Typography MIMESIS,PHILOSOPHY,POLITICS PHILIPPELACQUE- LABARTHE With an lntroduaion by Jacques Derrida EDITEDBYCHRISTOPHER FYNSK LINDA M.BROOKS,EDITORIAL CONSULTANT HARVARDUNIVERSITYPRESS MASSACHUSETTS LONDON,ENGLAND 1989 9004030 Copyright 1989by the:Presldc:nt andFe:llows of Harvard (".allege Allraghts reserved Prantedm theUnated Stares of America 1098765+lZI Publication of thIS book has been aided by a grant from the: Andrew W. Mellon Foundanon BlbhographlCinfonnation on the essays appc:ant III dlC"Note: on SOUrce-II," ThISbook ISprinted on acid-freepaper, and Its btndmg matt.Tlals have:becn chosc:nfor srrength and durability, l..I",."" ofConpess Clltnlqging-;II-Pllblialtrtm DatB Lacouc-Labarthe,Phihppe. (Essays.Englil.hSelections I Typography:mimcslS,philosophy, pohnc!!/ PhilippeLacouc-Labarrhe; with anintroduction by JacquesDc:rrida;edited by Christopherfynsk p.em. Bibliography.p. Includes indc).. Contents: The cc:ho of the '1ubJcct-The caesura of the sJXCulativc-H61dcrlin and the Gn.'C!c.s-Dideror-TraJ1S(cndencc ends In politics. ISBN0-67+-91700-6 (alk.I.Philosophy.l.Literature-Philosophy.3.Deconstruction. +HoJderlin,Friedrich,Didcror,DeniS,1713-178+ 6.Political SClCnl'C.I. Christopher,19SZ- II.Title. B73. L*198988-36989 19+-dCI9CIP lnmemoryo[ EUGENIO U. DONATO J937-1983 Editors Preface Eugenio Donato leftno projectedtable of contentsfor the collection or collections of essaysby PhilippeLacoue-Labarthe that hehoped to publishintranslation.InLacoue-Labarthe'sownrecollection,itis clear that Donato originally planned to make "Typography" the center-pieceof a firstvolume,and considered joining to it "The Echo of the Subject"andLacoue-Labarthe'sessaysonHolderlinandDiderot. SinceDonato also commissioned a number of other translations of es-says byLacouc-Labarthe, it is possible that his final project would have taken a difterent form altogether. IBut I have followedthe initial plans inestablishing the present volume(adding only "TranscendenceEnds in Politics")becausethey havestruck measfollowingmost appropri-ately from the guiding principle that "Typography" should provide the basis for aninitialpresentation in English of Lacoue-Labarthe's work. "Typography" wasbynomeansLacoue-Labarthe'sfirstsignificant philosophicalpublication.Itwasprecededby"LaFable,""LcDe-tour," "Nietzsche apocryphe," and "L'Obliteration" (essays collected in Le sujet de La philosophie), 2 as well asby the book on Lacan written with Jean-Luc Nancy,Le titre de Lalettre.3 But asLacoue-Labarthe explains in his "Avertissement" to Le sujet de la philosophie (subtided Typographies Iand anticipatinginthiswayT..'YP18raphies11,whichwaspublished in IThe remalmng will appcar ana volume to be:published bv theUmvcr-'ilty of MmnesotaPrc!ltS Le slijet deIIIplJi/QsoplJieAublcr-Flammarioll. 1979). 3tim de IsItttre (Paris'Galilee,ViII Editor'sPreface 1986withtheprincipaltitleLJimitatWndesmodcrnes) .. 4 "Typography" gathersandrefornlulatothequestionsbroachedinthepreviouses-says-questions ttlnlingessentiallyupontheproblemof therclation betweenphilosophyandliteratureasitappearsinandbetweenthe textsof Nietz5.G:;lIilcc.1986). pp278,281. 111partllular. 22 Introduction: Desistance "against"Plato, "originary,""'originarym-while nlaking it clear that thequalityof beingoriginaryisinconIpatiblewiththat of mimesis, and so on. The fold or abyssal redoubling of which weare trying to speak docs not, therefore, comc to destabilize a truth that would already be(semit deja;or esterait,asone sonlctimes rcildersit inFrench).Desistanceis first of all that of truth. This latter never resenIblcsitself.HelIce its re-semblance to mimesis. But how isit possible to resemble mimesis with-outalreadybeingcontaminatedbyit?Andhowcanonethinkthis original contamination in a non-negative and non-originary fashion,in order to keepfromletting one'sstatementsbedictatedbythedomi-nantmimetologism?Etcetera.Truth,then,neverresemblesitselfIt withdraws,masksitself,and never ceases, saysLacoue-Labarthe.,who this time usesthe reflexiveconstruction.,to desist[sedesister](p.118). Before we focus On this result, let us note what in the lexicon justifies the privilege given to thisword.,dlsister;and above allwhat itisthat, inrelatingittothe'-Juasi-radicalist,or ratherstare,inFrenchester, uprootsit,removesdesist,desistance,fromtheseriesof Uostanc:es"to whichtheyseemtobelong(subsistence,substance.,resistance.,stancy,consistency,insistence.,instance.,assistance.,persistence., tence,etc.).Asitisput to work byLacoue-Labarthe., "desistance"is not a modification, above all not a negative one, of ester.The de would super-markpreciselythis:itsnon-belongingtothefamilyof ester.I have already suggested this, andI return to thepoint nowin order to complicateabitmorewhatwillbeatstakeinthetranslation.One shouldknowthat esterisnot onlyakindof root.The wordexistsin French., even if it is rare.It has a meaning that is above all juridical, like se dlsirter,and signifies "to present oneself," to appear l applm.dtre,com-paraitre]in a court of justice. Ester en jugeme,zt (to appear incourt, to plead), ester en justice (to go to law), isto present onesclfbefore the law ali plaintiff or defendant. Now'! it happens that as a result of this seman-ticsof presentation or appearance.,thisact of presence.,if youwill,it hassometimesbeenthought that onemighttranslateWesen,asitis usedinaHeideggeriansense(nornlallytranslatedinEnglishas"es-scnce"), by ester or ertance.16 Let me then risk this suggestion:if beyrmd itsplaceinajuridicalcode,andi"thewayitisputtowork"ty-pographically," titstSta1lce docs not modify eJtance,and docs not belong 1610I,arrtcul:tr Gilbert Kahn's translationof EmjUllrl",g ill dIEMetllplJySlken mlcd I"trod,mion IiIIIlIIitaplJys'fJII( (Pans: Galhmard. 1967).Here: j" an c:retheverythingthat engageshis thinking and inwhich he engages our thought: a certain desistance of thesubjectintheexperienceof thedoublebindanditsrhythmic (de)constitution.He cannot not avoidthe unavoidable.He resists de-sistance, consolidates his subjectity ill this subjection, this very failure, in thisrenunciation, of which, asseveral signs manifest clearly,he was wellaware.One might saythatinsurrendering to thisresistance,he had to abdicatebefore the responsibility of thinking, of thinking that with which he engages our thought. He, Reik, desisted before the task that seemed incumbent upon him:to think ineluctable desistance. This isnot amoraloffense,of course,buthowisit possible?Read "The Echoof theSubject."InalabyrinthwhichIwillnottrytorecon-stitute,andwhichnocommentary could"double"(foritscourseis unique,and all along it a logic of resonance substitutes itself for that of the nlirror: Echo undoes Narcissus, transfonning in this way the whole space of this logic,its whole tenlporality),I will propose merely a sup-plementary thread.Not in order to dramatize a reading that has strictly no need of it, or in order to play at Ariadne.But in order to approach somewhatthesignanll'eof Lacoue-Labarthewhenhesays"["(in quotation marks, here and there throughout his work), when he speaks of madness, of style, of autobiography or allobiography, of death or of music, of Reik-or of an other, for he who is named Reik in this text is 27.ThJ!lwould bethe place for a patient c).aminatlon: too Greek or too "Platonic"? Can one:connect what III it pre-"Plaronic" or pre-"philosophical" Grcc,c: would not yer be onto-typologICal or millletOlogicai with the JudaiC vem toward which the experience ofthc sholar poanrs? One should fOllow.in Lacouc-Labarthe's work, and more precisely 111tlus context. at the veryheart of ps),choanalysls. the debatebetween dIeGreek.the German, and the lew.It resonates everywhere. Can one say of the:Jew or the German what IS said of the Greek in "Holderhn and the Greeks": ('The Greeks' proper ISiIJi"lItabie be'llust it "tve?' took plnu" (p.2+6)? 