Vladimir Nabokov’s original and unpublished translation of The Discourse of Igor’s Campaign; and Roman Jakobson’s enduring wish to complete his English edition

In two previous pieces in the ‘Sunday Histories’ series, I have discussed the planned but unrealised collaboration between Vladimir Nabokov and Roman Jakobson on an edition and translation of “The Song of Igor”, an old Russian poem of the 12th century. Jakobson had first led a collaborative seminar on the text at the École Libre des Hautes Études in New York City during the Second World War, producing a largely French collection La Geste du Prince Igor’, published in 1948. This book included, among other things, an edition of the text, French and English translations, and a long essay by Jakobson demonstrating the text’s authenticity. The particular reason Jakobson was motivated to produce this edition, and especially his essay, was to challenge André Mazon’s 1940 claim that the text was a later forgery.

In “Vladimir Nabokov, Roman Jakobson, Marc Szeftel and The Song of Igor“ I outlined the plans for the edition of the text by Jakobson and the translation by Nabokov, with a historical commentary by Szeftel. But I also discussed the acrimonious break down of relations between Jakobson and Nabokov and the abandonment of the plan. The idea of a collaboration had developed after Nabokov wrote a review of La Geste du Prince Igor’, which he struggled to get published. They then agreed that Nabokov would produce a new translation, which would be accompanied by Jakobson’s edition of the text and some other writings. This was a project which they worked on in early-mid 1950s. But in 1957 Nabokov broke off the collaboration, and published his translation alone in 1960. In that edition, Nabokov says that his original translation, which he dates to 1952, was

purely utilitarian—to provide my students with an English text. In that first version I followed uncritically Roman Jakobson’s recension as published in La Geste du Prince Igor. Later, however, I grew dissatisfied not only with my own—much too ‘readable’—translation but also with Jakobson’s views. Mimeographed copies of that obsolete version which are still in circulation at Cornell and Harvard should now be destroyed (p. 82 n. 18).

In “Vladimir Nabokov, Roman Jakobson, and The Song of Igor – other sources for the story of a failed collaboration“ I added a bit more detail to this story, in particular making use the Nabokov-Edmund Wilson letters, which were published as the book Dear Bunny, Dear Volodya, and also the Nabokov archives in the Berg collection of the New York Public Library. That collection has the typescript of the published translation by Nabokov, with handwritten corrections. It also has some of the Nabokov-Jakobson correspondence, which interestingly is almost all in English. Fortunately, Nabokov kept carbon copies of his letters to Jakobson as well as those he received. Szeftel’s correspondence with Nabokov and Jakobson has been published, but most of the Nabokov-Jakobson letters have not. The one exception, to my knowledge, is the 14 April 1957 letter which broke off the collaboration, in the Berg collection, which was published in Vladimir Nabokov, Selected Letters, 1940-1977 (p. 216). But the Berg collection does not have a copy of the earlier translation which was planned to be part of the Jakobson-Nabokov edition.

The corridor outside the Distinctive Collections reading room at MIT

The earlier Nabokov translation is, however, in the Jakobson archives held by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which can be consulted in the Distinctive Collections reading room. I had visited this archive once before, but with largely different questions in mind – I was at that time particularly interested in Jakobson’s correspondence with Émile Benveniste and Alexandre Koyré. I was back for some other reasons, mainly concerning some of Jakobson’s early work in the United States (on which more here and here), and so also requested the boxes relating to The Song of Igor. Boxes 11 and 12 of the Jakobson archives have a lot of material – reading notes, correspondence, drafts, and images. There are a few different translations including Samuel H. Cross’s version which is in La Geste du Prince Igor’ (box 11, folder 80); and one by Sidney Monas, which was published in 1971 with Burton Raffel named as co-translator (folder 81; see Raffel’s 1986 reflections on this translation). Horace Lunt’s translation of the first 25 verses, compiled from the versions produced for Harvard’s ‘Russian 203’ course, is in the same box (folder 15). But it was Nabokov’s early version which I really wanted to see (folders 82-84). Clearly Jakobson did not follow Nabokov’s 1960 directive that this “obsolete version… should now be destroyed”.

