Sobre Lo Ominoso de Freud

7/28/2019 Sobre Lo Ominoso de Freud

1/52

Fiction and Its Phantoms: A Reading of Freud's Das Unheimliche (The "Uncanny")Author(s): Sigmund Freud, James Strachey, Hlne Cixous and Robert DennomSource: New Literary History, Vol. 7, No. 3, Thinking in the Arts, Sciences, and Literature(Spring, 1976), pp. 525-548+619-645Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/468561 .

Accessed: 21/04/2013 01:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

New Literary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.230.136.232 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:53:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/468561?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/468561?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/52

Fiction nd Its Phantoms: A ReadingofFreud'sDas UnheimlicheThe "uncanny")Helkne ixous

THESE PAGES ARE MEANT as a readingdividedbetween iteratureand psychoanalysis, ithspecial attention aid to what is pro-duced and what escapes in theunfolding f a text, ometimesled byFreud and at other imesbyhisdouble. Indeed, Freud's textmay strikeus to be less a discourse han a strangetheoreticalnovel.There is something savage" in the Unheimliche, breathor a pro-vocativeair whichat times atchesthe novelist imself ff uard,over-takinghim and restraining im. Freud and the object of his desire(i.e., thetruth bout theUnheimliche)are fired yreciprocal nspira-tion. As a commentary n uncertainty, ith its tightly rawn netmendedby itsplotsand theirresolutions,his ong text of Freud em-ploysa peculiarlydisquietingmethod to track down the conceptdasUnheimliche, heDisquietingStrangeness,heUncanny.Nothing urnsout lessreassuring orthereaderthan thisniggling, autious,yet wilyand interminable ursuit of "something"-be it a domain, an emo-tional movement, concept, mpossible o determineyetvariable initsform,ntensity,uality, nd content). Nor does anything rovetobe more fleeting han this search whose movement constitutes helabyrinth hich nstigatest; the sense ofstrangenessmposes tssecretnecessity verywhere.The ensuingunfoldingwhose operation s con-tradictorys accomplished by the author's double: Hesitation. Weare faced,then,witha text nd itshesitatinghadow,and theirdoubleescapade. As forplots,what sbrought ogether ere s quicklyundone,what asserts tself ecomessuspect; each thread eads to itsnet or tosome kindofdisentanglement.n thelabyrinthianpace, manychar-acters lluded to as witnesses nd well-informedersons ppear and arequicklyrelegatedto the cornerof some streetor paragraph. Whatunfoldswithout ailbefore he reader's yes s a kind ofpuppettheaterin whichreal dollsor fakedolls,real and simulated ife,are manipu-lated by a sovereignbut capricious stage-setter.The net is tightlystretched, owed, and tangled; the scenesare centered nd dispersed;narratives re begun and left n suspension.Just s the reader thinks

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/52

526 NEW LITERARY HISTORYhe is followingomedemonstration,e senses hatthesurface s crack-ing: the text lidesa few rootsunder thegroundwhile t allowsothersto be loftedn the air. Whatin one instance ppearsa figure fscienceseems aterto resemble ometypeoffiction.This textproceedsas itsown metaphor, s Mallarm- recallsHamlet, reading n a book abouthimselfwhilenoticing hatmemory,n retrospect,erves o prophesy.Oh, myprophetic oul!A textdealingwiththe natureof incertitudes approachedby thereaderwith a sense of distrust nd fascination, or in the exchangewhichtakesplace between hetext tself nd itsreading, nthis nticinginterplaywhere he text lwaysemerges stepahead, thedoubtful le-mentsof the textnecessarily ngenderdoubt in itsreader. This phe-nomenonmayaccount forthereader's enseofpleasureand boldness.We shall examine the strangepleasure incurred n the readingofthe Freudiantext and of the inseparableand concomitant neasinesswhich parallelsFreud's own, describes t, and which can hardlybedistinguishedrom t.Freud leads his investigation f the frighteningbject which con-stituteshenucleusoftheUnheimlichen twodifferentays.We shallallowourselves obe guidedat timesbyand againstFreud'sdesign, ywhat is certain nd bywhat is hypothetical,yscienceand fiction, ytheobject that s "symbolized" nd by that which"symbolizes."Weshall be guided by ambivalence and in conformitywith the un-decidable natureofall that touchestheUnheimliche: life and fiction,life-as-fiction,heOedipus myth, he castration omplex,and literarycreation. Undecided, the analyst,the psychologist,he reader,thewriter, he multitude f named and anonymous ubjectswhich arebroughtup and which disappear into the fabric of the text (theyhave, indeed,been thwartedby Freud himself)go along two routeswhichat least ead us back to our dissatisfaction. irstofall, in allow-ingourselves o be led,we are submissive o Freud's entreaty,nd thuswe share n hisdisillusionment:because thecomplexityftheanalysisand its uffocationo hand-in-handwith heuncertaintyftheanalyst.Is this a playor a replaywith hesitation?Doesn't the analysiswhichbringsup thewholequestionofrepressionsmprinthemat once upontheone who undertakes he analysis?Everythingakesplace as iftheUnheimlichewent back to Freud himselfn a vicious nterchange e-tweenpursuedand pursuer;as if one of Freud's repressionscted asthe motorre-presentingt each moment he analysisofthe repressionwhich Freud was analyzing: theUnheimliches at the root of Freud'sanalysis. Our role as readerscaught in the Unheimliche s a curiousdouble oftherole ofthe otherreader, hatoftheSand-Man. Accord-



4/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 527ing to Freud,the dangerouseye-glasswhichpasses from he narratorto the unfortunate rotagonisteaps upon theeyesofthe reader,andexposeshim to the horrible eculiarity f the world ofdoubles. Therecan be no doubt concerning he doubtful dentity f the menacingcharacters.However,what is perceivedby thesecondary yeshas noplace eithern reality r inverisimilitude,utonly n theUnheimliche,intheunrecognized nd unrecognizablepheres. If it is truethatwhatis recounted o the eye alwaysfallsback on the idea of castration,tis not upon the simplenarration f the Oedipus story.Throughtheunendingseries of substitutions,he eye becomesmultiplied, nd thefamiliarwork of the eye, in turn,becomes the enigmaticproductionof itsscattereddoubles,sparksof fire, orgnettes,yeglasses, ar- andnear-sighted isions,the theatricalsecret which the Freudian textbrushesup against,mimics, nd even escapes.On three differentccasions, Freud proceeds to a confrontationwith the Unheimliche nd attempts o describe t, fromthe startingpointofdoubt. The wholeenterprise,romts nception,maybe desig-nated as an act oftheoretical oldness nd as the answerto a solicita-tion issued from a domain wishingto be explored. This is a subtleinvitation o transgressionn the part of the Unheimliche, nd anansweror perhapsan anticipation n thepartof Freud. Desire is nostranger o that which may be construedas an adventure: desireinsures tscomingand going. It links tsdetours nd its nterludes.As prologue in thefirst ourparagraphs)Freudseeks o justify im-self to thepointof exoneration: how and whyhe takesa stand aboutan area whichdoes notappear tofall underthe urisdiction fanalysis.Psychoanalysis akes possessionof an aestheticdomain neglected byaesthetics;but this does not constitute he first imethistypeof in-cursionhas been made. For a long time,the workof art has been"beckoning"Freud and he has been castinga sidelong glance on itsenticing ffects: his excuse here s based on the questionof emotion,on thenecessityfsomeday tudyingtsfrustratingconomy. motionalmovementdoes not, as such, comprisethe objectiveof the psycho-analytical study; it only formsthe networkof effects ubmitted oaesthetics.Psychoanalysiss interestedn "psychic ife," n "profound"domains. There arise here the mysteryf literary reationand thesecret*ofhis enviablepower possessedby its creatorwho manages toseduce us. More precisely,his s what fascinates reud: "The free-dom of the author,the privilege ccorded fiction n orderto evokeand inhibit"the emotions r thephantasmsof the reader,the powerto liftor impose censorship.Therein residesthe motivationbehindthesemany ttemptst initiating theory f thispower,underthe term



5/52

528 NEW LITERARY HISTORYofthefirsteduction r ofpreliminary leasure: thetheory fpleasurewhich sfrequentlyerivedfrom omeadjacent development.Thus, inder Dichter und das Phantasieren 1907) in which the theoreticalproposition merges nlyas an afterthoughtn a textwhichdeals pri-marilywith thephantasms f itscreator, ne feels hismixture fdis-trust nd attractionwithwhich Freudinvests hispleasure whichrisesto the principle of pleasure and beyond ), and linkstwo typesofpleasure: from he firsteduction(Verlockungspriimie) roducedbyformalsuccess,which, in turns,permits veritable"pleasure,and aconvergence f severalsourcesof pleasure. First of all, Freud callsupon thecreator's echniquebywhich he mayovercome herepulsionwhichcauses the phantasmof the other nsomuch s he is the other.The ars poeticawould favor uch a processof identification;t works"upon existing imitsexistingbetween each self and the otherpartsof the self." Formal pleasure-which is linked to representation-would hide and permit he liberation f anotherpleasureresidingnmoreprofound ources. It is perhapspossible hatwe, then,return oour own phantasms fterhavingtakenthedetourbythe other self),for the "assuagement"of our "soul." Yet if the theory f the firstseduction ppearstorestprimarilyn a hedonist thematism,"3tover-looks-and thisdisplacesthetheory-whatno themecan recover, ndthat s precisely he Unheimliche.Freud considers he Unheimliche s, at the same time,a "domain"and a "concept,"an elasticdesignation.The factof the matter s thatthe "domain" remains ndefinite;heconcept s without nynucleus:theUnheimliche resentstself, irst f all, onlyon thefringe fsome-thing lse. Freudrelates t to other onceptswhich resemblet (fright,fear, nguish) it is a unit n the "family"but it is notreally mem-berofthefamily.Freud declaresthat t is certain hatthe use of theUnheimliche s uncertain. The indefinitenesss partand parcel ofthe"concept." The statement nd its enunciation ecome rejoinedor re-united. The statement annot be encircled: yetFreud, arguingforthe existence f the Unheimliche,wishesto retain thesense,the real,thereality f the senseofthings.He thusseeks out "the basic sense."Thus the analysis s anchored, t once, in what is denoted. And it isa questionof a conceptwhose entire enotation s a connotation.In the thirdparagraph,Freud rigorouslyefocuses he relationbe-tween aesthetics nd themedico-psychologicalisciplines.He under-scores herepressiveimits f aestheticswhichconvey deological mpli-cations. Aesthetics eals withpositive nd casts aside contraryenti-ments uglinessas a positivevalue has scarcely place in this tradi-tion). Then, there ppearstheneuro-psychiatrictudyof E. Jentsch.4