28.TIleresistancetodeslstancctakestheformof inhibition-itsgeneralform. whichnolongerrepresentsaclinicalcategoryorthedefinitionof a"pamologlcar' symptom. Inhibition is 11IIIlJlmdRbltIn general.No rhythm without It.One 1.ClJ1say the same of dIe double bandSec on thl!. poant the pagC!salready cited, In particular pp. 167 and1 7 ~ Introduaiotl: Desistance 41 alsoanyone who haslinked,at the cdge of madness(what isthat ex-actly,thcedge-tilebord?),theautobiographicaladventure,andhis doubles, and the other, and death, to the musical obsession (Rousseau, Nietzsche),to the concern with rhythm(Holderlin, Mallarmc,Nietz-scheagain).Reik,and all of tllcm-tllcse are Lacoue-Labarthc, you'll say,rushing to identify the identifications; and if that's tile case,I wish youluck if somc day youhopeto callahalt to it inthisgenealogical chain.But 110,Lacoue-Labarthe couldnot readReik ashe did except insofar ashe broke the idt-ntificatioll'l or knew how to tollow him while alwaysremoving the barriers to which the other's resistance was cling-ing.Andeachtimeheremovesoneof theselimits,heexplainsits sourceanditsmechanism,andthenitsineluctablerenun.Inthis gesture,andbytllisrhythm-you'llbeabletoverifythis-Lacoue-Labartheisat everyinstant ascloseandasfarfromReikashecould possibly be. And he tells you everything you need in order to think the law of thisparadox. He even has a name for the law of the paradox: it is the hyperboltJgic.29 2.9ThiS IYJPerbolqgieis exprC$Slydefinedin "Diderot: Paradox and Mime!lis" (for ex-ample,p.zoo)andin''The Caesura of meSpcculanve"(tor cxampk,p. It pro-gramsthe mevitable efti-ctsof a"logic" of mimesis.In thisprecise conrext,where the question COncerns the actor. this hypcrbologic regularly conVt."I'tsdlC gift of e\'Crythmg intothegiftof nothang,andthislatterintothegift of thethingitself."The gift of Impropriety"-in other words, me "gift of mmlCSlS" -is the "gift of genelid appropna-tlonandof presentation"(p.160).Butthisis aswesec, a"conte."(t"or an"ex-ample"among others.It ISa matter of ::appropriationan,1(de-)propnation in general. Thepia)' of thede-,on whichIhavebc!cnworking sincethebeginning of tillSessay, might wellbelong to mis hyperbologlc.Without beangnegative, or bemg subject to a dlakc.:tic ..it both organizesand disorganizes what It appears to determine;it belongs to and yet escapes the order of its own senesWhat I said m out about desisran(e wouldhoki cquall}'well forthe hypcrbologlc of dlSJIIstRllRtrollpp.120 andIH).(de)unlstitlltJOII(CcL'Obliteration/'"Typogrnphy,"pp. and2.60;"The f..('hoof theSubjc..'cr,"p.174),dlSRrtlttllRtrtm("ThcCaesuraoftheSpeculative," p "Holderhn and the Greeks,"p.1+S),dlSappropnRti01Il (dt)propnRtron]("Typog-rnphy."pp.133aIld135;"Dlderot:ParadoxandMimesis,"p. 265;"The Caesura of the Spl"Culativc."p2.:U;"Holdt-Tlinandthep.anddeconrh'JlClioll("'Typog-raphy," pp. and"The Echo of the Subject," p1+1;'7he Caesura of theSpecu-lative,"pp..312, Takinginto.lCCOuntthesupplement::aryringof whichIhave .. poken, the:mew,ung ()f"dcconstnlct"-a word which Lacouc-Labarthc elsewhere be docs l10tconSider "in theleast 'worn out'"{I..'imitRtumdes,HlJfIernes.p.282)-bcars the senseof a task. somctmles that of an cvc:nt, of what (lCcurSan any caseIn a "practl,-aJ"tor example of libldcrlin(d: "The Caesura of the Speculative," p2.2.1)Ih.lveremarkc:dthatLacouc-Labarthe:somcrinlcswritesU(de)COIlStrtl&tionII (''Typography,'' p I ntroductiol'l: Desistance At this monlent, when I haveto cut things short, too late or too early, I'll takeup only one example:the ClUsura.There isno rhythnl without caesura.And yt:t,asHolderlin reminds us, the caesura "itself" must be "antirhythmic"(p.234),evenarrythl11ic.Thisinterruptiondoesnot havethedialecticalcadenceof arelationbetweenrhythmandnon-rhythm, the continuous and the discontinuolls, etc.It interrupts alter-nation,"the constraint of oppositionin general"(p.2[2),dialecticand the speculative, even the double bind (pp. 236ff.) when it retains an op-positional form.It isineluctable-and it does not spare avoidance: Itprevents[Witer](aprotectivegesture,whichdocsnotnecessarily meana "riulalistic" one) the racing oscillation, pa.nic,and an orientation toward this or that pole. It represents the active neutrality of the interval between[entre-deux].TIlisisundoubtedly whyit isnot by chancethat thecaesurais,oneachoccasion,theemptymoment-theabsenceof "momenr"-ofTircsias's intervention:that isto say,of theintrusion of the prophetic word.("The Caesura of the Speculative," p. 2.35) WheninSophoclean tragedyitmarksthewithdrawalof thedivine andthetunlingbackof mantowardtheearth,thecaesura,gapor hiatus, plays at and Wldoes mourning. A Trauerrpiel plays at mourning. It doubles the work of mourning: the speculative, dialectic, opposition, identification, nostalgic interiorization, even the double bind of imita-tion. But it doesn't avoidit. Gapor hiatus:theopennlouth.Togiveandreceive.Thecaesura sometimestakesyourbreathaway.Whenluckiswithit,it'stolet you speak. JacquesDerrida I Typography Almost everywhere it was madness which prepared the wayforthe new idea, which broke the spell of a venerated usage and superstition. Do youunder-stand why it had to be madness which did this?Something in voice and bearing asuncanny andincalculable as the demonic moods of the weather and the sea and therefore worthy of a similar awe and observation?Some-thing that bore so visiblythe sign of total unfreedom as the convulsions and froth of the epileptic, which seemed to mark the madman as the mask and speaking-trwnpet of a divinity? Something that awokeinthe bearer of a new idea himself reverence forand dread of himself and no longer pangs of con-scienceand drove him to become the prophet and martyr of hisidea?-while it isconstantly suggested to us today that, instead of a grain of salt, a grain of the spice of madness is joined to genius. all earlier people foundit much more likelythat wherever thereismadness there is also a grain of genius and wIsdom-something "divine," as one whispered to oneself. Or rather:as one said aloud forcefullyenough. "It through madness that the greatest good things have come to Greece," Plato said, in concert with all ancient mankind. HaJ1C JfIJ'not obsened that imitations,if co1ltinuedfrom :Yfmth far ,nto life,settle doJl'"into habits and second natllYe i" the body,the speech,and the thought? US,i,uieed,said he. m lvill not thenallow our charges,JphomJlleexpect to jWOJ1e good mel',bei,'B me'l,toplay the parts ofJJ7OmeJland imitate a)17(I111"n young or old wrallgling nJitll her husband,defying iJeaven,loudly boasting, fortunatei7'!Jer on", '07"Clt,or mVO/J1cd i"misfortune and possessed by griifa"d lameJ2tation-rtilllm a lvoman tllat is sick,i" 10Jle,or In labor. Mostnot,hereplied. Nor "lay they i,nttatefemale ami male,do"'Dthe offices of slaves. No,Hotthat e'tiler Nor yet,as it seems,bad metlJI1"Oarc COR1fIrds a71d JlJhodo the opposr,teof the thi,'!Is JJ1e i'lst nOll' spoke oj:,-evili,'B and lampooning 011e11IlOther,speaki'll9 foul lW1rds in their ""PI or Ji,hmsober and In othersmni"B agamst thnnse/JJCS a71d 44Typography others inword lind deed rifter tile fmlnonof such men. And I take it they must not formthe habit oflikelling themsdves tomadmen eitiJer inJI'ordsnor yet ,n deeds. Forwile kHIIJI71etlgethey must h"J7e both of mall RIUl bRd men Rnd J11Omen,they must doand imitate nothi,'8 oftl,u kind. Most fme,he said. Well,thetz,neighing JJorsesand lou>ingb,d/s,and tlJe,wise ofnM'S a7,d the roar of the sell and the thunder a,ui everything ofthat kind-Jl1ill they i",itate these? NRY,theyhRI"been forbidden,he said,tobemad or toliketlthemsell'esto nurdmen. Let us go a step further:allsuperior menwho were irresistibly drawnto throw off the yoke of anykind of morality and to framenewlawshad.,if they lI'eTenot actutrlly nllUi,no alternative but to make themselves or prcrcnd to be mad ... "How can one make oneself mad when one isnot mad and docs not dare to appear so?"