The first folder (number 82) has a typed version of the translation and notes, which is indicated to be edited by Jakobson. That has the addition “Translated by Vladimir Nabokov”, which I think is in Jakobson’s handwriting. The second folder (83) has another typescript, in carbon copy and original, which incorporates those changes. The third folder (84) has a different style typescript of the translation alone, which textually looks the same as the corrected version, but which has some further emendations in pencil and ink, mostly on the first page. For the most part this looks like a clean and final form. 

The first of these folders also includes a letter from Nabokov to Pascal Covici of Viking Press, 2 June 1951, saying that while the entire manuscript of the volume is not yet complete, he was sending his translation as a preview. He hoped to improve it, but suggested that it was more or less there. He said the volume would contain his translation, foreword and translation notes; Jakobson’s edition of the original text and its recension; papers by Jakobson and Szeftel on linguistic and historical aspects; bibliography and index; and illustrations of Old Russian miniatures and other images. While this accords well with other sources, it was interesting to see how closely Nabokov’s vision for the volume matched with Jakobson’s, at least in 1951. This folder also includes a nine-page “Translator’s Foreword”. There is an index of names mentioned in the poem, keyed to the line numbers of the translation, and a concluding note. This note mentions Mazon’s attempt to prove the text was a fake, and gives Nabokov’s clear indication that he supported Jakobson’s demonstration that this view was false. Nabokov praises La Geste du Prince Igor’ as a “remarkable volume”, and that “Roman Jakobson, with the utmost precision, analyses and annihilates Mazon’s fancywork”. The problem of words which were believed to be unique to the poem, not being in other old Russian texts (i.e. what is known as hapax legomenon), were either subsequently found in manuscripts discovered later, or were convincingly demonstrated to be legitimate. Nabokov endorses Jakobson’s view that far from Mazon’s assessment that the forger had insufficient knowledge of the language, and therefore erred in his forgery, Mazon’s claims rather demonstrated his own insufficient knowledge.

Box 12, folder 1 of Jakobson’s archives contains four typed pages of some suggested changes to the translation, which appear to be from Jakobson to Nabokov. A letter from Nabokov to Jakobson, dated 19 January 1953 (box 12, folder 9), lists thirteen misprints which he asks are corrected before proofs are produced. This seems to indicate that they were, at this stage, largely content with the text itself. But the delays in producing the other texts for their planned edition seems to have given Nabokov time to doubt his work, and for the falling out with Jakobson to occur. There are quite large differences between this translation and the 1960 published version. The immediately striking thing is that the earlier translation is in prose, short paragraphs usually of one sentence each. The published version is displayed as short lines of verse. Comparing them line by line would be interesting, but really ought to be done by someone who knows the Russian original. In particular, a fuller comparison would need not just to look at the two different translations, but to explore how they are translations of different source texts – Jakobson’s recension for the first and the Russian text Nabokov later preferred for the second. In his published foreword, Nabokov complains that “No satisfactory edition of The Song exists in Russian” (p. 19) and describes La Geste du Price Igor merely as “useful” while criticising Cross’s translation within it as “a poor English version… more or less patched up by the editors” (p. 20).

An unexpected postscript to this story came from the correspondence between William J. McGuire and Jakobson, also in box 12, folder 9. McGuire was writing Bollingen: An Adventure in Collecting the Past, and was contacting people in his research on the foundation. I read that book a while ago because I was interested in Mircea Eliade’s attendance at Eranos seminars, which were organised by Olga Fröbe-Kapteyn and Carl Jung, and funded by the Mellon family. The Bollingen Foundation – named after Jung’s tower on Lake Zürich – published the Yearbooks from the seminars in its series, as well as Jung’s collected works in English and many other books, including some of the early Eliade translations. The Bollingen Foundation also funded research by Eliade and Georges Dumézil – in the latter case his trip to Peru and work on Quechua. (On the seminars, there is a detailed account in Hans Thomas Hakl, Eranos: An Alternative Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century.)