6/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 529Freudconsiders tboth nterestingnd deceptive;as an insufficientetrespected recursor, entschwill represent, enceforth,he "layman's"attitude,which is "intellectual"and indeed antianalytical ecause ofitsphenomenological pproach to strangeness.Freud offers,traighta-way, a subjective explanation for Jentsch'sfailure: he has notsufficientlyelved into literature; he concerns himselfonly witheveryday xperience.Thus he loses "all claimto priority."Literatureis the objectiveof psychoanalyticalnquiry. A hierarchys createdthrough hesystem fpriorities.Freud calls upon whathas, as yet,receivedno theoretical ttention,notablyupon "sensibility,"nd, more precisely, is own, because itis exemplarynd differentrom heaverage sensibility,nd "singularlyinsensitive" o the Unheimliche. Assumingthe personality f "theauthor of thisessay,"Freud bringsJentschnto reliefhere and entersthe scene in a double role: actor and "mechanician," analyst andsubject of analysis. "It is long since he had experiencedor heardof anythingwhichhad givenhiman uncanny mpression."When thesubject is so questionedby the author'sundertaking,t givesrise toastonishmentincewhat was familiar o him s nowpeculiaror strangeto him. Thingsno longerknow how to reach him.... He must, hus,go to them; it is in thisway that the scholarpusheshimself orwardand comes to lifeagain so thatthe representation hichreplacestheexperiencemayemerge. This enableshim to examinethe stateswhichhe studiesbyexperimentingpon himself.Whathad been lost returns.first, nd the procession f ghosts s clandestinely shered n. Then,as if in reaction o a privatedesiredreturnwhichrejectsmelancholy,Freud reverts o theuniversal, rnearly o; he calls out "to themajorityof men," to a nearly mpossible onsensus, s if the Unheimlichewererecognized n the same way by everyone.A ratherparadoxicalhope,onemight hink, ince t is in the natureofthe Unheimliche o remainstrange. But hope should notbe repelled. The patheticfeature ftherisk hatpropsthescientificpon the unscientificecalls hedivergencein the makeup of the Unheimliche-the familiar and the strange-which Freud positsas the cornerstone orhis research. Justas thestillundetermined nheimliche enefits rom hestatusof concept, otoo is the nonscientificlothedwiththedignity f the scientific.In thisequivocal area, in which the author admits that he is thehesitant ubject of his inquiry, he text bifurcates oward the choicesin method,thus making indecision the occasion of some progress.Bifurcation: Two courses re open to us at the start." Each produces.in a differentmannerthe same result,which startsthe processoveragain; one (linguistic xperience) or the other (everyday xperience)



7/52

530 NEW ITERARYISTORYor the two. Fromone ambivalenceto another, r else language as ageneral phenomenon],r else theworld as a series findividual ases;nevertheless,hese womethods re proposed o us although he choicehas been made by Freud and the methodalreadyfollowed. Freudassignsus an inverted rder n relationto the one he has followed.After he event,thehistory f the inquirypresentstself y the othermethod, s if he had wanted to beginbythe undecidedelementn theUnheimlichewhich is lodged in language.The oppositedirection method]: a history f Un: Freud makes alexical statement pon which he comments, eginningwithJentsch'ssuspensionpoint. Does anythingnew exist beyond the unfamiliardomain? The psychologicalviewpointpresentedby Jentsch (theUnheimliche s an intellectual ncertainty),hepartconcerningeeing,knowing occupies the first tage of the inquiry: the Unheimlicheappears as comingunexpectedly romtheworldtoward the subject.Once Jentsch's ositionhas been displacedand set down,what doesits anguage ay?The lexical continuation, voyage of reference hroughforeignlanguages,constitutes polylinguisticictionaryrticle. Throughsucha displayof definitions,he world returns, samplingof everydayexperience, f home economics, f domesticproblems. And yet . . .this umberroom,far fromwinningus over,thischain of quotationswhichHeimliche or Unheimliche hreadstogether,ppears to us anoverlong, eliriousdiscourse n whichtheworld s seen as a deceptivereduction, ot without polymorphic erversityleanedfrom "child-dictionary"dictionnaire-enfant].he bodyof articles xhalesa dream-likefog,for ll lexical nventoriesecessarily layon the imit mposedby literal and figurativemeanings. And it is Freud himselfwhoextricates rom he confusion headded thing; t is in extremishatthedictionary rovidesus with the sign: "Unheimliche s the name foreverythinghatoughtto have remained . . hiddenand secret nd hasbecome visible."5 Thus, fromone pointof view,the lexicographicalundertakings undermined y the articlewhich also functions s themetaphorof its own setting.Moreover,Schelling, t the momentofarrival,drawsa curtain: "All that whichshould have remainedhid-den." Schelling inks he Unheimliche o a lack ofmodesty. t is onlyat theend thatthesexualthreat merges.Butit had alwaysbeen therelatently,n thecoupling tself nd in theproliferationfthe Heimlicheand of the Unheimliche;when one makes contact with the other, tclosesagain and closesthehistoryfmeaningupon itself, elineatingthrough hisgesture hefigure ftheandrogyne.The word oins itselfagain, and Heimliche and Unheimlichepair off.



8/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 531At the end of thisstrangecrossing f languages,Unheimliche anconsider tself partofthismyth: fromHeimlicheto Unheimliche. nthiscrossing, hemeaningreproduces tself r it becomesextinguishedor it s stirred p. Oppositionhas beenblunted;thedivergence penedjust enoughspace for t to be reclosed. The phoenixreproduces tself.Elsewhere,Freud's commentary ttempts o mitigatethe disquietingcharacterof the junctionby contriving sortof dislocationof con-traries: a remarkablerepugnanceto acknowledgethe absolute re-closingthat takes place. The coincidenceof contraries manates,heclaims, from the fact that the Heimliche belongsto two groups of

representation hich "are ... verydifferent." his indirectly ringsup the questionof hierarchyn the dual relationship f two terms:is thereany inversion f theHeimlicheand the Unheimliche, r else,startingfromHeimliche, is there any emergence, hroughthe Un-heimliche, f a new concept? Therein,exactly,rests he stakeof thepursuit;what, in effect, oldsFreud's attentions precisely hissome-thing bsolutelynewspelledout by Schellingwithrespect o the con-tentoftheconcept,which,nevertheless,annotbe "found" there,butwhich,by way of thebaroque forest f the dictionary,lips into thisdisturbing omain.We recall that,for the reader,Freud suggests n approach dia-metricallypposedto his own: whathas finally merged s the notionofsex,which was ignored t thebeginning, ince Freud began bythenotionof sublimation.The threadshave been pulled together; firstthreadfor ambivalentmeanings,which goes as far as meetingwithits opposite; a second thread,which links Schelling's remark: thestatement f exicalambivalence s thus exually harged. Freudplaceshisfingern thenodalpoint. He pullson thethreads nd tightenshem.The choice of "a suitable example": we findourselvesback at thecrossroads, nd we take the one thatgoes through he world. Onceagain,we alludetoJentsch'spinion n order ooutstriptimmediately.Instead of a dictionary,we now have a splitscene of animated "ob-jects"-Freud's summaryof Jentsch'spositionas essentially littleraisedstage or setting.The "author" introduceshere the preoccupa-tion ofthetheater, verythinghichthe theater epresentss an imageofliving nd whatI'e is able, as a canvas,to hide from heatrics.Onthestage and thestage of the stage,the relationship etweenFreud'sdiscovery oncerningcientificruth nd themechanicsof fictionmaybe broughtout. Freud's own text,here,functionsike a fiction: thelongworkonpersonalpulsations, hedramaticredistributionponsuchand such an approach, the suspenseand surprises nd impasses; all



