>
> The first question has already been answered. I think the second concerns
> Foucault's illness. The lectures were generally Jan-Mar, and he wrote the
> summaries later in the academic year, when they were putting together
> reports on what had happened. Not sure of the exact date each year he wrote
> them, but this helps explain why they don't always really match what he'd
> actually done in the course - often they are more reflections on them, and
> where he might go next, rather than summaries. For the 1983 course I think
> there was a period of illness, from which he recovered well enough to
> deliver the 1984 course. The summary of that course was almost certainly
> required in his final illness - he died in June.
>
> That may not be entirely accurate, but it seems to make some sense of it.
> The chronology in Dits et ecrits might help.
>
> Stuart
That may be true for 1984, but not for 1982 and 1983. Apparently Foucault
was very disciplined submitting his summaries, which certainly were after
the fact, and sometimes do not really reflect the actual lectures.
Thanks in any case.
Michael
> The first question has already been answered. I think the second concerns
> Foucault's illness. The lectures were generally Jan-Mar, and he wrote the
> summaries later in the academic year, when they were putting together
> reports on what had happened. Not sure of the exact date each year he wrote
> them, but this helps explain why they don't always really match what he'd
> actually done in the course - often they are more reflections on them, and
> where he might go next, rather than summaries. For the 1983 course I think
> there was a period of illness, from which he recovered well enough to
> deliver the 1984 course. The summary of that course was almost certainly
> required in his final illness - he died in June.
>
> That may not be entirely accurate, but it seems to make some sense of it.
> The chronology in Dits et ecrits might help.
>
> Stuart
That may be true for 1984, but not for 1982 and 1983. Apparently Foucault
was very disciplined submitting his summaries, which certainly were after
the fact, and sometimes do not really reflect the actual lectures.
Thanks in any case.
Michael