
the
the
original
representational
sta
to an image which implies continu

recreated' (87). Priority and hierarc
real, a standard based on defined li
the viewer 'back' before creation, b
where all is one, all is united. While 'unity' and 'cont

connotations in contemporary culture, Blanchot's sen
wholly negative. A continuity of this kind entails the
self and world. (Relatedly, Bataille has metaphorized su
orgy where individuals and all limits of self are elimi
first side of the coin the image acts as a go-between a
side there is no distance, nothing between. It is the en
On this side of the coin, confrontation with the im
moves the viewer into an unmediated realm, a 're-cr
lessness in both spatial and temporal dimensions. With

no distinction, no way to distance one's self from the
see an event as an image is not to be removed from the o
A viewer cannot look at a photograph and remain de

event to have already occurred. Ratherthrough a p
of 'memory' (though not named as such)
[t]o experience an event as image is not to free oneself o

let oneself be taken by it ... to that other region where
distance which is now unliving, unavailable depth, an ina

become in some sense the sovereign and last power of th
The image gives an experience of pure presence, a
actuality absence. Held by distance itself, the implied i
of the image's function brings the viewer into a cha

unavailable depth'. The fulfillment of desire for presen
With the two versions of the imaginary, the viewe
the world is convoluted. Standing in sharp contrast to
notion that 'a picture paints a thousand words', or tha
i see it', Blanchot casts an ambiguous veil over the

While the image does bear a relation to the truth, it
unbearable. Standing apart from mimetic theories of

underlying reality, Blanchot's image is one in relation
copy of it or of a second order representation. On
functions symbolically as 'the work of truth in the w

the impossible to light, the inaccessible gains access. A
function cannot take place without the function of fa
(Lat. fascinum, 'an evil spell'12) is the gripping power

its vexing force from the flip side of the coin. Becaus
of the dead body) has the power of fascination, it surp
of 'reality', and points to an indefinite, indeterminate
collapses the limit between image and event. There is n

structure out of which signification may spring.
S.
BRENT
PLATE
245
Both versions of the imaginary ar

And perhaps here we also gain a g
have highlighted above. There is a
the
limitless
rereading
of
Cicero's
re-
bonds and limits between two thin

Still, what images are here being
term, a linguistic sign.13 How then
and images? How does 'image' sep
starting point with a question whic
poetic writing: '[I]sn't language in t
language in the same way that the
words, doesn't a poem try to conve
the poem and secondary to an an
language which creates a clear ima
be
secondary
to
primary
'even
language. Just as the cadaver is ty

itself, the imagery of poetic lang
image, would subordinate poetry t
obscure limits in Blanchot's writin
with yet another dialectical essay o
the 'represented'.
But perhaps, 'what is special abou
vivid image'.15 Poetry may have its
of the images it creates. What Bla
words which are not signs addresse
are themselves images, 'images of w
images'.16 Language itself is the ob
becomes an image, and the question
posterior, become strikingly meani
If this description is unclear, let
example before turning to the ob
friend Melisa and i were eating at
Biscuit'. In that restaurant's restr
flying biscuit: in the background w

the scene there was a biscuit with
fun
and
quirky
returning
sort
from
of
the
thing,
literal
restroom
and
the image of a flying biscuit wa

biscuit'. After thinking about thi
what
Blanchot
was
writing
about.
fascinating than an image of a bis

seen as a verbal translation of an im
language does not work. 'Flying biscuit' is an image, but an imag
not some visible, clear image. 'Flying biscuit' is fascinating p
does not lead to an image of a biscuit flying. And such is

ambiguity of Blanchot's writing.
III. THOMAS STICKS HIS FINGER IN MY SIDE
With the two-sided image in mind i turn to Blanchot's
example of the religious language of the limit. Blancho