9/52

532 NEW LITERARY HISTORYof that seems a partof the special work of fiction, nd the "author"takesadvantageof thenarrator's rivileges o which the analystcan-not consent. "Better than anyoneelse," says Freud, it is the writerwho consents ogivebirth othe Unheimliche.The writers alsowhatFreudwantstobe. Freudsees n himself hewriter,heone whom theanalystmustquestionconcerning he literaturewhich psychoanalysismust understand n orderto knowitself.He is, in his relationshipothewriter, s the Unheimlicheis in its relationshipo theHeimliche.In his strangenesswithrespect o creation,he feels himself a case."The enigmaof the Unheimlichehas a literary nswer,claims Freudinthe mannerofJentsch,nd this shismostreliable nswer.Scarcelydoes he appropriateJentsch's xample (in the mannerofchildren: thisdoll belongedtome) whenhe declares himself he truemaster f themethod incehispredecessor id not knowhowto makeproperuse of t. The way n whichhemisappropriatesetrays stingingboldnessand the ployof a fox! On the one hand, Freud quotes theJentsch itation about the Sand-Man beginningwith the characterof the automaton, he doll Olympia. At the same time,he discardsJentsch's nterpretation.The latter links the Unheimlicheto thepsychologicalmanipulation fHoffmann,whichconsistsn producingand preservingncertainty ithrespect o the truenatureofOlympia.Is sheanimateor nanimate? Does Freudregrethepsychologicalrgu-ment? So be it. He takesadvantageof t to displacetheUnheimlicheof the doll withthe Sand-Man. Thus, underthe cover of analyticalcriticism nd uncertainty,he doll which had been relegatedto thebackground s already, n effect,n thetrap. Its repression ill be ac-complished,moreover,with the approval or the complicity f thereader, of whom Freud, henceforth,s well aware. His real andpersistentoncernwith thereader'spointofview,his attention o andhis demand forcommunicability, hichproceedfromhiswell-knownneed to share [with hereader],to guide,to teach,and to justify im-selfbeforehim-this pedagogical procedure hat we findthroughouthisdiscourse ponoccasionmayappear tobe encouraging he obvious."I hope that mostreaderswill agree withme," says the oratorwhotakesno risk whatsoeverwithoutmakingan alliance or returningoit. The dialogue enteredupon with the reader is also a theatricalartificen whichthe answerprecedes nd envelops hequestion. Fromthenon, it is a matter,withoutfurther elay,of turning he episodeinvolvingOlympia intosatire,thusmanagingto eclipse and obscureit. We getsand thrown n oureyes,no doubtaboutit.Next comes Freud's narrationof the Sand-Man and the accountis faithfulor so itwouldseem); it s nota paraphrase. Freuddelights



10/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 533in havingto rewrite he tale structurally,eginningwith the centerdesignated s such a priori. The wholestory s recounted henbytheSand-Man who tearsout children's yes. Giventhe factthatFreud'sapproach is that of invertedrepetition,ne sees how he rewriteshetale fordemonstrativeurpose: a reading hat s reclosed s that ntheUnheimliche s now closed on the Heimliche. The reader gets theimpressionhatFreud's narratives not as Unheimliche s he claims:is that new elementwhichshouldhave remainedhidden doubtless ooexposedhere? Or did Freud renderuncanniness omething oo famil-iar? Was the letter tolen? The two versions f the Sand-Man haveto be read in order to notice what has been slippedintoone versionfromthe other. As a condensednarrative, reud's story s singularlyaltered n the direction f a linear, ogical account of Nathaniel andstrongly rticulated as a kind of "case history,"going fromchild-hood remembranceso the delirium nd the ultimate ragicend. Allthrough hestory, reud intrudes n variousways: in one instance obring he fantastic ack to therational the Unheimliche o the Heim-liche); in another nstance,he intrudes o establishexplicit iaisonswhich are not conveyedas such in the text. These interventions,neffect, onstitute redistributionf the storywhile they tend toattenuate,to the point of effacement,he characterswho representtheHeimliche, ike Clara and her brother. He minimizes he uncer-taintyrevolving round Olympia, thus pushing Olympia toward thegroup of the Heimliche and clearlydiminishing he textureof thestory ytrimming,n particular, hediscontinuityf theexposition, hesequence,the succession fnarrators,nd pointsof view. These inter-ventionsorganize a confrontation etween the Sand-Man and Na-thaniel whichis much moresustained nd obsessivebut also less sur-prising han in the originalversion. If the reader'seye is applied tothe satanic eyeglass ftheoptician (by Hoffmann,-Freudsuggests-an action which betrays number of intentions n the part of the"author"), the function f theeyeglass s it is replayedbyFreud con-stitutes disturbing omplexity: it seemsto eradicate the doubt con-cerningthe author's ntention.Does it, indeed, lead us toward reallife or toward the fantastic?No moredoubt (there s repetition ndinsistence n Freud's part concerning he rejectionof doubt): by aseriesofabruptthrusts,reud jumpsfrom ne effect o the other giv-ing theappearanceofgoingfrom ause to effect)untilreaching"thepointofcertitude,"freality, hichhewishes oestablish s thecorner-stone upon which he may found his analytical argument. We areobliged to accept this "conclusion" with its retroactive ffects, r toget out of this venturewithout oss. Let us play: let's concede that



11/52

534 NEW ITERARYISTORYthere s a real sequence and notonlya semblanceofsequence in sucha peremptory eclaration.6 And let's relyon the logic of "conse-quently": we do not question, like Freud, that Coppola may beCoppelius, thus the Sand-Man in reality;and we believeNathanielnot to be delirious utclairvoyant.Letus acceptthese ffectsand alsothis fictionalunityof the reader and the analyst), and this "art ofinterpretation,"ut not withoutkeepingthe secretdesireto unmaskwhat should not have remained hidden in such a selectivereading.Freud pruned the storyof its involved narrativestructure, f theheterogeneityf its pointsof view, of all "superfluous"detail (the"operatic" aspect of the account with its chorusesof students ndvillagers nd the retinue fmediationswhicharemoreor less useful otheplot), pruned t ofany meaningwhichdid not seemto contributeto the thematic conomyof thestory. But shouldnot thisgesture fthecutting fsuchHoffmannesque rees Freud,moreover, omplainsof theirthickness)be underscored? For it is indeed a question ofcutting ather han one ofsummarizing,s if nsistinghatthepresenceofeyescontaminated hesight hat reads the text. The roleof panto-mime,so strikingn Hoffmann's tory,7 s precisely he elementthataccountsforthe charmof this creativework,thisspringing romtheErinnerung hrough he epistolary ccount up to the carnivalscene,this xtrementeriorizationfsubjects nd reduplication fan ordinaryrealityby an extraordinaryne (which prohibitsreading the storyexclusivelyn one or theotherworlds). This pantomime hatobligesthereader n factto appreciatethis uperbcreationfrom hereal andimaginaryxes is categoricallyxpelledbyFreud. Therein prings hatdebatable proceedingof intellectualuncertaintywhich leads him todance betweenpsychologynd psychoanalysis. he ramblingdemon-strabilityurns ack attentivelyowhat is at stake, nd reflects reud'sconstraint:decreeing, orexample,thatuncertaintyn such and sucha point s not as uncertain s that: Coppola = Coppelius. But this sso by paronomasia. Rhetoricdoes not create the real. To perceiveidentitiess reassuring,utperceiving incomplete" dentitiess anothermatter. In his reduction f "intellectualuncertainty" o a rhetoricaluncertainty,reud appearstobe playing n thevelvet f exicography.Because Jentsch's ocabularys answerable o psychology,reud allowshimself hepossibilityf completely xcluding hisuncertaintynsofaras it would be "intellectual." When the Unheimlicheforces backthe Jentschianmotif, s therenot,in fact,a repression f the repres-sion? Does notJentschaymore thanwhatFreudwishes o read?Eyes in one's pockets: It is up to us to read in itsambiguity reud'sphraseand what itcensures: "This short ummaryeaves, think,no



12/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 535doubt...." Do we understand ythat,Hoffmann's tory r thestorythat is quicklyrecounted?But it is precisely he short ummary hatdisplacesand engenders oubt. Thinking bout this methodoftellingas a deformationfthethoughtn the text n the manner n whichwespeak ofthought n a dream,Freud "relates," n fact,how he wouldhave deciphered he puzzle of the dream. His elaborationbegins, nreality, rom conclusionwhichreturnshe analysis o the still ntra-analyticalcircle. This is a conclusionthat cuts two,ways. (I) Theexpulsionof "intellectualuncertainty" llows the prescription f ananalytical nterpretation;nd theminimizing fOlympia leads to thefocus on Nathaniel. (2) In this narrativeof the Sand-Man, Freudplays up the fear of becomingblind and its substitute o that theSand-Man is cut offfromview by the reducingequation: Sand-Man = lossofeyes yet t snotso simple s this). Thus, in one stroke,the twogreat nd extraordinaryiguresresupplanted, nd withthem,Hoffmann's heater: one halfofthe text s eliminated.Only theeyesremain: Freud's terrain s now lessmobile;we are on territoryhichis verymuch reinforced y observations nd theoreticalknowledge("to learn," "learned"). On the one hand, the fear of the loss ofsight s a factof daily experiencewhichclichesunderscore, nd thatis a familiarfear. Moreover,examinationof three formations f theunconscious dreams, phantasms,myths) shows that this fear hidesanother, hatof castration. Oedipus, who is summonedbriefly ere,givestestimonyhat enucleation s an attenuation f castration.Andcastration, nucleation,and Oedipus assertthemselveshere withoutourbeingsure,however, ftheirposition elative othe whole nwhichtheyare constituted. f one articulates he implication, he accent isplaced on castration ather hanon Oedipus; analysis f the Unheim-lichecan thuspass for nalysis f the nuclearOedipus-castrationues-tion. Freud, moreover,has not elaborated directly oncerningthecomplex articulationof the Oedipus-castration: the boy is led toliquidate his Oedipus because of the castration omplexthat has thebearingofsomething orbidden.Freud startsfromthe fearthe boy experiences f seeinghis penisremoved. But we should thus examine thisprinciple, or t is a factthatFreud never bandoned (or wantedto abandon) thesexual char-acterofcastration;we should likewise xamine here the return o thefatherwhich thecastrationmyth mplies. In pointof fact,the entireanalysisof the Unheimliche s characterized we shall see thismoreand more learly)byFreud'sresistanceocastrationnd itseffectuality.For Freud,castrationmustbe thepointof ts own enigma: enuclea-tion is nothingbut an attenuationof castration; there is a "sub-