-almost all the significant men of ancient civilisation havepursued this train of thought ... Who would venture to take a look into the wilderness of the bitterest and most superfluous agonies of soul ..in whichprobably themost fruitful men of alltimes havelanguished! To listen to the sighs of these solitary and agitated minds; c'Ah, give me madness., you heavenlypowers! Madness.,that I may at last believeinmyself! Give delir-iums and convulsions, sudden lights and darkness, terrify me with frost and firesuch asno monal has ever felt,with deafening din and prowling figures, make mehowl and whine and crawl likea beast:so that I may only come to believeinmysclflI am consumed by doubt,I have killed the law, the law anguishesme as a corpse does a livingman:if 1 amnot more than thelawI am the vilest of all mell. Thc new spirit whichisinmc, whenceisit if it is not from you?Prove to methat I am yours;madness alone can proveit." Nietzsche,DlIJbreak.andPlato,Republic* Inthelongrun,thequestionposedhereisthatof "philosophical madness." Whatcanbesaid,forexample,aboutRousseau's Nietzsche's?Indeed,whataboutHegel(who "believedhewasgoing mad")or even Kant?Or Comte?Or probably others still, evenif they have not passed asmad, or if it isnot entirely customary for usto con-sider thenl fullyas "philosophers"? .. EPWmpll: The.:first and duroarc from Friedrich NlcrJ..schc. Dn.vbrtaL,no. 14 ("'TheSignificanlc of Madness111theIIt'ltoryof Morality"),trails.RJHollingd:lIc (C.'lIubndgc:Cambridge Umverslty 1981). pp. 14-16. 'rhe sc.oond 5c.-aionis from PlatdsRtpl,bli,(III,trans.PaulShorey,111TheCollectedDiaJo..lJlleJ,,,-d. F..dith Hamtlton and lIuntlllgtOIl Calms Prmccton Umvcnlty Press,1961) A1I5ubsc(.)uenr citations ufPlato in this essayarcfromthis "olwne Typography 4S Tobegintofonnulateourquestion,then,provisionally,andstill fromadistance,weask:Whatcanbesaidaboutmadnesswhenit touches (on)philosophy? When it seizes a philosopher or when a phi-losopher lets himself be taken by it, when he lets himself succumb to it, fallinto it-go under? Isthis an "accident" or the effect of a necessity, of a "destiny"?Isit to be wtderstood "empirically" (in whatever form: psychological,historical,sociological,and so on)or mustone goin search of its cause-that isto say, itsreason-within philosophy itself? And in either case, what isinvolved? The same thing, the sanle concept of madness?Is it possible to decide? Isit possible, for example,that there issome philosophicalpredesti-llationto madness, somephilosophicalpredetermination of madness, evidenceof which mightbefoundillthetactthat it shouldbemore toward its end (or what it thinks assuch) that philosophy, pushed to its limit, exhausted, Wlsetded, exasperated, was forcedto undergo such a trial?And what wouldbethevalueof thiskindof hypothesis?What wouldit involve, above all, inrelation to philosophy? Theseareclassicquestions,nowclassical-accepted.Whichdocs not meanthat theyarctor thisreasonpertinent.Far fromit.But it is nevertheless indispensable that we hold on to them-that we not rush tooverturnthemandimaginethat,bysimplydecidingto,onecan change questions.In fact,there iseven some likelihood, some chance, that the "thing itself" depends on it.Perhaps,after all,nladnessitself fromcertainquestions,andeven-why not?-from someof thesequestions(fromthepresupposed, forexample,of someof these qucstions) . TIllsisthe reasonfor our asking,in short (indeed,it ishardto see how we could doanything else):how canweread,for example,how canweplaceor situate,howcanwe"recognizc"(wearcnot saying the opening lines of Rousseau's Confessions("Ifashionan enterprisewhichhasnopreviousexample...")orDialogues?Or Kant'slast texts?Or Schopenhauer-and not only the "last" Schopen-hauer?Or Nietzsche'swritings-all of Nietzsche'swritingsfromthe year18S8? What should we do, for example,with Ecce Homo?or evenwith just EcceHomo'sprologue? And with rhLc;,for example,within the prologue? Seeing that before long I must confront humanity with the most difficult ,iemand ever madeof i4 it indispensableto meto saylvho Iam Really,oneshouldknowit,for1 havenotleftmyself "wlthollttesti-Typography mony." But the disproportion between the grcamess of my task and the smaJlness of my contemporaries hastound expression in the fact that one hasneither heard nor even seen me. Ilive on my own credit; it is perhaps a mere prejudice that Ilive ... Under thl"Se I have a duty against which my habits. evenmore thepnc.icof my revoltat bottom-namely, to say:HeRr me! For 1 tun stich and stich a penon. AbO,Je RlJ,donot mistake me for someone else! ... Iam, for example, by no meansabogey, or.l moralisticmonster-I amacruallytheveryoppositeof thetypeof manwho sofarhasbeen revered asvirruous.Between ourselves, it seems to me that precisely this is pan of my pride.I am a disciple of the philosopher Dionysus; I should prefer to be even a satyr to being a saint ... Among my writings my Zamthustra stands to my mind by irsclf. With that I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. This book, with a voice bridging cenruries, is not only theest book thereis,thebook that istruly characterizedbythe air of the heights-the whole fact of man ltes beneath it at a tremendous distance-it is also the deepest,born out of the innermost wealth oftruth ... Here no "prophet" is speaking,none of thosegruesome hybridsof sicknessand willtopower whompeoplecaUfoundersof religions.AboveaU,one must heRr anght the tone that ConlCSfromthismouth ... Such things reach only the most select.It isa privilege without equal to bea listener here.Nobodyisfreeto haveears for Zarathustra ... Not only docshe speak differently, he alsoisdifferent... Now Igo alone, my disciples.You,too, go now,alone. Thus Iwant it ... One repays a teacher badly if one alwaysrcmallls nothing but a PUpil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wrcadl? Yourevereme;but what if your reverencet"mblesone day?Beware lest a starue slay you!... Now I bid you lose meand find yourselves;and only JJ'/Jn, you I,ave all denied ttlCwill Ireturn to vou.' , What should we do with this? What arcweto nlakeof itif werefuseto think-of course-that there could be only pure incoherence or illSallity ill these lines, but also when wehavesome reason to be sllSpicious of allthe '4demagogic," if not upsychagogic,"phraseologywith which Olleclainls out, it is true, too great a risk-to speak inthe nruue of madness? What arc weto nIake of itif..for example,(fasclllated)fearand incOillprehen-slon areindlssociablyat play there? ,Fncdr,c:h Nletzsche,E(m Homo,111Bast" t?