Obscure (originally published in 1941) offers, as Geoffer
'strange intimacies and intimate estrangements'.17 Uti
language described above, this 'narrative' is an assault on
This is no lazy-afternoon, or sitting-by-the-fire text. It is
'Originally' written with the designation novel (roman

the text disappeared when Thomas the Obscure was rei
mode/genre of the rcit provides the 'intimate distance' req
writing. Through use of the rcit, Blanchot's Thomas interr
language in which the fiction was written, and the nego

space between reality and the symbolic. Itself a questio
genre, the rcit is, as Hartman considers, a
first-person confessional narrative. ... The rcit ... is using

invent forms and situations that maintain the writer in th
strongest contrary pressure.18
While Thomas the Obscure is not written in first-perso
simply 'Maurice' which would be another argument

narrative', and one which 'maintains the writer in the
relatively lengthy chapter (20 pages), in which the fir
surface, but perhaps it only surfaces to put into questio
rcit itselfinviting the reader to question along with B
the text's received form.19 In other words, while the r
genre itself, Blanchot calls even this into question and conte
he is using; 'the distinction between "novels", "narrativ

is progressively weakened in Blanchot'.20
In the beginning, Thomas the Obscure is a text concern
term 'de/creation'. De/creation is an interrogation o
creation, the separations and limits which make creation

place. As with the two sides of the image, there is in de
the same time, limits and the lack of limits. The French ter
translated in English as 'share', but the English term do

the strong subtleties of the French) gets at such a not
creation and the 'strange intimacies and intimate estrang
S.
in
its
dual
BRENT
PLATE
significations
247
of
both
'
'part' of something larger, a separ

re-create connections across what
ways.
In the creation narrative given in the first chapter of Genesis we find that
the creation of the world takes place through a series of separations: heavens
from earth, land from sea, day from night, human from animal, etc. In the
beginning is 'formlessness and void', and from this primordial realm of

undifferentiation, order is imposed through separations and the establishment
of limits. Again, distinctions must be made for order to be instituted.
However, even with limits in place the chtonic underside remains and
constitutes the limits of creation itself. Like the limitless continuity ofBataille's
orgy bracketed above, the Hebrew for 'formlessness and void', tohu vabohu,
is somewhat stronger and more chaotic than the rather neutral English
rendering. (Or, perhaps, the reception of this phrase has been pacified by the
constrictions of a theology based on creatio ex nihilo.) Tohu vabohu is a

threatening nothingness, it is a night which does not allow recourse to the
peacefulness of sleep.22 The journey to the limit of this night is the experience
of Thomas, and the writing of Blanchot.
Again, it must be emphasized, Blanchot's writing is not about chaos and

nothingness, for within the tohu vabohu language is impossible. What occurs
rather is the experience of the limits of the nothing, and the language which
represents such an unrepresentable experience. It is the language of fife at

the limit of death, of being at the limit of nothing, of the human at the limit
of the animal, of the writer at the limit of the other. As Levinas considers,
'In Blanchot it is no longer being, and it is no longer "something", and it is
always necessary to unsay what one saysit is an event which is neither
being nor nothingness'.23
Related to the ambiguity of de/creation, it is interesting to note that the
term 'creation' itself is already an inversion. The term was taken by Christians
from the Latin term for the agricultural god Ceres. An agricultural god is
obviously related to things of the earth and, significantly, the cult around
Ceres was considered an 'underground' religion. Originally springing from

this 'underground' religion, the Christianized 'Creator' can be seen as 'grow
ing up' from the earth, from below, and is consequently placed at the 'top'
of the order in Christianity.24 Furthermore, Cicero's apology for true religion
(that which has been reread and retraced) stands in opposition to superstitious
belief (see note 4), and his infamous misreading of religion comes just after
referring to the 'absurd' myth of Ceres. Thus creation, like religion, the
corpse, and the image, has two versions. In the same way, i will consider
Blanchot's text from both sides, seeing creation as (a) share (partager). And
also in this way, i am enacting a 'religious reading' by rea

across the shared bonds.
First, i consider Thomas the Obscure from a perspective of limits. With