13/52

536 NEW ITERARYISTORYstitutive elationbetweenthe eye and the male member." How canwe reinforce y a rationalpointofview this affirmationhichFreudsoon recognizes s a debatable one? Indeed, one mightreverse heterms castration s an attenuation . .) or make themequivalent:enucleation or castration. Freud, then, leaves one nonproofforanother,by affirminghat the secretof castrationdoes not refer oanother ecretmoreprofound hanthatwhich sarticulated yanguish:the fear of castration efers ack to castration nd, at the very eastor most,to itsprocessofsubstitutionthe relationship f substitution,Ersatzbeziehung f thepenisto the eye and to otherorgans8). KeintieferesGeheimnis: "no secretanymoreprofound," aysFreud: the"veryobscuresentiment" f resistance o the threatof castration sthesame for all of thepresentationsf the loss of an organ. Freud'stheoreticalwork is concerned with the quality of the fear that iselicited. Attentions thusfocusedon this trong nd obscure entimentwhich s theuncanny lement f anxiety.What lies on the other ide ofcastration?"No meaning"other hanthefear (resistance)of castration. t is thisno-other-meaningKeineandere Bedeutung) which presents tself new (despite our wish tounderplay t) in the infinite ame of substitutions,hroughwhichwhat constitutes heelusivemomentoffear returns nd eclipses tselfagain. It is thisdodgingfrom earto fear, heunthinkable ecret inceit does not open on any othermeaning: its "agitation" (Hoffmannwould say "Unruhe") is its affirmation. ven here, sn'teverythingrepercussion, discontinuouspreading ftheecho,but oftheecho asa displacement,nd not n any wayas a referentosometranscendentalmeaning?The effect funcanniness everberatesrather hanemerges),for heword s a relational ignifier.Unheimliches infact a compositethat infiltrateshe intersticesf the narrative nd pointsto gaps weneed to explain. This is what Freud underscoreswith a kind of re-lentlessnessn the guise of urgentquestionswhich are in fact tanta-mount to emphaticpropositions: yetthe"question" why(a mask forbecause) obligatesthe theoryto account for the "arbitrary"char-acteristicsfthe tory.Whatthen ppearsas a shadow nthe Freudianargumentis the "arbitrary"requirement oncerning meaning: arelation freciprocalguarantee etsup, here, tsmirroringffect.Thehypothesisimed at filling hegaps (these "become filledwith mean-ing") derives rom refusal o admit the nsignificancefcertain har-acteristics.Without hishypothesis,henarrationwould be castrated.The fear of castration omes to therescue of the fear of castration.As a result f thestatement fpropositionsthe linkwith the deathof thefather;the linkwith thetrammels f love; the assertion f the



14/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 537arbitrary ature of propositions he reversalof his own) which referto infantile earsthatqualifythe castration omplex,the doll and itsdouble are reintroduced.Olympia, "doll" adult, the object of Na-thaniel'sdesire,and Olympia, doll, the toyof littlegirls, erve as aguaranteeforthe adjective infantile.Freud initiates developmenthere concerning hildhood: any symptom, apse, and dream has aforked ranch which encounters childhoodexperience r event. Thesubject, "one," cites the case of an eight-year-oldirl (patient) whothought hat her"concentrated" aze wouldbringdolls to life. In thisexample, the three effects f desire intersect: the hysterico-magicalattitude9 the gaze can producean effect f direct ction); the "con-centrated"eye,the eye-penis, nd the doll thatis secretly live. Thisexample bringsup again the doll motif s well as the debate on theJentsch-Freudplit. Freud underscores he displacementof fear bythe desireorbeliefwithin he child thatthedoll s alive. (ButNathanielis not "afraid" of Olympia.) That is something hat appears con-tradictory.Research on thischapterends with a theoretical uestionin abeyance (we shall understandt "later on"). From the time thedoll makes its appearance in the story, he narrationmoves in anoblique fashion nd runsaway with tself. The doll is not,however,relegated o somemoreprofound lace than that of a note [footnote],a typographicalmetaphorof repressionwhich is alwaystoo near butnevertheless egligible.Note to Olympia; or the other tory f theSand-Man: In the formofa note,Freud, n fact,givesus a secondnarrativewhich would pre-sumablybe onlythe"reestablished," irst nd originalversion, loser othe interpretationf a case than to the displacementwroughtby thecreator's magination eginningwiththese elements. It is no longeraquestionhere of the Sand-Man, but ratherof its analyticalversion.CoppIlius is designatedhere as the redoubtablefather. Freud makesthestructure f a myth erve functionnalogoustothatundergone yneuroses.This Sand-Man is also a surreptitiousereading f theWolf-Man10 (witha few elements orrowedfrom heObsessed-Man): thefunctionof Nathaniel'smaid, and of Nania of the Wolf-Man; thefatherdecomposed nto new father, God-pig and tenderfather;areedition f the father y the Latin professor,Mr. Wolf (son of son-filius-daughter)nd by Spalanzani. To be sure,the analogyhas noscientific alue but it is certainly he citationsof this storywhichcolor the restof thisanalysis (thoughFreud does not referback toKleinerSchriftenur Neurosenlehre). The filigreed resenceof thesecases allowsFreud to acceleratehis argument nd justify he apparent



15/52

538 NEW LITERARY HISTORY"imprudence." It follows hat if in the ordering f thisnew text,adismembered,ightened-up,nd reassembledOlympiatakes on a newimportance, he is, at once, retrieved y the interpretation: she canbe nothing lse than a personificationfNathaniel'sfeminine ttitudetoward his father n his infancy," ays Freud. To be sure! Homo-sexuality eturnsn realityunderthischarmingfigure.But Olympiais more than ust a detachedcomplexofNathaniel. If she is no morethanthat,whyare notthedance, thesong,themechanisms, nd theartificer roughtback into the game or theorizedupon by Freud?What are we expectedto do with thesepuppetswhichhave hauntedthestagesof Germanromanticism?"11Again, thebeautifulOlympia is effacedbywhat she represents,orFreud has no eyesfor her. This woman appears obscene because sheemergestherewhere "one" did not expect her to appear, and shethuscauses Freud to take a detour. And what if the doll became awoman? What if she were alive? What if, in lookingat her,weanimatedher?

Superannuated, solated fromthe scene, the doll comes outbetween wo acts.Rebirth nd historyfthedouble: Make wayforanother dventure:Freud tellsus now a "surprisingtory," hat of the birth nd evolutionof the double, the productand hiding-place f castration.This fan-tasticstory akes place on severalstagessimultaneously,n a spatio-temporalemancipationworthyof fiction. "The author who enjoysmuch freedom lso possesses he freedom o selectat will the theaterof his fictional ction. The storytelleras this license among manyothers, hathe can select his worldof representationo that it eithercoincideswiththe realitieswe are familiarwith or departsfrom hemin whatparticulars e pleases,"saysFreudwithrespect o theenviedcreator. At thismoment,Freudhas this freedom t his disposal: thefact is that he keepshis text n these ndistinctnd libidinousregionswherethe ight f aw does notyetcast ts ogic and wheredescription,pluralhypotheses,nd all thepretheoretical amesaregivenfreereign.This story fthedoubleresembles henovel of"theunequalledmaster"of the Unheimlichewhichpresents a mass ofthemes o whichone istempted o ascribe heuncanny ffect. . ." The whole (novel,story)is "too intricate" nd confused orus to attempt otake out an excerpt.What does thedisconcerted eader do? He "selects"the mostsalientthemes n order to seek out what he hopes to find. And what aboutthe rest? One pulls a thread. The tapestry emains. Freud, then,satisfieshis always controlleddesire to achieve an economyof the



16/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 539"confusion"and abundance: the Unheimlichedisplays ts branches,itsenigmas nd apparitions n an historical-mythicaloundation.Firstcluster: the network fthe manifestationsf thedouble; "telepathy,"identification ade from ne to the other, eplacement f the strangeselfbytheproper elf, leavage,substitution,edoubling f theself, ndfinally,herecurrent eturn f what is similar this ast trait s under-scored as farthermosty Freud), repetition f the same traits, har-acteristics,nd destinies,tc. Secondcluster: researchersfthedouble:Otto Rank, Hoffmann, reud,thepsychoanalyst,hepsychologist,heliterarynventor, he poet Heine, a seriesof questionsand inquirieswhichmaybe tracedback toprehistoricalimes o a foundation fgodsand demons. A mythic nthropologys outlined. Third cluster: aseriesofanecdotalexampleswhichare literary,iographical, ales andremembrances nd mini-stories ithin hestory.These threeclusters,whichare made up ofunusual and scattered lements, re recombinedin a great disorderof meaningsthroughpointsof intersection ndattractionwhich appear frequentlyo be orderedby chance. Never-theless, heyare crystallized hrough ontact with the fourth luster,which ends ntrigueothe entire tory. he fourth luster: each themeis the double of anothertheme; the primitiveoul refers ack to thefiguration f dream language, to Egyptianart,to the child's soul bya system f metaphoror representationshich psychoanalysisinks:the "algebraic sign" Unheimliche s that which masks"the unlimitedego" and primitive arcissium. But as a changing ign, t passesfromtheaffirmationfsurvival o the announcement fdeath. As an "an-ticipatory ign" the uncannyalludes to the death pulse (just as thisentiretext is a forerunner f Lustprinzips)within which pulse thereinforcementf lifebythedouble is replaced bythepulsationof thedischargerepeal. So too thetext s reinforced, edoubled,discharged;itpivots nd becomesa forerunnerfitself.As filigree fthisanalysis fthesilent anguage ofdeath,the themeof childhood,diversifiedn a primary ort of narcissism,nitiates hehistorical evelopment fthe self: thehistoryf the self s registeredin the history f the themeas if it were facingit. Having piercedthrough he text the self appears through he coppice: as involvedand intertwined s it is, it constantly ointsto otherapproachesandbrings up other questions. A cortege of variegated problems ac-companies t,suchas theallusionto pathologicaldelirium, he wink atEgypt, tc. The historicityftheself,whichattracts reud,correspondsto his differentiationn two instances;historicallyhe double feedsonthe offspringast offby the selfthroughcriticalsolicitation;an in-corporationwhosephantasmgivesrise, n itsturn, o themetaphorof