The Bollingen series had agreed to publish the Jakobson-Nabokov edition of The Song of Igor, with a contract signed in April 1953 (McGuire, Bollingen, p. 258). This postdates Nabokov’s letter to Viking Press, so it seems this was a later development of the work. Researching his book, McGuire wrote to Jakobson on 12 February 1979 asking for some information about various things, including the history of “Igor Tale” project. Jakobson wrote a detailed reply back on 23 February 1979, in which he briefly outlined the story from his perspective. Nabokov had died in July 1977, but McGuire had already interviewed both him and his widow in Montreux (see Bollingen, p. 342), and provides a balanced account (pp. 258-59). In his first letter to McGuire Jakobson describes Nabokov’s version of the text as based on different commentaries, which he says are incompatible, and the result as a “completely unscholarly, I would even say antischolarly translation of the Igor Tale” (23 February 1979). McGuire says that Jakobson recruited first Dimitri Obolensky and then Omeljan Pritsak to do an alternative translation for his planned edition, but neither produced a text. It is extraordinary that this short text – about 3,000 words, 43 generously spaced pages in the printed version by Nabokov or ten typed sides in the last archival version of the earlier translation – could have caused so much difficulty.

One thing which developed from this correspondence with McGuire is that Jakobson says that the original photographs intended for the edition had been given to the Bollingen Foundation, and from them to Princeton University Press when it took over the Bollingen series in the late 1960s. McGuire is able to track them down, and on 15 March 1979 says he can send them back to Jakobson. Those images seem to be part of the sequence of photographs in box 12, folders 4-8 of the Jakobson archive. 

It is interesting that on 14 May 1979, thanking McGuire for finding the photographs and asking for their return, Jakobson says “I have not yet abandoned the plan of an up-to-date Igor Tale book”. This is twenty-two years after his project with Nabokov had failed. But Jakobson died three years later, and this project was never completed.

References

La Geste du Prince Igor’: Épopée Russe du douzième siècle, ed. and trans. Henri Grégoire, Roman Jakobson and Marc Szeftel, New York: Columbia University Press, 1948. Jakobson’s parts are reprinted in his Selected Writings IV: Slavic Epic Studies, The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1966, 106-300.

The Song of Igor’s Campaign: An Epic of the Twelfth Century, trans. and foreword by Vladimir Nabokov, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1960.

Brian Boyd, Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Hans Thomas Hakl, Eranos: An Alternative Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, trans. Christopher McIntosh, London: Routledge, 2013.

Roman Jakobson, “The Puzzles of the Igor’ Tale on the 150th Anniversary of its First Edition”, Speculum 27, 1952, 43-66; reprinted in Selected Writings IV: Slavic Epic Studies, The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1966, 380-410.

André Mazon, Le Slovo d’Igor, Paris: Librairie Droz, 1940.

William McGuire, Bollingen: An Adventure in Collecting the Past, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Sidney Monas and Burton Raffel trans. “The Tale of Igor’s Men: Of Igor Son of Svyatoslav, Grandson of Oleg”, Delos[first series] 6, 1971, 5-15.

Vladimir Nabokov, Selected Letters, 1940-1977, eds. Dmitri Nabokov & Matthew J. Bruccoli, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1990.

Vladimir Nabokov and Edmund Wilson, Dear Bunny, Dear Volodya: The Nabokov-Wilson Letters, 1940-1971, ed. Simon Karlinsky, Berkeley: University of California Press, revised and expanded edition, 2001.

Burton Raffel, “The Manner of Boyan: Translating Oral Literature”, Oral Tradition 1 (1), 1986, 11-29.

Marc Szeftel, “Correspondence with Vladimir Nabokov and Roman Jakobson”, in Galya Diment, Pniniad: Vladimir Nabokov and Marc Szeftel, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997, 103-119.

Archives

Roman Jakobson papers, MIT, Department of Distinctive Collections, https://archivesspace.mit.edu/repositories/2/resources/633

Vladimir Nabokov papers, 1918-1987, Berg Coll MSS Nabokov, New York Public Library, https://archives.nypl.org/brg/19126


This is the 45th post of a weekly series, where I post short essays with some indications of further reading and sources, but which are not as formal as something I’d try to publish more conventionally. They are usually tangential to my main writing focus, a home for spare ideas, asides, dead-ends and possible futures. I hope there is some interest in them. They are provisional and suggestions are welcome. A few, usually shorter, pieces in a similar style have been posted mid-week. 

The full chronological list of ‘Sunday histories’ is here, with a thematic ordering here.