limits, it will be remembered, an order is established in the worldor, in
this case, in a 'text'. Thus i will begin with the distinctions and summaries
of literary criticism, even if most of the typical categories of literature have
been obliterated in Thomas the Obscure. I will eventually read through the
rcit twice, from each side, roughly sketching the progression of the book in
two passes.
'Thomas' is, of course, the main character. Quite simply, the title employs
his name and throughout the text 'Thomas' is referred to. And yet, Thomas
never is and never becomes a 'character' in any sense of literary convention.
Ratherand here Thomas stands as a figure for Blanchot's theory of

writingThomas lives as one 'feeling out the limits'.25 At the limitthe
place of distinction, separation, and creationThomas finds a strange approach
to life and relationships.
Thomas the Obscure is merely 113 pages long, and is divided into twelve
short chapters. Chapters one and two begin with Thomas alone, on the beach
and then in some woods. Chapter two then ends with a solitary and stripped
Thomas: 'Alone, the body of Thomas remained, deprived of its senses' (16).
Chapter three introduces a relationship between Thomas and a woman called
Anne. Chapters four and five revert back to Thomas alone, while chapters
six through eight tell a strange tale of a love affair: 'he saw her coming like
a spider' (43); 'He entranced her' (49). By chapter nine the text has turned
solely to Anne and by chapter ten the reader is left struggling with Anne in
her solitude.
Solitude by this time, however, lacks all sense of the peacefulness usually
associated with such a condition of being. The force of night is now felt, the
edges of tohu vabohu begin to show through. This night is the non-dialectical
experience of the limit: 'All that which Anne still loved, silence and solitude,
were called night. All that which Anne hated, silence and solitude, were also
called night. Absolute night where there were no longer any contradictory
terms' (76).
Chapter ten is an account of the long journey into Anne's death, a journey
to the limit and to the dead body of Anne. The only comparison i can
imagine to this tortured state of liminality (the only other 'representation' of
dying) is the final movement of Mahler's Ninth Symphony. In this move

ment, as the music loses tempo, sections drop off slowly, leaving solitary
strings to barely cover the inevitable silence. And it keeps going, picking up
a heartbeat or two occasionally, falling back again, drawing itself out until
one can barely stand it anymore, wanting to kill the music, to shut it off and
bring on the silence, anything, anything is better than this edge of nothing.
S.
BRENT
PLATE
249
Here is the limit-experience give

into death completely alive, evadin
life,
refusal
[she
was]
to
no
live'
(80).
longer
As
the
human
imag
being
death, Anne speaks: 'The act of n

silence, the real silence, the one w
of possible thoughts, had a voice'
ence
within
the
text,
showing
precis
of the image/corpse. As with Mahl

imperfecdy), it speaks of limits in
What occurs on the other side of Blanchot's de/creation account is a
'return' to indistinct limits, a return to the void. Already on the first page of
Thomas the Obscure is an inverted creation, an undoing of Genesis, where