17/52

540 NEW LITERARY HISTORYa disquieting onsummation: the double thus also absorbsthe un-realizedeventualities f our destinywhichthe imaginationrefuses olet go. If this self s consideredfrom theoretical ointof view andpresented escriptivelyt leads back to all thatis lodged there, o theLacanian "imaginaire." It produces,particularlyn the reading,theghostly igureof nonfulfillmentnd repression,nd not the doubleas counterpart r reflection,ut rather he doll that is neitherdeadnor alive. Expelled,butwhy?Admission ffailure; there s nothingn all thatFreud sayswhichexplainsthe effort o defendthe selfand thedouble's exile. A hypo-thesis eads us back to phylogenicpositions,Freud studyingpsycho-analytical hemes hrough hecollective istorical raversal,t the evelof race. There is a windingaround the double which seems to be"decorated" with a new kind of provocation: this time, it is theextraordinaryegreeoftheUnheimlichewhichescapesus, an oversolduncanny. Still another igzag, anotherdisorder f the self,and onceagain it is Hoffmannwho is linked, histime,to theseriesof anxiousstatesofmind. Fiction resistsnd returns, offmannmoreand moredistinctly ecomes Freud's double (throughsubstitution r throughcleavage). Everythingccurs,then,as ifHoffmann,n comingback,incited Freud to produce a kind of fiction: two or threeshorttalespunctuate the long developmenton the divisionof that which issimilar, hecrowning ase of theUnheimliche.Repetition s regulatedbytheallusion shouldnothaverepeated tself." n thefirst iographi-cal tale, Freud shows himself n a typicalmovement f denial: hemasks his language with the type of modestywhich exposes himcomically: the psychoanalyst sychoanalyzedn the verystudyhe isseeking o develop.The FirstStory: Freud begins: "Once ... on a hotsummer fter-noon . . ." in a style that oscillates between realistic narration andanalyticdeviation;certainty uarrelswithcertainty. I could not ongremain n doubt" regardinghe kind ofneighborhood,aysFreud. Butfor the reader,doubt emergeshereand therewherewomenmade upwith rouge gather (dolls?) and Freud wanders-in obsessiveturns.One otherwinding, nd instead of thedistresswhich Freud claimstohave experienced,we shouldbe confronted iththe rresistibleomedyof Mark Twain. Question: howmanyrepetitionsre necessary eforedistress urns nto comedy? The "degree" of repetition upposesthetypeof reflectionhat Freud scrupulously efrains romundertaking:he wants to remain sexually on this side of ridicule. . . . That's anopportunityt unsuccessfulastration!



18/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 541

The Second Story: The return f number62. "You" is the wretchedheroof this erialized tory.This banal evocationofthe ittlemysteriesof everyday xperience howshow an inanimatenumbercan becomean evil spirit. The number62 functions s an evil masterof time."You" willbe tempted o ascribe omemeaning o it: here,thefunc-tion of strangeness ecomes complicated by this mediation of thenumber. The world repeats (and not the self as in the precedingstory). Freud adheresto chance insomuch s chance would be a kindofanalytical oncretization.Whatmeaningwouldyouattributeo 62?If you are not "steeled" against superstition, ou will understand heallurement fthemeaning: "you." Especially fyouhave been bornin I856 and ifyouarewritingn I919 a textwhichthe nstincttrieb)of deathhaunts, henyouwillbe thereprieveduthor,who escapestheannouncement f his end, masked by a you where the I becomesidentifiablewiththe reader. Freud is palmingoffhis own death onus, and the readerhas become the substitute; nd isn'tthe one whohas liveda yearbeyondtheage foreseen or his own disappearance nsomewaya ghost?

Afterwhich, you, Freud, you slip back once again under theanalystFreud, and whilethe threat f 62 movesaway again, the pri-mary process which it had replaced on the stage reappears. Anexchange of subterranean ourneys. The principleof pleasure andbeyondenforce heirdisquietingreigns: a sudden projectionbeforethestage'sdrawncurtain fthe automatism fa deaf and blindrepeti-tion which dominates hemost ntimate fpsychological prings thatis to say, the most archaic and secretdoll). The devil, the playingchild, and the neurotic, ithersufficientlyr insufficientlyonscious,touch one another, s good transmittersfthe Unheimliche.The textbecomes knotty, nd stops. A cut. A desire for the indisputable:Freudstates hatyoumusthavesomethingertain.Andhe cites, gain,either out of remorseor compulsion,another even more doubtful,mythological, nd veiled story: "The Ring of Polycrates"or "Hewho is too happyshouldfear theenvyofthegods."This is a beautiful xampleofa silent dialogue" with death whichclaims tsdue; that stosay, t s alwaysa questionofan exchangewithlife tselfnd with he most live.At thismoment Freud puts up the greatestresistance o his owndiscovery: he defers,backs up, regresses, r stalls for time in theresearch; takes anotherdetour (recalls the history f the Obsessed-Man). Thus the strangeunderground mpireis mapped by inter-



19/52

542 NEW LITERARY HISTORYsections derived frommythological nd clinical studiesrunningthegamut fromthe mostcommonplaceto the most theoretical hrougha bizarre fan of examples.Let us return o theeyeby way oftheEvil Eye in a readingwhichis a cross betweensuperstitionnd ophthalmology.Once again, thethreadsbecome knotted: the thread of superstition,he clinicalone,and thatof analytical xplication. I projectmydesireto do harmonanother nd hiseyereturnsttome; it is thusthat the "evil eye" ofthetext ooks at usfurtivelynthedeepestrecesses fourstory swe defendour omnipotence, ur unlimitednessgainstthe threat bf reality, nthetime whenmenweregods and in thetime of "animism."The unconscious psychic activityappears to be derived fromprimitive nimism. Associatedwithnarcissism,nimismreintroducesthedouble. Freuddoes not come out ofthesystem ftheUnheimlichebecause no one comes out of it: one sees with an uncannyeye thejourney completed by a return-repetitiono the lexicon in an exactrepresentationf the first exical circuit. The stranger s near, theHeimlichepasses imperceptiblyo the Unheimliche,which s the inti-mateof ntimacy,he "true" ntimacy.We takeup thesequence,againcheckingon the strength f the knots: resemblancedoes not inspirefrightf such resemblancedoes not proceed from tself n spite ofitself.Thus,thedoublebecomesexteriorizedotonly s anguishbutasa returnof anguish. Narcissus is accoutred in anguish. The Un-heimliche ransformstselfnto Unheimliche. The repressedUnheim-licheshowsup again in the form ftheUnheimliche.Is thisrepetition?Yes, but displaced by Freud in the same circlegrown tighter nd tighter oward a decentered nd recedingtarget.Insistent: it is the insistence f the Heimliche which provokestheUnheimlichen the same manner. Insistence f the familiargivesriseto what is uncanny, n the long run. Unheimliche: the intensityfa vibrationwhichpassesoverto (ratherthan causes) the same turn.What "made" this Unheimlichesomething lse is nothingnew orforeign, ut simply he repressive rocess. The vibration hangestheburdenof the igns.Are all menmortal?: "The primitiveear of the dead is still o strongwithin s and alwaysready ocometo the surface t anyopportunity."The direct igure f theuncanny s theGhost. The Ghost s thefictionof our relationshipo death, concretized y the specter n literature.The relationshipo death reveals hehighest egree ftheUnheimliche.There is nothingmore notorious nd uncannyto our thoughtthanmortality. here is a dazzlingsection n disputeddeath,on thefailure



20/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 543of death to serveas an instrumentf moral orderand public authoritywhich s veiledbyan ideologicalbelief n thehereafter.Why would death have thispower? Because of its alliance withscientific ncertaintynd primitive hought. "Death" does not haveanyform n life. Our unconsciousmakesno place for therepresenta-tion of our mortality.As an impossiblerepresentation,eath is thatwhichmimes,by thisvery mpossibility,he reality f death. It goeseven further.That which signifieswithoutthat which is signified.Whatis an absolute ecret, omethingbsolutely ewand whichshouldremainhidden,because ithas shown tself o me, is thefact that amdead; onlythedead knowthesecret f death. Death willrecognize s,butwe shall not recognize t.At this uncture,the textonlycontinues n starts;who is the onewho could weave the texture f death? The theory,which s violentlythrust side bytheirreducible haracterof the Unheimliche, urns sit hesitates nd gives way in the face of the inexplicablebody of theUnheimliche. Nothing is new, everything lways returnsexceptdeath.Whyarewe stillverymuchafraidofthedead? questions reud.It is because, he says, the dead man has become the enemyof hissurvivor. f he returnsoearth,t s tocarry s intohis"new existence"(you, the credulousreader or thesubtlethinker), ntohis abode (thisHeimliche, hismortal ountrywhereno metaphor,meaning, r imageenters). In order to carryyou off, t is alwaysa questionofdisplace-ment, heinsidiousmovement, hroughwhichopposites ommunicate.It is the between hat s- aintedwithstrangeness.Everythingemainsto be said on thesubjectof the Ghost and theambiguity f theReturn,forwhat renderst ntolerables notsomuch that t san announcementof death nor eventheproof hatdeathexists, incethisGhost announcesand provesnothingmorethan his return. What is intolerable s thattheGhosterasesthe imitwhichexists etween wostates,neither livenordead; passingthrough, he dead man returnsn themannerof theRepressed. It is his comingback which makes theghostwhat he is,justas itis the return f theRepressed hat nscribes herepression. nthe end, death is never anythingmore than the disturbanceof thelimits.The impossible s to die. If all whichhas been lostreturns,sFreud illustratedt in theTraumdeutung, othing s ever ost fevery-thing s replaceable,nothinghas evendisappearedand nothings eversufficientlyead; therelationship fpresence o absence is in itself nimmense ystem f"death," a fabricriddledbythereal and a phanto-mization f thepresent.Olympia s not nanimate. The strange owerof death moves n the realmof ife s theUnheimlichentheHeimliche,as the void fills p the ack.