Posted in Georges Dumézil, Mircea Eliade, Roman Jakobson, Sunday Histories, Uncategorized, Vladimir Nabokov | 4 Comments

Lorenzo Castellani, Alberto Beneduce, Mussolini’s Technocrat: Power, Knowledge, and Institutions in Fascist Italy – Routledge, October 2025 and New Books interview

Lorenzo Castellani, Alberto Beneduce: Mussolini’s Technocrat: Power, Knowledge, and Institutions in Fascist Italy – Routledge, October 2025

New Books interview with Tim Jones

Thanks to dmf for the links. Shame about the prohibitive price.

Alberto Beneduce, a prominent banker, policy-maker and technocratic institutions’ builder, held immense power as Fascist Italy’s chief banker from 1925 to 1940. Most importantly, he was Mussolini’s financial advisor and a key member of his inner circle of officers. Few historical eras have elicited more scholarly attention and discussion than fascism; totalitarian political ideology remains a dynamic topic and continues to exercise a powerful hold on scholarly enquiry. Nonetheless, further studies on the role played by individuals holding governmental powers under dictatorships should be undertaken to better grasp the political phenomenon of totalitarianism. Previous studies have primarily focused on Alberto Beneduce’s contributions to economic and administrative history, but this volume offers the first comprehensive scholarly examination in English of Beneduce’s political and ideological positions and aims to shed light on the broad interplay between knowledge, power, economics and the political elite in Fascist Italy. Utilizing original archival material, this research presents new evidence on Beneduce’s evolution as a politician, scholar, and financier. Employing a multidisciplinary approach, it sheds new light on his pivotal role within Mussolini’s inner circle, making a substantial contribution to ongoing debates about technocracy and its function in authoritarian regimes.

This book will be of interest to researchers of Italian fascism, administrative and economic history.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gilles Deleuze, On Painting: Courses, March-June 1981, ed. David Lapoujade, trans. Charles J. Stivale – University of Minnesota Press, August 2025 and discussions

Gilles Deleuze, On Painting: Courses, March-June 1981, ed. David Lapoujade, trans. Charles J. Stivale – University of Minnesota Press, August 2025

A translation of Gilles Deleuze, Sur la peinture – ed. David Lapoujade, Minuit, 2023

I’ve shared the book before, but there is a New Books discussion of the Deleuze book with Charles Stivale, Dan Smith and Nathan Smith; and a review by Claire Colebrook at NDPR.

Available for the first time in English: the complete and annotated transcripts of Deleuze’s 1981 seminars on painting

From 1970 until 1987, Gilles Deleuze held a weekly seminar at the Experimental University of Vincennes and, starting in 1980, at Saint-Denis. In the spring of 1981, he began a series of eight seminars on painting and its intersections with philosophy. The recorded sessions, newly transcribed and translated into English, are now available in their entirety for the first time. Extensively annotated by philosopher David Lapoujade, On Painting illuminates Deleuze’s thinking on artistic creation, significantly extending the lines of thought in his book Francis Bacon

Through paintings and writing by Rembrandt, Delacroix, Turner, Cézanne, Van Gogh, Klee, Pollock, and Bacon, Deleuze explores the creative process, from chaos to the pictorial fact. The introduction and use of color feature prominently as Deleuze elaborates on artistic and philosophical concepts such as the diagram, modulation, code, and the digital and the analogical. Through this scrutiny, he raises a series of profound and stimulating questions for his students: How does a painter ward off grayness and attain color? What is a line without contour? Why paint at all? 

Written and thought in a rhizomatic manner that is thoroughly Deleuzian—strange, powerful, and novel—On Painting traverses both the conception of art history and the possibility of color as a philosophical concept.

Posted in Gilles Deleuze, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Ladelle McWhorter, Unbecoming Persons. The Rise and Demise of the Modern Moral Self – University of Chicago Press, November 2025

Ladelle McWhorter, Unbecoming Persons: The Rise and Demise of the Modern Moral Self – University of Chicago Press, November 2025

Interview with Ladelle McWhorter on the New Books Network with Sarah Tyson

Thanks to Foucault News for the links.

A damning genealogy of modern personhood and a bold vision for a new ethics rooted in belonging rather than individuality.