separations become ambiguous. When Genesis speaks of the separation of
sky and earth (1.6-8), Thomas considers 'the sky upside down' (1). When
Genesis speaks of the separation of land and water (1.9-10), Thomas finds
that 'The fog hid the shore' (1). When Genesis begins with the void (1.2),
Thomas 'was staring into the void' (7). Eventually other limits are approached
and broached. Chapter two begins with a scene at duskthe dividing line
between night and dayand by chapters 4 and 5 there isreminiscent of
Kafka's Gregor Samsaa move into animality: 'hardly different from the
serpent' (28); 'I cease being a man. I again become a cold, uninhabitable little
cat stretched out on the earth' (35). And through all of these obscure images
there is the sense that this is 'a sort of holy place' (9).
The English 'obscure' and the French 'obscur have parallel significations as
each refers to 'darkness', 'hiddenness', and 'lack of distinction'. In this text
are found all of these significations. But the French term adds a usage not
commonly found in the English: obscur can also mean 'humble' in referring
to birth (Larousse). In this way, the effect of de/creation is furthered when
it is considered that humility, human, and humus come from the same root;
the humility/obscurity of a human has in some way to do with a return to
the earth. So, in opposition to biblical creation where 'god formed man of
dust from the ground' (Gen. 2.7), Thomas walks at the edge of death 'covered
with grass and earth' (38). Thomas is born into death, or as Kojve says,
'death living a human fife'.26
Much of the de/creation which takes place, takes place within the reader
of this text as well. The distinctions the general reader brings to this text,
learned through criticism, are harassed. The reading of the rcit is over
whelming, it leaves one seasick, unable to continue, unable to pin it down
and make it signify. Each chapter begins with a concrete, particular image,
'where space weighs down by its very transparency'.27 For example, chapter
five begins: 'Toward the middle of the second night, Thomas got up and
went silently downstairs' (33); and chapter ten begins: 'W

stretched out on a bench in the garden, they thought s
But just as each initial concrete image briefly situates t
is immediately flung into the depths of misrecognition wh
By the third, or even second, sentence in each chapter

on to, little to make sense of the initial sentence-image
an 'event', a real image, just as in normal discourse, ex
here built upon this seeming reality. The initial image beco
by which all else falters, the seeming foundation

stumbling block.
De/creation plays with and partially erases distinction
and the interplay of light and dark perform a vital role in
Blanchot continually tells of a vision which is 'hazy' and
to see clearly, Thomas cannot make sense of anything

order on the world which is de/created and is turning b
which it came forth. In an early passage which tells
distinction, and further attests to the obscurity of the
found wandering in the woods nearby the sea:
It was night itself. Images which constituted its darkness i

nothing and, far from being distressed, he made this ab
culmination of his sight. ... [TJhrough this void, it was si
sight which mingled together. Not only did this eye whic
hend something, it apprehended the cause of its vision. I
which prevented it from seeing. Its own glance entered in
when this glance seemed the death of all image. (14-15)
This passage vividly portrays the contesting nature of
and shows the ambiguous location of the image in
grammar is all correct and one keeps reading, followin

page. The words look right and make sense on a phrasa
as the reader tries to take a step back to find some cr
examine a paragraph as a whole, all sense and sense of
reader is allowed a little way in, but meets up with res

too far into signification.
The obscuring of Thomasthe quasi-mystical experie

creationis the final event in the last two chapters. Con
of Genesis and Adam's instructions to give names t

2.19-20), Thomas is given the name 'Thomas', but is
name of death' (92). Yet, even with the dissolution of'T
eleven there is still the ability to 'add a consciousness',
night that 'I make you experience your supreme identit
name you and define you' (108). Finally, 'again at th
S.
(108),
BRENT
Thomas
PLATE
becomes
251
the
creator
origin: Night itself. Ending an ode

nihilo: '[Night] makes me, nothing
(108-9).
The final pages conclude with the inevitable return to the garden, a place
in which Thomas finds his self in a strange (e-stranged) solitude with creation.
Now, rather than subdue the earth, it 'seemed that, through a phenomenon
awaited for centuries, the earth now saw him' (113). Now, rather than being
the objective man of science with a singular perspective, Thomas's vision is
a 'glance which did not see' (114). And now, rather than being the one with
language and the giver of names, other beings 'lost the memory of speech,
while they repeated Thomas's empty word' (116). And Thomas lives, in him
self, the limit of existence, as a being 'rather than being', and in solitude
surrounded by others. The rcit ends with the relation of images and
limitless infinity:
Becoming men again for an instant, they saw in the infinite an image they
grasped and, giving in to a last temptation, they stripped themselves voluptuously
in the water.
Thomas as well watched this flood of cmde images, and then, when it was
his tum, he threw himself into it, but sadly, desperately, as if the shame had
begun for him. (117)
Thomas never dissolves, never makes the step beyond (nor could he make it).
His step into the infinite, the primordial 'flood of crude images', does not
allow him a way out, but neither does it annihilate. Just as a concluding
ending seems to be occurring, the distinction set by 'shame' (cf. 'the know
ledge of good and evil', Genesis 3) constitutes a beginning. Neither existence
nor non-existence, Thomas is condemned by the pen of Blanchot to live
out the precarious experience of/at the limit itself.
And through all of this, there is a movement around to the beginning
(which is not an origin). There is no end without beginning, but it is a return
which does not repeat and is still a repetition. And perhapsand here i leave
off into my own flood of images, my own shameThomas's move is finally
a religious move. If the etymology of religion is understood as a 're-binding',
Thomas is bound and re-bound to live in-between, a negativa not prefaced
by a via, for there is also no telos. There is no way, and no way out, no
return and no dialectic.
To go further into the limits of religion would entail taking up Cicero's