21/52

544 NEW LITERARY HISTORYBeforedeath's invasion (which the analyst, the man of science attheendof hisown ife," annotmaster ytheory utwhichhefrustratesby a complex strategywith dodgingsand spurts), Freud invokesascreen ftraditional efense: men's"responses" o death are all taintedwiththe orderoftheEstablishment,f deological nstitutionsreligionand politics). An evolutionhas takenplace fromprimitivenimism othemoralorder.Still anotherknotofexamples: will theweavingor references everend? Freud proceedswithexcuses and additions: a littlemore; thisisnotthe ast; anothernstance;that s notenough. A moving nguishemanatesfromthese ncessant dditions. The textdoes not want totake off;the argumentbecomestroubled,hardens, nd doubles withthickness.Thus, quickly, notherknot: he who casts an evileye,plusepilepsy,madness,middleage, and demonology, hen thebedevilmentof theperson Mephisto) and the difficultatient;and I am skipping;"dismembered limbs, a severed head . . . feet which dance by them-selves." Still anotherexample, and at the same time the metaphorof thisgreatGatheringnwhichmembers orm unity,which s alwaysdismembered ince each preserves n independent ctivity.A heap.

But in the end, theformof a bodyof examplesemergesbut without"revealing"itself, form of forms, body which returns o its dis-memberment. t is this"body"which Freud "crowns" (by thecrown,there s an appeal to a head that s notthere)with thesupremely is-quieting dea: the phantasmof the man buried alive: his textualhead, shoved back into thematernalbody,a horrible leasure.Liebe istHeimweh: Love is a yearning ora country, ccordingtopopular wisdom. Heimweh: a yearning ora country,s a formula-tion which is always interrupted y the interpretation hich reads:regret nd desirefor yearning."But thisyearnings also theyearningwhichrenders hecountry oryou a pointofdestiny.Whichcountry?The one fromwhich we come, "the place whereeveryone welt onceupon a timeand in thebeginning."The country romwhichwe comeis alwaysthe one to which we are returning.You are on the returnroadwhichpassesthroughhecountryf children n thematernal ody.You have alreadypassed throughhere: you recognize he landscape.You have alwaysbeen on thereturn oad. Why t is that the maternallandscape,theheimisch, nd the familiar ecome so disquieting?Theanswer s lessburied than we might uspect. The obliteration f anyseparation,the realization of the desirewhich in itselfobliterateslimit;all thatwhich, n effectinghe movement f ife n reality, llowsus to come closer to a goal, the shortcuts,the crossing ccomplished



22/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 545especially t the end of our lives; all that whichovercomes, hortens,economizes, nd assuressatisfaction ppears to affirmhe life forces.All of that has anotherface turned oward deathwhich is the detourof life. The abbreviating ffectwhich affirmsife assertsdeath.The phantasmof theman buried alive representshe confusion flifeand death: deathwithin ife, ife n death,nonlife n nondeath.And what about castration? t is thenotch and also the other elfoftheman buriedalive: a bit too much death in life; a bit too muchlife n death,at themergingntersection. here is no recourse o aninside/outside.You are therepermanently.There is no reversal romone term to another. Hence, the horror: you could be dead whileliving,youcan be in a dubious state. The attribute f the troubleofthe limit s thisthreateningmobility,hearbitrarinessf thedisplace-mentagainstwhich repression ises. "The prefixUn is the tokenofrepression," ays Freud. Let us add this: any analysisof the Un-heimliche s in itself n Un, a markof repression nd the dangerousvibration f the Heimliche. Unheimliche s onlythe other ide of therepetition f Heimliche and thisrepetitions two-faced: thatwhichemerges nd/is that which is repelled.The same is true forthe textwhichpushesforth nd repelsuntil t reachesan arbitrarynd. (TheUnheimlichehas no end,but it is necessary orthetextto stopsome-where.) And this"conclusion" returns nd passesas a recurrence ndas a reserve.Will therebe a terminus ortheoretical esitation?If the analysishas oscillated,because of its appeal to examples,between life" and "books," it is because of thedifference hich existsbetween heUnheimlichewe encounter nd the one we imagine. Thefact ofthematters thata doubling s representedt all times, n "im-portantdistinction"which s onlyclearlyperceived hrough he articu-lation of life and literature: thedoublingof the repressed nd ofthesurmounted.The Unheimlicheof the Repressedwould be linkedtotheresurgence f nfantile ulsations rought nbythreatsnd danger.It is something ontainedin representationshich is repressed, hatis to say a psychicreality.Material realityhas no hold on representa-tions thephantasms f thematernal odyand thecastration omplex).The other ype fUnheimliche,heSurmounted, as the ame primi-tive root as the Repressed,then bifurcates: it would seem that inancienttimeswe had an animistic houghtwhichvanishedwhen con-fronted ymaterial eality.To surmount oesnotmean to expel: newconvictionsre sometimes verwhelmed y a return o the old beliefswhicha real fact,such and such extraordinaryoincidence, eemstoconfirm.But when t "returns,"we see itreappearwithout heanguish



23/52

546 NEW LITERARY HISTORYwhich thepulsationgivesto thereturn,nd the testof reality lwaysuncaps it anew.This distinction edoubles another distinctionwhich manifestst,thatbetween ife and fiction, ot separately onsidered, ut as inter-changed.The Surmounted s goingto be able to experience nguish n fiction.In return, iction an cancel out theRepression f thepsychic ontent.The uncanninessof the repressed nd the uncanninessof the sur-mountedexchange theirmodes of operationand theireffectsn theexchangewhich takesplace between ifeand fiction to such a pointthatFreud callsto ourattentionhe mpossibilityfdistinguishinghem"clearly" n real life). Their limits ntermingle. s not thedistinctionthat s made itself productof fiction?This lastdevelopmentwould neverthelesse clear enough, f Freudhad notbroughtup again the notionofretroactive oubt,recalling tto the verypointsfromwhich he seemedto have dislodged t. Theentirebodyof examples s shakenby it. Doubt, too, is doubtful;wehave never ufficientlyottenrid of it. It is neversufficientlyertain.If the Unheimliche s battered,n reality, y the influence f facts, tmaygain somethingn disquieting irtue, ut it does so all the morerarely.In fiction,he Unheimliche, ispensingwith the testofreality,disposesofsupplementaryesources.Toward a TheoryofFiction: Fiction s connectedto life'seconomyby a linkas undeniable and ambiguousas thatwhichpassesfrom heUnheimliche o the Heimliche: it is not unreal; it is the "fictionalreality" nd thevibration f, eality.The Unheimlichen fiction ver-flows and comprises he Unheimlicheof real life. But if fiction sanotherform freality,t is understood hatthesecret f theUnheim-liche does not refer o a secretmore profound han thatof the Un-heimlichewhichenvelops heUnheimliche,ustas deathoverflowsntolife.What is fiction n reality?This is a questionwhich haunts theaccesses o theFreudiantext, utwithout nteringhem. Freudwrites,"Fiction presentsmore opportunitiesorcreatinguncannysensationsthan are possible n real life." The analysisreturns o anotherobject,theone which t has comeup againstunceasingly ithout verexhaust-ingit: fiction. t is notmerely questionhereofexaming heenigmaof the Unheimliche ut also of the enigmaof fiction s such, and offiction n its privilegedrelationship o the Unheimliche. Fiction(re)presents tself, irst f all, as a Reserve or suspension f the Un-heimliche: forexample, n theworld of fairy ales the unbelievable



24/52

FICTION AND ITS PHANTOMS 547is never disquietingbecause it has been canceled out by the con-vention f thegenre. Fictionalreality,hen, s interrupted.Or fictioncan also multiply he uncannyeffect y the interruptionn the con-tract between author and reader, a "revolting" procedure in theauthor'sestimation,whichallows us to wander until the end,withoutany defense gainstthe Unheimliche.That is onlypossible providedtheSurmountedOne is nevercompletelyurmounted.The impossiblecould thenrepresenttself s the possible (let us distinguish erebe-tween absence in reality hrough mpossibilitynd absence throughdeath). The impossible s notdeath,and deathis notimpossible.ForFreud, the variationsof the Surmountedonly stem, in fact, frommystification. falsedeath. The true ecret f fiction ests omewhereelse. Fiction,through he invention f new forms f Unheimliche, sthevery trange hing: ifone considers he Unheimliche s a fork fwhich one branch points in the directionof the uncannyand theother n the direction f an anxiety, ne sees, at the extreme nd oftheuncanny, iction ointing oward the unknown: whatis newest nthenew,throughwhich tis in part inkedwithdeath.As a Reserveof the Repressed,fiction s finally hat which resistsanalysisand, thus, t attracts t the most. Only the writer knows"and has the freedom o evoke or inhibitthe Unheimliche. In otherwords, nly hewriter as thefreedom oraise or to repressheRepres-sion. But this "freedom"defiesall analysis; as anotherformof theUnheimlichet is likethat which should have "remained . . hidden."Still, this fictiondoes not escape the law of representation,nd ismysteriouso everythinglse but itself.From our pointofview,as unflagginglyisquietedreaders,we can-nothelpbutthink hatFreud has hardly nythingoenvy nHoffmannforhis "art or craftiness"n provoking he Unheimliche ffect. f weexperience neasiness n readingFreud'sessay, t is because the authoris hisdouble in a game that cannot be dissociated romhis own text:it is such thathe managesto escape at every urnofphrase. It is alsoand especiallybecause the Unheimlicherefers o no more profoundsecret han tself: every ursuit roduces tsowncancellation nd everytextdealingwithdeath s a textwhich returns.The repressionfdeathor of castration etraysdeath (or castration) everywhere.To speakof death s to die. To speakof castration s either o surmount t (thusto cancel t,to castratet) orto effectt. "Basically"Freud's adventurein thistext is consecrated o the veryparadox of the writingwhichstretchestssigns n order to "manifest" he secret hat it "contains."As forsolitude, ilence,and darkness,which have always been theresincechildhood, we can only aythatthey re actually lements n the



25/52

548 NEW LITERARY HISTORYproduction f that infantilemorbidanxietyfromwhichthemajorityofhumanbeingshave never becomequite free." So, of the Unheim-liche (and itsdouble,fiction)we can only aythat t nevercompletelydisappears .. that t "re-presents"hatwhich n solitude, ilence, nddarknesswill (never) be presented o you. Neitherreal norfictitious,"fiction" s a secretion f death,an anticipation fnonrepresentation,a doll, a hybridbody composedof language and silencethat, n themovementwhich turns t and which it turns, nventsdoubles, anddeath.