In the face of ecological crisis, economic injustice, and political violence, the moral demands of being a good person are almost too much to bear. In Unbecoming Persons, Ladelle McWhorter argues that this strain is by design. Our ideas about personhood, she shows, emerged to sustain centuries of colonialism, slavery, and environmental destruction. We must look elsewhere to find our way out.

This history raises a hard question: Should we be persons at all, or might we live a good life without the constraints of individualism or the illusion of autonomy? In seeking an answer, McWhorter pushes back on the notion of our own personhood—our obsession with identity, self-improvement, and salvation—in search of a better way to live together in this world. Although she finds no easy answers, McWhorter ultimately proposes a new ethics that rejects both self-interest and self-sacrifice and embraces perpetual dependence, community, and the Earth

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mustafa Aksakal, The War That Made the Middle East: World War I and the End of the Ottoman Empire – Princeton University Press, January/March 2026

Mustafa Aksakal, The War That Made the Middle East: World War I and the End of the Ottoman Empire – Princeton University Press, January/March 2026

The Ottoman Empire’s collapse at the end of the First World War is often treated as a foregone conclusion. It was only a matter of time, the story goes, before the so-called Sick Man of Europe succumbed to its ailments—incompetent management, nationalism, and ethnic and religious conflict. In The War That Made the Middle East, Mustafa Aksakal overturns this conventional narrative. He describes how European imperial ambitions and the Ottoman commitment to saving its empire at any cost—including the destruction of the Armenian community and the deaths of more than a million Ottoman troops and other civilians—led to the empire’s violent partition and created a politically unstable Middle East.

The War That Made the Middle East shows that, until 1914, the Ottoman Empire was a viable multiethnic, multireligious state, and that relations between the Arabs, Jews, Muslims, and Christians of Palestine were relatively stable. When war broke out, the Ottoman government sought an alliance with the Entente but was rejected because of British and French designs on the Eastern Mediterranean. After the Ottomans entered the fight on the side of Germany and were defeated, Britain and France seized Ottoman lands, and new national elites in former Ottoman territories claimed their own states. The region was renamed “the Middle East,” erasing a robust and modernizing 600-year-old empire.

A sweeping narrative of war, great power politics, and ordinary people caught up in the devastation, The War That Made the Middle East offers new insights about the Great War and its profound and lasting consequences.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sarah Griswold, Resurrecting the Past: France’s Forgotten Heritage Mandate – Cornell University Press, September 2025

Sarah Griswold, Resurrecting the Past: France’s Forgotten Heritage Mandate – Cornell University Press, September 2025

New Books discussion with Miranda Melcher – thanks to dmf for the link

In Resurrecting the Past, Sarah Griswold shows how the Levant became a crucial front in a post-1918 fight over the French past—a contingent and contradictory but always hard-charging struggle over a forgotten “heritage mandate.” Many scholars, clergy, pundits, politicians, and investors perceived the moment Allied forces entered Jerusalem in December 1917 to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand French influence, evoking the vision of a new colony in the territory: a French Levant. But what transpired for the French state in the Levant after World War I, and why does that ill-conceived venture still matter today?

Resurrecting the Past investigates how heritage politics led to a new form of empire—a French mandate for Syria and Lebanon—and with it a tide of regional and international critique. Against such opposition, the heritage mandate leaned heavily on spectacle and science, generating a sprawling set of sites and objects—Ottoman mansions, crusader castles, Umayyad mosques, Roman arches, buried synagogues, and Sumerian ziggurats. 

As Griswold traces how French heritage efforts cycled through multiple ideal pasts in the Levant from 1918 to 1946, she reveals how each one, though grounded in realities, also complicated those constructs and the work of French heritage-makers. Resurrecting the Past offers a parable of how efforts in heritage politics aimed to construct a union of ideologies and objects deemed the best past for France’s uncertain future but struggled as much as they succeeded. Eventually those same heritage politics ironically helped officials justify the end of the “French Levant.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lee Manion, The Recognition of Sovereignty: Politics of Empire in Early Anglo-Scottish Literature – Cambridge University Press, October 2025

Lee Manion, The Recognition of Sovereignty: Politics of Empire in Early Anglo-Scottish Literature – Cambridge University Press, October 2025