ancient suggestion of re-ligion as 're-reading'. A book is held together by a
'binding', but to read and re-read a book the binding must fall open (the
binding must be 'cracked') and allow interaction with a reader. Book and
reader are bound to each other, and as reading proc

reading becomes the rebinding of rereading, a read
without limit. The experience of the limit, then,
re-reading, when the language leaves off, contests itse
security of salvation in the logos (be it Word, God, or
already be (contain within itself its own seeds of conte
limit experience. But then again, who must i re-cit

conclusion?
Centre for the Study of Literature and Theology,
4 The Square, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ

REFERENCES
In De Natura Deorum,
1 M. Blanchot, The Infinite Conversation,
trans book II, sec. 72.
trans. H. Rackham
Susan Hanson (Minneapolis: University
of(London: William
Minnesota Press, 1993), p. 203.
Heinemann, 1958), p. 193. For a creative
2 Thanks to members of Tel Mac
for provoc
re-reading
of Cicero's misreading, see
ative questions and suggestionsespecially
on a reading
Timothy K. Beal's 'Opening:
of the 'limit'.
Cracking the Binding', in Reading Bibles,

3 For those interested in details
about
Writing
Bodies: who
Identity and The Book, eds,
this typically reclusive writer Timothy
is, the K.
reader
Beal and David M. Gunn
is referred to John Gregg's

(New excellent
York: Routledge, 1996).
study, Maurice Blanchot: And ' the
Literature
For reasons
that i hope will become clear
of Transgression (Princeton:
in the
Princeton
following, i use the lowercase 'i' for
University Press, 1994) and Gerald
Bruns's
the first person
pronoun. In so doing, i am
Maurice Blanchot: The Refusal attempting
of Philosophy
to rhetorically re-enact part of
Blanchot deals with in the 'limit
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkinswhat
University
Press, 1997). Also of note are Steven
experience'. 'I' am a reader of Blanchot's
Shaviro's Passion and Excess: Blanchot,
writing, but in turn become a writer
Bataille, and Literary Tlteory (Tallahassee:
myself. Meanwhile, 'I' am the subject/
Florida State University Press, 1990) and
author, but my writing is constantly being
Jane Gallop's Intersections: A Reading of Sade
with Bataille, Blanchot, and Klossowski
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
displaced by Blanchot's writing. Therefore,

'i' myself become a limit, existing between
Blanchot's writing and the reader of this
1981). From a religious perspective, see the
article.
recently published 'Take, Read' by Wesley
Similarly, Blanchot's own questioning of

authorship and narrating voice causes him
to consider the significance of the move
from 'I' to 'he' in a narrative, a move that
Kort (Penn State Press, 1996). Other

articles are noted herein.
4 Placing religion in contrast to 'superstition',
Cicero claims that those 'who carefully

reviewed and so to speak retraced all the
lore of ritual were called "religious" from
relegere (to retrace or re-read), like "eleg
displaces the centrality of the authorial 'I'.
The narrating voice is 'neutral in the