/N,audJe. tramWalter K.luf-mann(New York'RandomHou5C.J968).ppTypography 47 We a re proposing a task that is obviously inmlCl1"e-CVen should we attempt, nOdoubt invain,to reduceit to a "reading" of Nietzsche-inalllikelihood,WewiDbe content, therefore,to explore dIe terrain.Not in oroer to mark it out, to circumscribe or de-scribe it, to survey it, or to go around it in advance-ill the now donli-nant style of the proprietor (whose desire to "construct," a.1iwe know, can hardly be dissinullated);for there is that can be de-limitedor can serveasground(s)-a fortiori could appropri-ate.Instead,wewiDexplorethe terrainmerelyto go intoit abit,to clear approaches, to begin, at most, to break a path: to see what it leads to,whathappens(wherewefindourselves,if wefindwherewe're going...).Anessay,let'ssay.Andwithout deceivingourselvestoo much, without forgetting that we will certainly have to begin again, in a different way,(at least)another time,by other means, following dif-lcrent approaches, and so on-it should become evident that this goes without saying. Onto-typo-logy Wanting to be what we arc not, wecome to believe ourselves something other titanwhat we arc,alld this ishow we becomemad. Prefaceto La nouveUe Heloise TInsiswhy 1will start fronl a precisepoint. Andperhaps sincewehavejust had a sampleof it,a certain "dou-blingn of Nietzsche. That is,in order to limit the fieldof investigation(aJldinorder not tohavetogobacktoofar),Iwillstartfronlacertainrelationship, WOvenexplicitly,inEcu Homo,by the author of the text (he who says "I," &ignswith hisnanle,presents and exposes Jnmself,recounts his life and work, retraces his origins, claims his absolute originality, conlplains of notbeingrecognizedforwhat heis,judgeshinlSelf inconunensu-rthlewith anyone else, and so on)with "Zarathustra"-the text so ell-titled, of course,but aLCio"Zarathustra himself,astype"(if not simply Zarathl4strahimseJf)-whosche (the author) makesit his duty to "tell" (the genesis, therefore, a"d the constrllctlon, and the encolln-ter),wholnheisbentondistinguishingfroman}'otllerfigurewe might think of asanalogous(hereagam,it shouldnot be a matter of Typography "confusion"), whonl heconstantly citesin support of his "own" state-ments, or behind whom he constantly takes cover (whom h.Bcmard 11111J( Nell'N'I:tzscIJt:Co"tenzpo,.lIry of IIltC..,p,-allt;o'l(NewYork- Dell.1977),P77E,--Typography It happensa second time, cvenmoreindirectly(andperhaps,here, onemust push thingsabit), whcn Hcidcgger attempts to distinguish Socrates within the succession of Westcnl thinkers.Thc text hasbecn pretty much worked over inthelight of other themes.Moreover, it is written entirely inreference to a note of Nictzsche's, itself wellknown (althoughenigmatic),andoffersessentially-thoughthisisagainst Nietzsche-a commentary upon it (but weknow that it isnecessary to interpret Nietzsche, as one would any great "against hinlSclf").6 Heideggerspeakshereof thewithdrawal,of thetunlingasideof "what givesusto think": Whenevermanisproperlydrawingthatway[inthedirectionof the withdrawal]. heisthinking-even though he may stillbe farawayfrom whatwithdraws,eventhoughthewithdrawalmayremainasveiledas ever. Allthrough his life and right up to hisdeath, Socrates did nothing else than place himself in this draft, this current., and maintain htmself in it. This is why he isthe purest thinker of the West. This iswhy he wrote nothing.Foranyonewhobeginstowriteout of thoughtfulnessmust mcvitably be likethose people who run to seek refuge from any draft too strong for them. An as yet unwritten history still keeps the secret why all great Westernthinkers after Socrates, with aUtheir grcamcss,had to be such fugitives. Thinking entered into literature ...7 From onet:Cxtto thenext,at leastinrcgard to the questionraised here(Iamonlyrereadingtheminfactwithinthisperspective),the lesson, asalways,isperfectly clear.For if Zarathustra isa figure,in the strongest sense(and we will sec in a moment that for Heidegger it isa historialnecessitythatcommitsmetaphysics,intheprocessof com-pleting itself, since to (re)presenting itself (sich darsteUen)in fig-ures,aswellastorepresenting(vontellen)transcendence,fromthe perspectivc of the Usubjective" determination of Being, as the form, fig-urc,imprint,typeof ahumanity:NierL.SChc'sZarathustra.,Jiinger's Worker, evenRilke'sAngel)8-it isalsotruethat such "figuration" is dmkmIltheretranslatedas"fictionallyrllOughtout"(more"ficrioncdin thought": jia;tJlltJeT pllr IIIpeusit)hOt onlytobanalmeaning of the word111Gennan(to Image..toinvent.to tabricate,etc:.)but also in ordt.'Ttorespc't a C:crt:llnproximity of tillSwordto (or.lc:ert:llndisrancmgfrom)Erd;chttll(not D"I, tell)-m the act offimoningIjia;o"",.T!that wtllappear further on. 6Nzetuthe.vol.I, p.2+ 7HCldcgger.WIlilt IsCalled trans.J.(ilellllGrav(NewYork:llarpcr andRow,1968),p.17. 8.Should we ",dd andM.ux'ltPmlctanan? rnllSisa qUClitJOI1that one can alw3\'s cast out, when the: occasion ari!K.'S,in order to see where it Will finish, ifir Typography 53 programmed fromthe most distant sources of metaphysics(in thisin-stance, since Parmenides, but we will understand soon enough, even if this causes some difficulties., that Plato, in a certain way,isnot without some responsibility here )-and in the same way.,on the contrary, Soc-rates, insofar as he is free of precisely any compromise with writing and literature, is not II figure,and consequently could not ever be confused, assuch,with,forexample,the(re )presentatiollthatPlatohasgiven him:that is,could never be identified with(or as)a construction,in-deed, asRohde suggests, a "creation.," of Plato. If Heidegger refuses to consider eventheleastanalogybetweenZarathustra andSocrates,or the leastliterary rivalrybetweenNietzsche and Plato, it isfinally,even though Plato should alreadybelong to the space of literature.,forthe simple reason that from the point of view (if it is one) of the history of Bcillg,there isno common measurebetween Socrateshimself and the rest(including Plato's Socrates). Whichdoesnot meanthat acommonmeasurewouldnot existin generalbetweentheGreeksandtheModems.Onthecontrary.In whateverwaytheexactmomentof thoughfs"entry"intoliterature might be determined(does it begin with Parmenides or with Plato?), the Er-denkenof the lastfigureof metaphysics isnot unrelated to that of its initial figure,and Nietzsche willnever have done anything nlore, practically.,than "unveil" aproject hiddeninPannenides.In any case, we are fullyaware that if there are marked periods, epochs, even turn-ing points in the history of metaphysics, there is in reality-and for the reason,no doubt,that thereisno history but that of the Same-only one same history (of metaphysics):this, thc historial, presupposing the radical heterogeluity of Being within itsown(un ) vci ling to be the Same (not the identical), is strictly homogeneous. Undcr these conditions,then,why not recognize, or why refuse to recognize, the hypothesis of a relation between Nietzsche and Plato of the kind suggested by Rohde? What isit that here restrains Hcideggcr? Or even"possibly (docs one ever know what heknows...),what isit ever will.As concerns theprobkmatlc of the Gut/dt,the es.'1entl.l1rcft.T-cncQ, arc, In addition to the: commentary of Hc:gd'sInrroduL-rion to the PhtllOffl11l0/ogy o/Spirit (Hegtl'r Ctmtt:pt ofF.xprrie"ce,tr.UlS.Kcnley Dove (New York:Harper andRow, 1970 ]): the commentary on Rilkc an "What Arc Poets For?" in Poetry, 1_"''B"nge, TIJOff!lht, trans.AlbertHofstadtcr(NewYork:Harper andRow,1971),pp.the discus-'lionWithJWlgcrIn711eQllesl1tmof BemA,trans.WalhamKluback andJeanT.Wilde (New York:TW.lyne, and, of course,the Ict:narc"TIle of Technology," 111"The QuestumCtnJ(",,"I;I!!ITetiJllology" IImi Otber Essays,tr:1JlS.Willianl.ovitt(New York'Harper andRow,1977),pp IWIllrerum rotill., llucstion shortly 5+ Typography thatalannshim?Whatcouldtherebeinslicharelationthatwould render it questionable or superficial with respect to the depth andthe levelof seriousnessatwhichtheproblematicof thefigureistobe reachcd? Heidegger'srefusal,if thereisone,isallthemoresurprisinghere because whenever the question ofthejigure arises,it isindeed Plato-that is,the Platonic detennination of Being-that iscalledinto ques-tion.Whether directly,asintheepistolarydialoguewithJunger,or indirectly (and assuming that the essence of "European nihilism" isal-ready known), asin the commemoration of Rilke. Why Plato? For this reason,aboveall:thattheGestalt-theadventof thefigureasthe proper sitefortheUrifoldtugof dieii!