UNIVERSITY OF PARIS VIII,VINCENNES

(TranslatedRobertDennomd)NOTES

I See Appendix for the full text of The "Uncanny"; subsequentpage referencesare to theessayreprintedn thisnumber.2 Das Unheimlicheappeared in Imago, 5 (1919). Beyond the Pleasure Principleappeared in May I92o, but was written, ccording to Freud, in I919. Note therelationship of composition-publication f these two texts. Together, they forma chiasma: theyreferto each other.3 Cf. Jacques Derrida, "La Double Seance," La Dissemination (Paris: Seuil,1972), p. 249, and "Hars livre," bid., p. 66.4 Cited by Freud (p. 619); the study appeared in 19o6. Freud's connectionwith his predecessor s fascinating; t would seem likely,despite appearances to thecontrary, hat Das Unheimliche had something o do with "intellectual-ness."5 Freud, p. 623. Freud's text is riddled with linguistic patterns, which aresometimesobvious and sometimeshidden.6 Freud, pp. 627-28. "The conclusion of the story hows well that Coppola theoptician is really Coppelius the lawyer and consequentlyalso the Sand-Man.--Itis no longera question here of intellectualuncertainty. "7 And in all of Hoffmann's stories, always a double scene (see The PrincessBrambilla,An Eveningwith Don Juan,etc.).8 Cf. S. Ferenczi, Sex in Psychoanalysis (New York, 1956), Ch. io--"Sym-bolism."9 Freud, p. 629.Io Freud,p. 643.II A heritage transmitted y Goethe (Faust I, II) fromthe Puppenspiel, as faras the very obliteration of the notion of the imaginary,or fictitious, y Kleist,between philosophyand delerium to the point of a joining of several languages:that of the eyes, that of memory,that of body, that of enigma, that of silence(en voir the echo engravedby Hans Bellmer).



26/52

APPENDIXTHE "UNCANNY"*

IIt is onlyrarely hat a psycho-analysteels mpelled o investigatehesubject of aesthetics, ven when aesthetics s understood o mean notmerelyhetheoryfbeauty utthetheoryf thequalities ffeeling.Heworksnother trata f mental ife nd has little o do withthe subduedemotional mpulseswhich, nhibited n their ims and dependent n ahostofconcurrentactors, suallyfurnish he materialforthestudy faesthetics.But it does occasionally appenthathe has to interest im-self n someparticular rovince fthat ubject;and thisprovince suallyproves o be a rather emote ne,and one which has beenneglectedn

the pecialistiteraturefaesthetics.The subjectof the 'uncanny' is a province f thiskind. It is un-doubtedly elatedto what is frightening-towhat arousesdread andhorror; qually certainly,oo,the wordis notalwaysused in a clearlydefinable ense,so that it tendsto coincidewithwhat excitesfear ingeneral.Yet wemayexpect hat special oreoffeelings presentwhichjustifies he use of a special conceptual erm. One is curiousto knowwhat this commoncore is which allowsus to distinguishs 'uncanny'certain hingswhich iewithin hefield fwhat sfrightening.As good as nothings to be foundupon this ubject n comprehensivetreatisesn aesthetics, hich ngeneralpreferoconcern hemselves ithwhat is beautiful, ttractive nd sublime-that is, with feelings f apositivenature-and withthe circumstancesnd the objects thatcallthemforth, atherthan with the oppositefeelings f repulsion nddistress. knowofonlyoneattemptnmedico-psychologicaliterature,fertile utnot exhaustive aperbyJentsch 906). But I mustconfessthat I have not made a verythorough xamination f the literature,especiallyheforeigniterature,elatingothis resentmodest ontributionofmine,forreasonswhich, s may easilybe guessed, ie in the times nwhichwe live;2 so thatmypaperis presentedo thereaderwithout nyclaimtopriority.In his study f the uncanny'Jentsch uite rightlyaysstress n theobstaclepresented y thefact thatpeople varyso verygreatlyn theirsensitivityo this uality ffeeling.The writerfthepresentontribution,



27/52

620 NEW LITERARY HISTORYindeed, must himselfplead guiltyto a special obtusenessin the matter,where extremedelicacy of perceptionwould be more in place. It is longsince he has experienced or heard of anythingwhich has given him anuncanny impression, nd he must start by translatinghimself nto thatstate of feeling,by awakening in himselfthe possibilityof experiencingit. Still, such difficultiesmake themselvespowerfullyfelt in many otherbranches of aesthetics; we need not on that account despair of findinginstances in which the quality in question will be unhesitatingly ecog-nizedbymostpeople.Two courses are open to us at the outset. Either we can findout whatmeaning has come to be attached to the word 'uncanny' in the courseof its history;or we can collect all those propertiesof persons, things,sense-impressions,xperiencesand situationswhich arouse in us the feel-ing of uncanniness,and then inferthe unknown nature of the uncannyfromwhat all these examples have in common. I will say at once thatboth courses lead to the same result: the uncanny is that class of thefrighteningwhich leads back to what is known of old and long familiar.How thisis possible, in what circumstancesthe familiarcan become un-canny and frightening, shall show in what follows. Let me also addthat my investigationwas actually begun by collecting a number of in-dividual cases,and was only ater confirmed yan examination of linguisticusage. In thisdiscussion,however, I shall followthe reversecourse.The German word 'unheimlich' is obviouslythe opposite of 'heimlich'['homely'], 'heimisch' ['native']-the opposite of what is familiar; andwe are temptedto conclude that what is 'uncanny' is frighteningreciselybecause it is not known and familiar. Naturallynot everythinghat is newand unfamiliar is frightening, owever; the relation is not capable ofinversion.We can only say that what is novel can easilybecome frighten-ing and uncanny; some new thingsare frightening ut not by any meansall. Somethinghas to be added to what is novel and unfamiliar n ordertomake ituncanny.On thewhole, Jentschdid not get beyond this relation of the uncannyto thenovel and unfamiliar. He ascribestheessential factor n theproduc-tion of the feelingof uncanniness to intellectualuncertainty; o that theuncanny would always, as it were, be something one does not knowone's way about in. The betterorientated in his environmenta personis, the less readily will he get the impressionof something uncanny inregardto theobjectsand events n it.It is not difficult o see that this definition s incomplete,and we willtherefore ryto proceed beyond the equation 'uncanny' = 'unfamiliar.'We will first urn to other languages. But the dictionariesthat we con-sult tell us nothing new, perhaps only because we ourselves speak alanguage that is foreign. Indeed, we get an impressionthat many lan-guages are withouta word forthisparticularshade ofwhat is frightening.I should like to expressmy indebtednessto Dr. Theodor Reik for thefollowing xcerpts:-



28/52

THE "UNCANNY ? 621LATIN: (K. E. Georges, DeutschlateinischesW6rterbuch,1898). Anuncannyplace: locus suspectus; at an uncannytimeofnight: intempestanocte.GREEK: (Rost's and Schenkl's Lexikons). Xenos (i.e. strange,foreign).ENGLISH: (fromthe dictionariesof Lucas, Bellows, Fliigel and Muret-Sanders). Uncomfortable,uneasy, gloomy,dismal, uncanny, ghastly; (ofa house) haunted; (of a man) a repulsivefellow.FRENCH: (Sachs-Villatte). Inquie'tant,sinistre,ugubre,mal a'son aise.SPANISH: (Tollhausen, 1889). Sospechoso, de mal aguiro, lidgubre,siniestro.The Italian and Portugueselanguages seem to contentthemselveswithwords which we should describe as circumlocutions. In Arabic andHebrew 'uncanny' means the same as 'daemonic,' 'gruesome.'Let us thereforereturnto the German language. In Daniel Sanders'sW6rterbuchder Deutschen Sprache (I86o, I, 729), the followingentry,which I here reproduce in full, s to be found under the word 'heimlich.'I have laid stress n one or two passages by italicizingthem.3Heimlich, adj., subst. Heimlichkeit (pl. Heimlichkeiten): I. Alsoheimelich,heimelig,belonging to the house, not strange,familiar, tame,intimate, riendly,tc.(a) (Obsolete) belonging to the house or the family,or regarded asso belonging (cf. Latin familiaris,familiar) Die Heimlichen, the mem-bers of the household; Der heimlicheRat (Gen. xli, 45; 2 Sam. xxiii. 23;I Chron. xii. 25; Wisd. viii. 4), now more usually Geheimer Rat [PrivyCouncillor].(b) Of animals: tame, companionable to man. As opposed to wild,e.g. 'Animals which are neitherwild nor heimlich,'etc. 'Wild animals ...that are trained to be heimlich and accustomed to men.' 'If theseyoungcreaturesare brought up fromearly days among men theybecome quite

heimlich,friendly' tc. -So also: 'It (the lamb) is so heimlich and eatsout of my hand.' 'Nevertheless,the stork s a beautiful,heimelich bird.'(c) Intimate, friendlily omfortable; the enjoymentof quiet content,etc., arousinga senseof agreeable restfulnessnd security s in one withinthe four walls of his house.4 Is it still heimlich to you in your countrywhere strangersare fellingyour woods?' 'She did not feel too heimlichwith him.' 'Along a high, heimlich,shady path . . ., beside a purling,gushing and babbling woodland brook.' 'To destroythe Heimlichkeit ofthehome.' 'I could not readilyfindanotherspot so intimate and heimlichas this.' 'We pictured it so comfortable, o nice, so cosy and heimlich.''In quiet Heimlichkeit,surroundedby close walls.' 'A careful housewife,who knows how to make a pleasing Heimlichkeit (Hiiuslichkeit [domes-ticity]) out of the smallestmeans.' 'The man who till recentlyhad beenso strange to him now seemed to him all the more heimlich.' 'Theprotestantland-owners do not feel . .. heimlich among their catholic



