*A note to translators: Rendering the title could be a bit difficult. First, what to do with the "Con-Text"? On the one hand, it certainly refers to the context, that is, that which accompanies the main "text." On the other hand, it certainly must refer to the notion that the con-text, the accompanying text, that is, this text which you are now reading, is a "con," a sham, a complete hoax. And yet, it's here and you're engaged in reading it and, subsequently, translating it. Second, whose/which text is the/(a) con? Is Deleuze's text the one which is the(a) con, or does the colon indicate that it is some other text which is the(a) sham: the context is the/(a) con-text, perhaps? Third, in what sense is Deleuze himself a text: his writing, his biography, his body? Fourth, when translating, however, will you allow for the various aural/oral possibilities allowed/aloud in the title? For example--and I hardly presume to do your job for you--a literal translation might render: "Le texte de Deleuze: un con-texte," in which case the text by Deleuze is merely a context of, always already inscribed within, this text. Or, "Le texte de Deleuze et con-texte," which might indicate a text by Deleuze with an accompanying context, i.e. this one. Or another still, "Le texte de Deleuze est con-texté." In this latter case, then, the position of Deleuze's text is completely reversed. Now, his text, Deleuze's text, is solely a context in relation to another--this one. Finally, in what sense is the con-text inscribed within the text, and in what sense is the text inscribed within the con-text? In other words, which of the two is primary and which secondary? Does the fact that the "text" is being read aloud, in a space "separate" or "above" the "con-text," necessarily mean that it is in any way superior or more "important" than that which is inscribed here?