A proof with corrections and autograph additions of the article "En comme de préface : Kant avec Sade" (paginée 349-373), for an edition of La Philosophie dans le boudoir, is enclosed in a nrf envelope addressed to Lacan by Jean Paulhan.
Brouillons abondamment corrigés pour sa préface aux Œuvres du marquis de Sade.
[This text was to serve as a preface to volume III of the Complete Works of Sade, published by the Cercle du livre précieux. It did not appear there, but did appear in number 191 of the review Critique, in April 1963 (pp. 291-313), then in the Écrits (Le Seuil, 1966), and in a revised version, as an afterword to a reprint of the Complete Works of Sade (October 1966)].
These leaves, abundantly erased and corrected, represent two stages of writing; the corrections are written in ink with the pen, and in pencil during a rereading; one reads two, even three essays of certain paragraphs". The reader will not advance in this bed of unwritten principles without feeling somewhere and even at every step he feels himself wavering, whatever his inclinations may be. It is that he expects to hear them flattered, when they are new duties. It is that it would impose on him, according to our author, the imperative to prevent in the short term the return "of the sceptre and the censer". A not unwelcome precaution, the sequel proved it, at the expense of Sade himself. But it should be noted that never before has such a moment undergone the counter-test of the Sadian precepts "... " "I arrogate to myself the right to enjoy your body, with no limit to the extremities to which I may come to realize my desire. It is up to me to submit to the same demands of whoever will speak the same language to me." If a society allows such an "imperative" to take effect, does its maxim, as long as no one applies it, have universal value or not? "»… « It is here that the right to enjoyment, which never came to the day of social trial, reopens the impasse to reality. For this right, which a sovereign thought arrogates to itself here to enjoy the body of every Other, it is clearly stated that the Other in question is constituted of what it cannot in principle be. An object of possession for any purpose, such as that which is referred to here...". We can see the analogy beginning to emerge from the pure will to practice to the faculty of desire. Even where Kant thinks he apologizes for not having started from the latter, it's because he sticks to defining the faculty of desire (Begehrungs-vermögen) by "the property it has of being, through its representations, the cause of the reality of the objects of the representation itself". "... Etc.