$iLlliOdcrll.metaphysicspre-supposes the Platonic determination of Being aseidos/idea.Heldegger explaIns this quite tliorougnIy to Junger. Not (as some have rumored, imagining that such rumors could serve asanargument)inorder towrestJunger,inavaguelycomplicitous gesture,fromthe spaceof nihilism;but, onthecontrary,in order to markthefactthathebelongsfundamentallytonihilism,thoughhe claims to have "crossed the line" or claimsto have "surpassed"it.And thisbyrecognizinginworkand the figureof theworker,despitewhat-ever step Junger might have taken beyond Nietzsche's "going astray"in tlle"biologico-anthropological,"thedecisivefeatureof thewillto power asthe "total character,"inthemodem epoch(inthe epoch of technology), of the "reality of the real."9 But it ispreciselybecausehemobilizes,if wemaysayso,the con-/iff..u:e .. [onn),and.. lVorReT'(DerKr1/Citerl., by Junger that Heldeg-ger points to here,issubtitled Masterya.ndtheFigure(or DominatWn a.nd Form/Die Herrschaft u:nd die Gestalt)-that Jiinger remains caught within the very language and the articulation of the "master-words" of nihilism. That is to say., of metaphysics. TIle concept of Gestalt,in par-ticular, although Junger opposes it to the "simple idea" (ill the modem sense ofperceptio,of therepresentationby a subject).,retains witllinit-self:insofarasthefigureisaccessibleonlyinaseeing(aSehen),tllS element. of..or "theoretical"overdeter-mination that isconstrainingrlle whole ofb.@..o-logical discourse. And especially since Plato.Indeed.,whatis at stake in )iinger;sSehen--is preciselythatseei,'B"whichdlCGreckscallwin,a 9TIlt Q"tnum ofBti,llJ.Pw. Typography wordthatI'latousesforalookthat viewsnot that changeablething whichisperceivablethroughthesensesbutthatimmutablething., Being, the idea." IIIGestalt,therefore.,isthe finalname of the Idea, the 1,1stword..- ..TIlus, -. thereisnot the leastaccident in the factthat, just asPlato happens to think of what produces, in transcendence or illtranscendentalproduc-tion(in the Her-vor-bringenof thepre-sent(the An-wesende)by pres-ence (Anwcsen), of being by Being), in tenns ofthe "type" or the "seal'" (tupos),JungerthinksUtherelationof formtowhatitbringsinto fonn," Gestaltung (figuration), as "the relation between stamp and im-pression'"(Stempel! Priigung). 11I nboth,andansweringto theeidetic ontology as such, to onto-ideo-Iogy, there appears in its contours what must be called, in all rigor, anonto-typo-logy.With the difference that in JOOger, impression (as PrlifJen)isinterpreted in the "nlodern" sense as "bestowing meaning"-the Gestalt isthe bestowal of meaning. This is why metaphysicalrepresentation belonging to TheWorker distin-guishesitself fromthePlatonicand evenfromthe modem,withthe exception of Nietzsche." 11For the figure, as the bestowal of meaning-inorder to bethebestowalof meaning-mustbe the figureof ahu-manity:....To man the role of giving meaning-to man, is,asworker.Whichamounts onto=ty"po-logyinJiingerstillpresupposes,atthefuundationof beinginitstotality,a humanityalreadydetenninedassubjectum:"theprefonnedfigural presence [die VDrgeformte gestalthafte Pmesenz 1ofa type ofman [Mensch-enschlag](typus)fornlSLbiltlet]themostextremesubjectivitywhich comesforthinthefulfillmentof modernmetaphysicsand is(re )pre-scnted[dargesteUt]by its thinking." 13In this way,we can explain why onto-typo-logy,thusinflected,thatis,thus"reversed"andbrought back to the "subjectal" sphere, finallyproceeds from a "nlodification of 10.Ibid.,p. Sl. 11.Ibid., p.As c:onc:enlSPlato, Heldegger here makes rererence to the TIJllletaus, 192.-19...b. 12.The Q,ltStttm ofBehtll,p. SSe '3Ibid.,p. "The appcaram:cof themetaphysicalfigureI Gestalt1of man,"says on the followingpage, "asthe source of what givesorpresentsmeaningis the final 'OIlSCqUCIlCC of establishing the essence of man as the dt.-rcnnining and measur-1l1g1"'4S.{B'cbend]SIIbjtctlnn." That ISto say,thehnal C011S"dISJunction." That istowe:I"-'Call that Hcidcggcr also usesthe W()rdFfill''''D.especiallyin Ius commentary on Schelling, to deSignate(.ry-stase)in ItSO1o.\ttimdanlCllt.ll sense (see Sebellings AblJlmdlllng ,iber dasWtStnder mmsclllitlJnI Freilmt .. r.19711,p. :t4-)-the fact of being ,. Typography matulcr [Jwdeutend], among them the statements concerning art. Such a return transpires inthe tenth and finalbook.Here it is shown first of all what it means to say that art is mimesis,and then why, granting that char-acteristic,an can only havea subordinate starns[Stellung].Here .l deCI-sionismade(butonlyinacertainrespect) 0;0aboutthemetaphysical relation of art and truth.51 77 The moral-and this isthe solelesson of this overview and "reorgani-zation" of the Republic:it is only after the elucidation of the essence of truth, in Book VII, that the essence of mimesis, the utruth" of mimesis, can be decided. The mimetology of Book (II and Book) III, then, does not reachthisfar.Or, if youprefer,it isnot in the Platonic "poetics" that mimesis is to be reached or grasped. "Poetics" is not decisive-mti-cal inthe strongest SenSe. 4.That despiteeverything,Book III demonstrates that theartistic product,the poieti&,isalwayssimply the "DarsteUungof what is."Mi-mesis is thus firstof all Dansellung.But this proposition (in which we recognize the equation, though not the translation, ventured by Herder and Solgerin thelastyearsof theeighteenth cenrury) 5lisadmissible only on theconditionthatwegrantititsfullweight.Dantellungis there, in fact, only for the stele,or-which amounts to the same thing-inorder nottosayNachahmung,imitation.ThisiswhyDarstellung immediatelycallsupHerstellung,productionorinstallation,inthe most "active" senseof theword(whencetheinsistenceon "activity," Tun),evenif it isnecessary to limit or restrain the autonomy of thisby conceding that what isproper to it (supposing that it hasany property whatsoever),that is,tashioning or fictioning(Um-hilden,Erdichten),isof theorderof counterfeiting(Nachmachen)or reproduction(Ab-bilden)-andthusof acertain"passivity."Thisis confinned,moreover,afewpageslater,bythe "definitive"definition that Heideggcr, calling this time upon Book X,proposes formimesis: "Mtmesismeanscounterfeiting[the'making-atter.,'dasNachmachen]., Heideggcr heR.'makes reference to anom(:r Plaromc problanatlc of art-the one takenup inthe PlmednlS.f{)rexample, which is disc.ussedInhis next chapter. NtctzsclJt,vol.1,pp. 168-169. Cf.KarlWIllic:lmFcrdill.1ndSolger,VtJriesuHgtll{Iber Astl1tNk,pt.2.,c:h.3:"Von dcmOrganismus desKunstlcnschcn