decisive sense that it cannot be central, does
not create a center, does not speak from
ant" from eligere (to select), "diligent" from
out of a center, but, on the contrary, at the
diligere (to care for), "intelligent" from

intellegere (to understand); for all these
words contain the same sense of "picking
limit, would prevent the work from having
one; withdrawing from it every privileged

point of interest (even afocal), and also not
out" ( legere) that is present in "religion"'.
allowing it to exist as a completed whole,
S. BRENT PLATE 253

once and forever 14
achieved'
( is
The
This 'starting point'
actuallyInfinite
an 'ending
Conversation, p. 386).
point'. The quote here comes from a foot
6 'Maurice Blanchot:
The to
Thought
From
note attached
the very end of 'The
Outside', trans Brian
Massumi,
Foucault/
Essential
Solitude' {The Gaze
of Orpheus,
Blanchot (New York:
Zone
Books,
1990),
p. 77 fn.
i), the essay
that just precedes
p. 22.
7 'Il y aA Dying Stronger than Death

(Blanchot with Levinas)', The Oxford
Literary Review, 15 (1993), p 81.
'Two Versions of the Imaginary'. The foot

note acts as a 'bridge' and a 'limit' between
the two essays, leaving off from one and
introducing the next.
In The Gaze of Orpheus and Other Literary 15 Ibid., p. 77.

Essays, trans Lydia Davis (Barrytown, NY: 16 Ibid.
Station Hill Press, 1981), p. 79. Further ref 17 'Maurice Blanchot: Philosopher-Novelist,'
erences to this essay given in text.
in Beyond Formalism: Literary Essays, 1958
9 Donald G Marshall, 'The Necessity of
1970 (New Haven: Yale University Press,
Writing Death and Imagination in Maurice

1970), p. 96.
Blanchot's L'Espace littraire', Boundary 2, 18 Ibid., pp. 101, 107.
14.1-2 (Fall-Winter, 1985-86), p. 230.

19 See Derrida's argument for the undecid
10 Benjamin states: '[A]n image is that in ability of the rcit (particularly Blanchot's
which the Then and the Now come into
La Folie du jour) in his essay, 'The Law of

a constellation like a flash of lightning. In Genre', trans Avital Ronell, Critical Inquiry,
other words: image is dialectics at a stand 7.1, pp. 5581.
20 Foucault, 'Maurice Blanchot: The
still. For while the relation of the present
to the past is a purely temporal continuous Thought From Outside', p. 26.
one, the relation of the Then to the Now
21 Cf. Edmond Jabs, The Book of Shares, trans.
is dialectical. ... [T]he image that is read, Rosmarie Waldrop (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1989).
ability, bears to the highest degree the
22 Thanks to Tod Linafelt of Georgetown
that is, the image at the Now of recogniz
stamp of that critical, dangerous impetus University who was very helpful with sug
that lies at the source of all reading.' In 'N gestions on the peculiarities of the Hebrew.
[Re the Theory of Knowledge, Theory of
23 Ethics and Infinity, trans Richard A. Cohen
Progress],' trans. Leigh Hafrey and Richard (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press,
Sieburth, in Benjamin: Philosophy, History, 1985), p. 50.
Aesthetics, ed. Gary Smith, (Chicago:24 This suggestion comes from Jean-Franois
University of Chicago Press, 1989),
Lyotard in his course, 'Conversion in (the)
pp. 50-51.
Experience', Emory University, Spring,
11 Bataille has many graphic descriptions 1995
of
25 Thomas
the continuity implied in orgies in his erotic
the Obscure, trans Robert
works, especially Story of the Eye. ForLamberton

a
(Barrytown, NY: Station Hill
more theoretic, and less graphic, perspect
Press, 1988), p. 13. All further references
ive see his Erotism: Death and Sensuality (San
to Thomas given in text.
Francisco: City Lights, 1986), pp. 129-31.