29/52

622 NEW LITERARY HISTORYinferiors.' When it growsheimlichand still, nd the eveningquiet alonewatches over yourcell.' 'Quiet, lovelyand heimlich,no place more fittedfortheirrest.' 'He did not feel at all heimlich about it.'-Also, [in com-pounds] 'The place was so peaceful, so lonely,so shadily-heimlich.' Thein- and outflowingwaves of the current,dreamy and lullaby-heimlich.'Cf. in especial Unheimlich [see below]. Among Swabian Swiss authorsin especial, oftenas a trisyllable: 'How heimelich s seemed to Ivo againof an evening,when he was at home.' 'It was so heimeligin the house.''The warm room and the heimeligafternoon.' 'When a man feelsin hisheart that he is so small and the Lord so great-that is what is trulyheimelig.' 'Little by littletheygrew at ease and heimelig among them-selves.' 'Friendly Heimeligkeit.' 'I shall be nowhere more heimelichthanI am here.' 'That which comes fromafar . . . assuredlydoes not livequite heimelig (heimatlich [at home],freundnachbarlich in a neighbourlyway]) among the people.' 'The cottage where he had once sat so oftenamong his own people, so heimelig, o happy.' 'The sentinel'shorn soundsso heimelig from the tower, and his voice invites so hospitably.' 'Yougo to sleep there o soft nd warm,so wonderfully eim'lig.'-This formofthe word deserves to become general in order to protect this perfectlygood sense of thewordfrom becomingobsoletethroughan easy confusionwith I [see below]. Cf: '"The Zecks [a familyname] are all 'heimlich.'"(in sense II) "'Heimlich'? ... What do you understandby heimlich'?""Well, . . . theyare like a buried springor a dried-up pond. One cannotwalk over it withoutalways having thefeelingthat watermightcome upthereagain." "Oh, we call it 'unheimlich'; you call it 'heimlich.' Well,what makes you thinkthat there is somethingsecret and untrustworthyabout thisfamily?' (Gutzkow).(d) Especially in Silesia: gay, cheerful; also of the weather.II. Concealed, kept fromsight,so that othersdo not get to know ofor about it,withheldfromothers. To do somethingheimlich, .e. behindsomeone's back; to steal away heimlich; heimlichmeetingsand appoint-ments; to look on with heimlich pleasure at someone's discomfiture;tosigh or weep heimlich; to behave heimlich, as though there was some-thing to conceal; heimlich love-affair, ove, sin; heimlichplaces (whichgood mannersoblige us to conceal) (I Sam. v. 6). 'The heimlichcham-ber' (privy) (2 Kings x. 27.). Also, 'the heimlich chair.' 'To throwintopitsor Heimlichkeiten.'-'Led the steedsheimlich before Laomedon.'-'As secretive, heimlich, deceitful and malicious towards cruel masters... as frank, pen, sympathetic nd helpfultowardsa friend nmisfortune.''You have still to learn what is heimlich holiest to me.' 'The heimlichart' (magic). 'Where public ventilation has to stop, there heimlichmachinations begin.' 'Freedom is the whisperedwatchword of heimlichconspirators nd the loud battle-cry f professedrevolutionaries.' A holy,heimlich effect.' 'I have roots that are most heimlich. I am grown inthe deep earth.' 'My heimlichpranks.' 'If he is not given it openly andscrupulously he may seize it heimlich and unscrupulously.' 'He had



30/52

THE "UNCANNY"3 623achromatic telescopes constructed heimlich and secretly.' 'Henceforth Idesire that thereshould be nothingheimlichany longerbetween us.'-Todiscover, disclose, betray someone's Heimlichkeiten; 'to concoct Heim-lichkeitenbehind myback.' 'In my time we studied Heimlichkeit.' 'Thehand of understandingcan alone undo the powerless spell of the Heim-lichkeit (of hidden gold).' 'Say, where is the place of concealment . . .in what place of hidden Heimlichkeit?' 'Bees, who make the lock ofHeimlichkeiten' (i.e. sealing-wax). 'Learned in strangeHeimlichkeiten'(magic arts).For compounds see above, Ic. Note especially the negative 'un-':eerie, weird, arousing gruesome fear: 'Seeming quite unheimlich andghostly o him.' 'The unheimlich,fearfulhours of night.' 'I had alreadylong since felt an unheimlich, even gruesome feeling.' 'Now I ambeginningto have an unheimlichfeeling.' ... 'Feels an unheimlichhorror.''Unheimlich and motionless like a stone image.' 'The unheimlich mistcalled hill-fog.' 'These pale youths are unheimlich and are brewingheaven knowswhat mischief.' ' "Unheimlich" is the name for everythingthat ought to have remained ... secret and hidden but has come to light'(Schelling) .-'To veil the divine, to surroundit with a certain Unheim-lichkeit.' Unheimlich is not often used as opposite to meaning II(above).What interestsus most in this long extract is to find that among itsdifferent hades of meaning the word 'heimlich' exhibits one which isidentical with its opposite, 'unheimlich.' What is heimlich thus comes tobe unheimlich. (Cf. the quotation from Gutzkow: 'We call it "un-heimlich"; you call it "heimlich.' ") In general we are remindedthat theword 'heimlich' is not unambiguous, but belongs to two sets of ideas,which, without being contradictory, re yet very different: on the onehand it means what is familiar and agreeable, and on the other,what isconcealed and kept out of sight.5 'Unheimlich' is customarilyused, weare told, as the contraryonly of the first ignification f 'heimlich,' andnot of the second. Sanders tellsus nothing concerninga possible geneticconnection between these two meanings of heimlich. On the otherhand,we notice that Schelling says somethingwhich throwsquite a new lighton the concept of the Unheimlich,forwhich we were certainlynot pre-pared. According to him, everything s unheimlich that ought to haveremained secret and hidden but has come to light.Some of the doubts that have thus arisen are removed if we consultCrimm's dictionary. (1877, 4, Part 2, 873 ff.)

We read:Heimlich; adj. and adv. vernaculus, occultus; MHG. heimelich,heim-lVch.(P. 874.) In a slightlydifferent ense: 'I feel heimlich, well, freefromfear.' ...



31/52

624 NEW LITERARY HISTORY[3] (b) Heimlich is also used of a place freefromghostly nfluences...familiar,friendly,ntimate.P. 875: B) Familiar, amicable, unreserved.4. From the idea of 'homelike,' 'belonging to the house,' the furtheridea is developed of somethingwithdrawnfrom the eyes of strangers,somethingconcealed, secret; and this dea is expanded in many ways . ..P. 876.) 'On the left bank of the lake there lies a meadow heimlichin the wood.' (Schiller, Wilhelm Tell, I. 4.) . . . Poetic licence, rarelyso used in modernspeech ... Heimlich is used in conjunctionwith a verbexpressing he act of concealing: 'In the secretof his tabernacle he shallhide me heimlich.' (Ps. xxvii. 5.) . . . Heimlich parts of the human

body, pudenda .. . 'the men that died not were smittenon theirheimlichparts.' (i Samuel v. 12.) ...(c) Officials who give importantadvice which has to be kept secretin mattersof state are called heimlichcouncillors; the adjective, accord-ing to modern usage, has been replaced by geheim [secret] . . 'Pharaohcalled Joseph's name "him to whom secrets are revealed"' (heimlichcouncillor). (Gen. xli. 45.)P. 878.) 6. Heimlich, as used of knowledge-mystic, allegorical: aheimlichmeaning,mysticus, ivinus,occultus,figuratus.(P. 878.) Heimlich in a differentense,as withdrawnfromknowledge,unconscious ... Heimlich also has the meaning of that which is obscure,inaccessible to knowledge . . . 'Do you not see? They do not trustus;theyfearthe heimlich face of the Duke of Friedland.' (Schiller, Wallen-steinsLager, Scene 2.)9. The notion of somethinghidden and dangerous,which is expressedin the last paragraph, is stillfurtherdeveloped, so that 'heimlich' comesto have the meaning usually ascribed to 'unheimlich.' Thus: 'At timesI feel like a man who walks in the night and believes in ghosts; every

corner s heimlichand fullof terrors or him.' (Klinger, Theater, 3. 298.)Thus heimlich s a word themeaning ofwhichdevelops in thedirectionof ambivalence, until it finallycoincides with its opposite, unheimlich.Unheimlich is in some way or othera sub-speciesof heimlich. Let us bearthisdiscovery n mind,thoughwe cannot yetrightly nderstand t,along-side of Schelling's6definition f the Unheimlich. If we go on to examineindividual instances of uncanniness, these hints will become intelligibleto us.

IIWhen we proceed to review the things, persons, impressions, ventsand sit

Sobre Lo Ominoso de Freud

Documents

Transcript of Sobre Lo Ominoso de Freud