GClStCS," SCl."t.1:"Von der1m und vonmrer Eimheilung." TIlis equation oft(:rnls hasbeenI'l.'etsanold friendafter many years and this man tellshim about anex-perience he hashad in the meantime. The "I" fonn of the presentationis kept,but me storyteller, theI,is only arecorder or observer.Although hesometimesspeaksof hisownopinionsor emotions,heremainsan episodic figure,while the often unheroic hero experiences a tragic, comic or tragi-comical destiny.It is psychologically recognizable that this I, this recorder,tellseithera PlIStexperimuof hisatJI,hiebhenOli'looks froma b,rd's-eyevie11',or prtse1asa potentiality cf hisOMlD,hichnever aa.,ally be-came a ,-eRlity In his lift. Thepsychological advantages of thistechnique of presentation-not tomentionthe artlSticones-arc thatit allows the stOryteller a detach-mentfrom,and sometimesakindof emotionalaloofnesstoward, his own experience of a past potentiality of his destiny. The person of the writer appears, thus, pyschologically split into two figures, the I, the story-teller, and the Me. me acting or suffering character. One can assume mat this tc.."Chniqueof presentationisappropriate to the seIt:'observing or in-trospective side of the writer.(McltJd."I,pp. 2.S4-2.5S;emphasisadded) This is all quite dear and should require no conmlentary. The "musi-cal scene," asit were, remains still the same:the funeral ceremony (that is,more the scene of agony).But we sec now the reason for it: the death of the other (the hero, the rival)isalways at bottom my own death.The schemaisthat of identificationalong with everythingthis entails-the death wish andnarcissistic intoxication and the feel-ing of failure,etc.Mahler at von Buhlow's funeral,Reik in his Austrian the evening helearns of Abraham's death. This is why the music laments-musicingenerallaments,beit "joyous," "light,""pleasant" (illverting the lamentation into an exaltation of my immortality). What it lanlcnts isalwaysmy own death (unpresentablc assuch, saidFreud: The Echoofthe Subjea 193 itsveryinevitabilityisrefusedbytheunconscious,andtheEgo must learnof itthroughtheintermediariesof figureandscene).7BWhat touches or moves me inmusic,then, ismy ownmourning. Forthisreason,what appearshereinthe description of asituation of indin.."Ctnarration(which,inadditiontothenovelsof Somerset Maugham, characterizes, for example, Thomas Mann's Doktor Faustus), and inthe disguised autobiography and the specularization of writing in the first person, isnothing other thall the mimetic dement, the same thatisfound,whateverPlatomight say or want to think of it,inthe "simplenarrative,"the haplediegesis.There isno writing, or evenany discourse, that issimply in the firstperson-ever. Because every enun-ciation isabyssal.AndbecauseIcannot saymy dying-even lessmy being already dead. If all autobiography is an autothanatography, auto-biography as suchis, rigorously speaking, impossible. Reik, in hisway,demonstrates this flawlessly.But there ismore. For in this first program (reversing the course followed by Plato and moving from lexis to logos),the second and third movements, tollowing the first,which "recounts" the funeralceremony inhonor of the hero, are conceived of as "interludes" recalling the life of the hero-the sec-ond concerned particularly with the "memory ofhappy times." Now, it ispree iselythisprogrammatic descriptionthat Reik chooses to cite in extenso.The narrator or witness continues to recowlt, but this time the scene takes on (isthis such a surprise?)an utlheimlich quality. It happened that you were at the burial of a person dear to you andthen onthewaybacksuddenlymeimageof anhourof happiness,long emerged. This image has an effect similar to a ray of sun: you can almostforgetwhatjusthappened.Whl.'I1thl.'I1thedaydreamerawakens fromhisfantasy andreturnsto life:,it may bethat the unceasinglymov-ing,never understandable busde of lifebecomes as ghasdy asthe moving of dancmg figuresin anilluminated dance hallinto which youlook from thedarknight,fromsofarawaythat youcannothearthemusic.The nlrning andmovingof thecouplesappearsthentobesenseless,asthe rhythmclue:ismissing.(Me1od."p.2B) The scene, of course, isnot so happy asit promised to beat its out-set.Itisindeedasceneof "resurrection,"incontinuitywiththefirst 11l0vcnlent:awaken;yourerumto life."Inother words,ascene 78S'gmulld Freud, "Thought.., tor the Times on War and Death," St(mdtJrd Ed#UmJ vol.' ...pp.273-JOO. TheEchoofthe Subject of torgc..1:ting.AsFreudwould nooneultinlatclybelievesinhis owndeath. The samelogic isstill at work here. This iswhythe scene veers toward the U,lheimliche.79 It veersin this manner toward theU,,-heimliche,into this estrangement of the byway of the "musi-cal" mise-en-ahyme (if this is which isitsclfvery stra,we in that music itself is given the role of awakening the awareness of its own absenceandof theimpossibilityof perceivingit.It happensnotso muchbecausethesoundsthemselvesarenlissing,butbecause of the lack of rbythm: "the rhythnl clue is missing." The lack of a rhythm that is heflT'd renders the distantly perceived scene of the ball "phantomlike" and"senscless"-fantastic-and createsthemalaise.,thefeelingof a distancing of what is close, the quality of "between lit'Cand death,n and the appearance of automatic panicthatareperfectlyrecogllizableand typical. Rhythm, then, is heard. It isnot seen-directly from the movements of the dance, for example, from the repetition and regularity of its fig-urcs. On the contrary, without rhythm, the dance (it is a waltz) hc:comes disorganizedand disfigured.Inother words, rhythm, of a specifically musical(acoustic)essencehere,ispriortothefigureorthevisible schemawhoseappearance,assuch-its verypossibility of beingper-ceived-it conditions. Thisiswhy itslackthrows off (scopic)percep-tion, andestrml!Jes,defamiliarizcs,disturbs tlle familiar,the visible, the phenomenal,properlyspeaking.Whatismissing,Platowouldhave said,isanidea.Forwhatismissingisquite simplya "participation" (categorization, schematization):inthis case the repetititm or tenlpoml (nottopologicalor spatial)constraintthatactsasameansof diver-sificationbywhichthe realmight berecognized, established, anddis-posed. Or more precisely,since inthis case we have to do with a dance inwhich themovements and figuresarethemselvesperformedit, imi-tatWt' of an(inaudible)music and since rhythm is consequently the fig-ure,esse"titdlythefigure(whichitself isperhapsnot essentially of the order of thevisible),whatismissing istherepetitionon thebasisof which the repetititm ofthe dance(the dance as repetition, imitation, and withinit, the repetition offigures)might appear. Missing is the repeti-tion fromwhich the division nlight bemade between themimetic and thenon-mimetic:adivisionhctweentherecognizableandthenon-recognizable, the familiar and thethereal and thethe sensible andtllemad-life and fiction. 79.Sec,IIIfreud's C....."The Unc.l1l1lf'(.Wandard Edmoll.\'01.17), t."Vcrytlungre-lated to the of death and the omnipott.