In this timely and impactful contribution to debates over the relationship between politics and storytelling, Lee Manion uncovers the centrality of narrative to the European concept of sovereignty. In Scottish and English texts traversing the political, the legal, the historiographical, and the literary, and from the medieval through to the early modern period, he examines the tumultuous development of the sovereignty discourse and the previously underappreciated role of narratives of recognition. Situating England and Scotland in a broader interimperial milieu, Manion shows how sovereignty’s hierarchies of recognition and stories of origins prevented more equitable political unions. The genesis of this discourse is traced through tracts by Buchanan, Dee, Persons, and Hume; histories by Hardyng, Wyntoun, Mair, and Holinshed; and romances by Malory, Barbour, Spenser, and Melville. Combining formal analysis with empire studies, international relations theory, and political history, Manion reveals the significant consequences of literary writing for political thought.

  • Of profound consequence for our understanding of European politics both in the past and today, uncovering the reliance of medieval and early modern sovereignty claims on both real and fictional historical narratives
  • Demonstrates how the concept and act of recognition was and still is crucial for producing authority, inviting renewed, interdisciplinary critical analysis of recognition across its political, legal, ethical, social, and literary registers
  • Reveals how literary texts actively participated in and often critiqued sovereignty discourse, unearthing innovative contributions of imaginative writing to political debate that have been obscured by modern disciplinary divisions
  • Shows how premodern kingdoms such as Scotland and England operated as empires in an inter-imperial milieu, locating Scotland and England within a larger history of European imperialism
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ghassan Hage, Pierre Bourdieu′s Political Economy of Being – Duke University Press, October 2025

Ghassan Hage, Pierre Bourdieu′s Political Economy of Being – Duke University Press, October 2025

The Introduction is open access at this link

In Pierre Bourdieu’s Political Economy of Being, Ghassan Hage explores the great French social theorist’s work and revitalizes conventional and undertheorized aspects of his thinking. Hage focuses on Bourdieu’s concern with social being and what constitutes a worthwhile and fulfilling life. Such a life is not something that one either has or does not have; rather, society distributes and assigns values to ways of living. These values are structured by relations of power and domination and are subject to the outcome of political conflicts. Hage elucidates this political economy of being by reworking Bourdieu’s key concepts of habitus, illusio, symbolic capital, and field. In this political economy, people enjoy a worthwhile life to the degree that they are able to orient and deploy themselves practically in the world that surrounds them, have a sense of purpose, and achieve a level of social recognition. For Hage, the project of theorizing and understanding how people struggle to define, legitimize, and live a viable life in the face of symbolic domination permeates all of Bourdieu’s work.

Posted in Pierre Bourdieu, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Melinda Cooper, Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance – Zone Books, May 2024, paperback 2026

Melinda Cooper, Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance – Zone Books, May 2024, paperback scheduled for early 2026 (link updated)

At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance.

Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi.

Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth.

Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Jacques Derrida, Given Time II, eds. Laura Odello, Peter Szendy and Rodrigo Therezo, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Peggy Kamuf – University of Chicago Press, March 2026

Jacques Derrida, Given Time II, eds. Laura Odello, Peter Szendy and Rodrigo Therezo, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Peggy Kamuf – University of Chicago Press, March 2026

The long-awaited conclusion to Derrida’s seminar on the gift and time.

In 1991, Jacques Derrida published the first half of a seminar delivered from 1978 to 1979 on gifts and time, but the second installment (though expected) was not completed in his lifetime. Given Time II completes the seminar with eight sessions that showcase Derrida’s most advanced work on the problematic of the gift in Heidegger, with deep dives into some of the most difficult texts in the Heideggerian corpus, including “The Origin of the Work of Art,” “The Thing,” and “On Time and Being.”

Beyond Heidegger, Derrida engages Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Maurice Blanchot, Jacques Lacan, and others on the act of giving and receiving, the sacrificial gift, and more. Throughout, Derrida identifies a paradox of gift giving: for the gift to be received as a gift, it must not appear as such, since gifts often involve a cycle of debt and repayment. Given Time II is a uniquely Derridean treatment of an important subject in the work of Heidegger and beyond.

Posted in Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Marcel Mauss, Martin Heidegger, Maurice Blanchot, Uncategorized | 1 Comment