26 Alexander Kojve, Introduction to the
12 American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edn,
Reading of Hegel (Paris: Gallimard, 1947):
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).
p. 548. Quoted in Bataille, 'Hegel, Death,
Sacrifice', in On Bataille, Yale French Studies,
13 For a relation of Blanchot's 'image' and its
relation to the visual images of art (particu
78, p. 10.
Emmanuel Levinas on Blanchot in 'The

larly the video art of Gary Hill), see 27
my
Servant and Her Master', in The Levinas
review essay, 'Lacan Looks at Hill and
Reader, Sen Hand, ed., (Oxford:

Hears His Name Spoken', in Postmodern
Blackwell, 1989), p. 153.
Culture, January, 1996.

Blanchot Religious Limits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blanchot Religious Limits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OBFUSCATION: MAURICE BLANCHOT'S RELIGIOUS RE-CITATION OF THE LIMITS

Author(s): S. Brent Plate

Literature & Theology, Vol. 11. No. 3, September 1997

OB FUS CATION: MAURICE

This article suggests that French novelist/theorist Maurice Blanchot writes

fall out between binary oppositions such as being/non-being, human/

feels her/his self to be read. This challenge to reading is entirely ancient

challenge of what will here be called 'religious reading'. Beginning with a

The commentator is not being faithful when he faithfully reproduces; words,

Most mythic Creation stories tell of the crucial role th

play in the origins of the world. From Ancient Ne

240 BLANCHOT'S RELIGIOUS RE-CITATION

possible at a basic level through distinctions between p

string of meaningful and communicable words apar

primary level then, limits separate and divide, creating

But exactly where and what is a limit? What exists at

can be named, does a limit contain anything? Or is it e

purposes here, what would it mean to experience the lim

ence be shared? Communicated between subjects? If la

read the limit?2

In the following, the challenge posed by writing of/a

within language. But when the writing itself steps towards

French writer, Maurice Blanchot. With Blanchot, there

distanciation possible, and language begins to threaten t

Blanchot's writing at the limits of language exposes the

Beginning with a suggestion made by an ancient (mis)

writer and reader, and between one and another. T

contemporary age, it will be demonstrated how Blanchot is

who comes closest to a 'writing of/at the limit'. In ot

suggested here, Blanchot's language is a 'religious' la

theoretical writings (roughly from the 1960s to the pre

divisions within language to turn language back on itse

fictional. In order to display his experience of the limits w

essay attempts to rhetorically re-cite Blanchot by refra

distanced historical background about Blanchot an

quickly within the language of Blanchot. This article is

comprehensive account of Blanchot, whose career cross

decades, but an attempt at mining the thought of an ot

radical re-evalu(at)ing of what is re

In De Natura Deorum, in merely one sentence, Cicero

etymology of 'religion',4 stating that it has the conn

(stemming from the Latin, legere, 'to read'). And while t

is generally refuted, Cicero's lonely sentence has tra

been referred to by as prominent a source as the curren

English Dictionary. To this it must be asked, what i

'liable', and 'hen', re-tigare begins to move us int

boundaries, the space of limits. Religion can thus be t

and the limit(s) between two things; in other words,

space between. It has therefore also to do with the bo

and with the possibly shifting and interacting boundarie

for instance, writing and reading. This consideration

as it is legal, having to do with touch as much as tran

and Blanchot's writing is difficult to grasp, but the exp

language becomes itself a religious experience, an exp

pended state, causing unbalanced reading and writing

Michel Foucault has said that Blanchot's language is

from pole to pole, but that his language 'continually con

'ceaselessly outside itself'.6 Blanchot's writing cre

negativity, a negativity which can only 'exist' at the l

slides, is displaced, and is itself unable to maintain strict

positions. Commentary on Blanchot that presuppose

242 BLANCHOT'S RELIGIOUS RE-CITATION

limits. My writing is an attempt to delineate and therefore s

meanwhile facing the inevitable binding to Blanchot's wri