-ncc of thoughts (pp2.42 and 247). The Echo ofthe Subject 19S The absence ofill other words, is equivalent to the infinitely paradoxical appearance of the mimetic itself:the indifferentiable as such, theimperceptibleparexcellence.TIleabsenceof that onthebasisof whichthereisimitation,theabsenceof theimitatedor therepeated (music, which in its very principle is itselfrepctition) reveals what isby definitionWlrevealable-imitationor repetition.Ingeneral,nothing could appear, arise, be revealed, "occur," were it not for repetition. The absenceof repetition,byconsequence,revealsonlytheunrevealable, givesriseonlytotheimprobable,andthrowsoff theperceivedand wen-known.Nothi1't1occurs:ineffect,theUtlheimliche80-the most uncannyandmostunsettlingprodigy.Forinitsundecidability,the Unheimlithehas to do not only with castration (this also can be read in Freud),thereturn of the repressedor infantileanxiety;itisalsothat whichcausesthemostbasicnarcissisticassurance(theobsessional"I am not dead" orwill survive")to vacillate, in that the differentiation betweentheimaginaryandthereal,thefictiveandthenon-fictive, comesto be effaced(and mimesis, consequently, "surfaces").Without the beneficial doubling (or because, according to Freud, of the change in"algebraicsign"thedoubleundergoesinthedevelopmentof the Ego),B1the immediate certitude of "primary narcissism," its confused, blind, ante-specular recognition,isshaken. In which case, rhythm would also be the condition of possibility for the subject. But let us not go too quickly;let us remain abit longer inthe vicinity of the Second Symphony. Although we had reason to anticipate this point, we will understand bettc..-rnow whydlesectionfollowingtheutlheimlichmovement(the waltz)inMahler'sprogram, after aprayerforredenlptiongiventoa solovoice-thepassagefromlamentingtoimploring-isa"vision" (Mahler'stenn)of deliveranceandunanimousresurrectionsnatched from the terror of the Last Judgment:the famolls chorale based on the poembyKlopstock,"Autcrsteh'n." The returntomusic,to thesong (properlyspeaking,to the cantidc)-thc chorale,letusnot forget,is hereinthepositionof acitation,referringbacktoBachandtothe 80I neludangthe:!>cnscHCldeggcrgivestoit111,forc.xanlplc, "What Is Iund Of the the central humming of the Are old men breathed on by a m.u:emalVOICC, Children and old menand philosophers, Bald heads with their mother's voice still in their cars. The self isa cloister fullof remembered sounds 106"111Cp. 14S. 107InSChriftt'IZ zm'[,ztcmtzI7' u"d K zmst (Wicsbadcn:Limes Verlag. 1964-).l'ran'i.MSchneider illMIISiqllcen jm 9, pp. The Echoof the Subjea And of soundc; so far forgotten,likeher n,at they rcttlm unrecogni7.cd. The self DctL"CtSthe sound of a voice that doublesitsown, Intheimages of desire,the formsthat The ideasthat come to it witha sense of speech. n,e old men, the philosophers, are haunrcd by rhat Matl.TI1al voice,the explanation at night.1tlll 207 loS.WallaceStcvens,WomanThatHadMoreBabies11tan1113[,"OPIIS PostlJlmwlu,cd.SamuelFrench MorlOc(New York'Knopf,p.81. I The Caesura of the Speculative Allesschwebt. -Anton Webern The purpose of these remarks, extracted fromwork inprogress, will betwofold. First, I would like to show-but thisis scarcely a thesis, so evident is the point, fundamcntally-I would like to show that tragedy, or a cer-taininterpretationof tragedy,explicitlyphilosophical,andaboveall wanting to be such, isthe origin or the matrix of what inthe wake of Kantisconventionallycalkxispeculativethought:thatisto say,dia-lectical thought, or to take up the Heideggerian terminology, the onto-rtheo-Iogical inits fullyaccomplished form.It has been known for sonle time, or at least since Bataille, that the dialectic-the mastering thought of the corruptible and of death,the determination of the negative and its conversioninto a force of work and production, the assumption of the contradictory andthe Aufbebung [releve]asthe verymovement of the auto-conception of the True or the Subject, of absolute Thought-that the theory of death presupposes (and doubtless not entirely without its knowledge)a theater:a structure of representation and a mimesis, a spacewhichisenclosed,distant,andpreserved(thatis,safeguarded andtrueif one hears,asdidHegel,whatissaidinthe Germanword Wahrhett),where death in general, decline and disappearance, is able to contemplate "itself," reRect Uitself," and interiorize "itself." This space, this "temple," and this SCenewere tor Bataille the space of sacrifice-a "comedy," he said. IWeallknow this celebrated analysis.On the other hand, what isa little less known-and which I would like to emphasize (.See "Hegel. lamort crIe Dmcni'01J< (19SS)':AI-n. The Caesura of the Speculative209 forthisreason-is thatinthe earlieststagesof absoluteIdealism,we findthe speculativeprocessitself (dialecticallogic)toundedquite ex-plicitly on the model of tragedy.Inreconstiruting this movement even rapidly(following it, of course, in the very denegation or disavowal of theatricality), one can detect, with a certainprecision, the philosophi-calexploitation(raisedto thesecondpower)of theAristoteliancon-cept of catharsis.So that, presuming this suspicion isjustified,it isnot simplymimesis, or sinlply the "structure ofthat rums out tobesurreptitiouslyinvolvedinthedialectic,butthewholeof tragedy,alongwithwhatessentiallydefinesitfortheentireclassical tradition, namely, its proper effect:the "tragic dfect," the so-called "pu-rifying effect." As might be anticipated, dle question inthis case would be asfollows:What if thedialecticwerethe echo, or thereason,of a ritual? But let me add right away that this isnot the essential part of what I have to say. Indeed,Iammuchmoreinterestedincarrying out the"counter-proof" of thishypothesis.For the work fromwhichIhaveextracted these remarks docs not relate directly to speculative Idealism, but rather to Holderlin andtotheH61derliniantheory of tragedy.I amnot 00-awarethatbetweenH61derlinandtheothertwo(bywhomImean those major and almost exclusiveprotagonists, intheir very rivalry, of speculativeIdealism:Hegeland Schelling, Holderlin's ex-schoolmates fromTiibingen)the distanceisforthemostpart extremelysmall,in-deedsometimes evennonexistent or imperceptible.I am not unaware of this-in tact, it is exactly what interests me most of all.It is precisely becauseH6lderlincollaboratedinthemostintimatemanner possible ill the building of the speculative dialel.1:ic-on the model of tragedy-that hiswork calls for examinationhere. Theseassertionswouldseemtocreateaparadox.Iamtherefore boulldto explainthemabit.Infact,anentire "strategy"(if westill retainthisveryaggressiveandmilitaristicvocabulary;orletussay more simply,anentire "procedure")isinvolvedhere,anditisneces-sary, if what tollowsisto be intelligible, that I give some indication of mygeneral direction. ThcHolderlinwhoseemstomeurgentlytorequireexamination (and deciphcmlcnt)today isthe theoretician and dramatist (asregards tllC essential, the one isinseparable fromthe other). It isthe H61derlin of a certain precise and sure trajectory illthe theory and practice of the theater,in the theory of tragedy and thc experience or the testing-and this entails translating the Greeks(Sophocles )-of a newkind of dra-210 The Caesuraoftbematicwriting.Perhaps simply of a new kind of writing:one whichis" a.Cihehimself andhis epoch said" "modern." Weshould recognize that the HolderIin of whom I am speaking has been gcnerallyneglected up to the present day. This isparticularly evi-dentinFrance,whichhasbeeninthiscaseaperfectechochamber tor common opinion; eventhough care hasbecn takcn to translate all of Hillderlin's theoreticaltexts(beginning even withhisfamousNotes on thetranslationof Sophocles),no one hasriskedproposing avcr-sion, evenaproblenlatic onc, of Holderlin's translationof Sophocles, sonlngothers) of Schiller's long nore Oiltheater IIIthe hrJ.tpart ofessay "Grace and Digniry." Dlderot: PartIIW: and Mimesis 2S3 point of implicatingitself initsown definition.Andthisisprobably what explains the fact that nothing is able to stop the hyperbological in thismovementbywhichit coilsindefinitelyabout itself andenvelops itself.Nothing canholdit,andinparticularno dialt.-cticaloperation, despiteitsstrange proximityto spt."Culativclogic(theincessant,or at leastregular,alterationof the same,thepassageinto the oppost.-dor contrary,etc.).Thehypcrbologicalisunceasing,endless.Whichalso means:without resolution. But thesepreliminaries aside,with what paradoxarc we dealing in "Paradoxe sur Iecomedicn"? Two questions should be distinguished. There is first of all the fact that the very thesis of the "Paradox"-the so-called thesis of the insensibility of the actor, or of the artist in gen-eral-is in flagrant contradiction to what is apparaldy one of Didcrot's most constant themes, and in particular to the thesis complacently de-velopedinthesecond of the "Entretk'1lssurIefilsnaturel"(another important component of Diderot's dramatic aestht.-rics,along with the "Discourssurlapoesiedramatique").Thisisthewell-knownthesis concerning enthusiasm. One wiuremember: "Poets, actors, musicians, painters, singers of the first order, great dancers,tender lovers, the true devout,thiswhole enthusiastic andpassionate troop feelsvividly,and does little reflecting."1 The "Paradox," affirms exactly the op-posite: "Grt.'at poets, great actors, and Imay add, all great imitators of nature, whoever they may be, beings giftt.-d with fine imagination, with broad judgment, a finetact, and sure taste, are the least sensitive of all creatures" ("Paradox,"pp. 17-18). Fromhereit isashortstepto concludethattheparadox(of the (LParadox")isreducibleto thiscontradiction-a step taken,Ibelieve, bymost critics,whosemajorconcernappearstoberesolving sucha contradiction and, for example,reconstitutmg, according to the classi-calpresuppositions of an"organicist" reading(committed to theho-mogeneityand the finality of a work),. an "aesthetic without paradox."9 Ido not at allwant to claimthat sllchaproblem docsnot exist-Oreventhat one canentirelyavoidthiskindof reading.ButIwant to notethatthereexistsalso,initsclt:thethesisof theuParadox"-naJllclythe paradox. 8"Entrettcns surIefilsnarorcl:'anDidcrot.Ot."",-es,AndreBill)'(Pans:Gal hmard,19SI),p. 1352-9Lacouc-Labanhc..Immcc.h.ll'crcft.'rCnt.chen:ISBclaval,/"tstIJitul''' SnJlS pnmdaxe deD"lerot,-Ed,tor 25+ Diderot:Paradax and Mimesis But inwhat wayisthe paradox"inthe "Paradox," paradoxical?Isit because it runs up against a prc:vakl1t opinion about actors (and preva-lent among actors themselves-fortunately not all of them), contesting basically the old myth of the actor's identification with the charactt.T he plays?Or isit firstof all,andmorecssL"Iltially,becauseit obeysthis hyperbologic that I have just attempted to describe? Weneed to take a closer look. How, thL"Il,in the "Paradox," docsthe paradox set itself in place? It appearsquickly,asearlyaswhatonemightisolateasthesecond sequence of the text. The First has indicatL-dhisreluctanceto state his feelingsabout apamphlt.1:bya certainSticoti,whichserveshereasa pretext:"Garrick oulesacteursanglais"(thisprovidestheoccasion, moreover., for an "overture" that is also paradoxical;I lack the space to consider it here,but would note that in it wesectheFirst playat his sdf-Ioveand the estt.ocmgivento himin awaythat followsthemost traditional agonistic relation).But he ends finally,under pressure from the St.'Cond,byresolvingto speak:the work of Sticotiisabad work andauselesswork:"A great dramatic artist willnot be abit thebet-ter,apooractornotabitthelessinefficientforrLaadingit"( ' ~ P a r a dox,"p. 12). The dLmonstrarion tht.n begins. It is a first long development (where everything, practically,willhavealreadybeensaid)leading to the fol-lowingstatemt."Ilt,whichmightbeconsidL-redasone of thetwoor three major statements of the paradoxitself: But the important point on which your author and I arc entirely at vari-anceconcernsmequalitiesaboveallnecessarytoagreat actor.Inmy view,he must have a great deal of judgment. He must haveinhimself an unmovedanddisinterestedonlooker[onecouldnotbe,infact,more paradoxical,at leastinme terms choscn J.He must have,consequently, penerration and no sensibility, the art of imitarihg everything, or, which comestothesamething,the sameaptitudeforevery sort of character and part.("Paradox," p.14) But thisstatenlt.'I1titself isonlyaconclusion.It drawstheconse-quencesfrom two propositionsthat appearedin the course of the ex-position. The firstappearedimmediately:"It isnaturewhichbestows personal qualities-appearance, voice, judgment, tact. It is the study of thegrt.-atmodels"thek.nowledgeof thehunlanheart,thehabitof society,earnestwork,experienceandacquaintancewiththedleater, which perfect the gifts of nan1re" (I.'Paradox,"p.12). The second propo-DideYot: Paradox and Mimesis 255 sition,alittlefurther on, simplybacksupthe firstwithanargument that isproperlyaestheticanddramaturgical-or,if one mayriskthe word, "dramatological": "'How should nature without art make a great actor wht."Ilnothing happc.."Ilson the stage asit happt."Ilsinnature, and whendramaticpot.msareaUcomposedafterafixedsystemof prin-ciples?" ("Paradox," p. 13). What isinvolvt.-din this series of propositions? The first statt.-sthat if "it isnaturewhichbestowspersonalqualities," it isstudy,work,experience,apprentict.oship,thepracticeof thepro-fession- in short,that can beacq uired and that can be ell-compassed bythebroadest conception of art-"that pcrft.-ctsthe gifts ofnamre." It isnot too difficult to detecthereanecho,howeverfaint,of the Aristotelian definition of mimesis,the relationbetween art and nature. TIlat an echo of Aristode's mimetology, or we should perhapssayhis"onto-mimetology"-"Aristotle"beingherenotthe name of a doctrine,but the site of a generative scht."ITla,a matrix,and the index of a historico-theoretical constraint. I amreferring, obviously, to the famous passage inthe Physics,which JeanBeaufrethasappropriatelyust.-dto support hisanalysisof Hoi derlin'sdramatology.lo Aristotlesaysfirstthatingeneral"artimitatesnature":he tekhne mimata; ten phusi11.TIlen, a little further on (199a),he spt."Cifies the generalrelation of mimesis: "On the one hand,techne carriesto its t."Ild[accomplishes,pcrft.-cts,epiteletlwhat phusisisincapable of effect-ing [lI/JC11Jasasthai);on the other hand, it imitates." There are thus two forms of mimesis.First,arestrictt.-dform,whichisthereproduction, the copy,the reduplication of what is given(already worked, dfectt.-d, presentedbynature).Andthisfirstmt.cmingof thetermisof course toundinDiderot(asineveryone).Inanycaseitgroundswhathas been called, perhaps a bit hastily, Diderot)s "naturalism." ThenthereISagent.Talmimesis,whichreproducesnothinggiven (whichthusre-producesnothing at all),but whichsupplements acer-taindeficiencyinnature,itsincapacitytodoeverything,organize everything,makeeverythingitswork-produceeverything. IIIt isa 10.Sec8c:lUfrcr,"HoldcrlinctSOphode,...anHolderhn.RnnarquessurOed'pe, rt.'mllrlJ"es sl,r A"tigmle (Paris:Union Gena-ale d'&htions, 1963),p.8. II.TheEnglishverb "supplemcnr" suggestsacompensatingforadc6ClCIllogical)one?Which guides or marks the other?Or again,the other wayround:If amutationaffectsHei-dt.-gger'sphilosophicalvocabularyin1933,howarcweto decidethat this mutation isdue simply to theborrowing (and under what condi-tions?) of a poliricallanguage? Lexical dt.ciphLTIllCllt-to which would have to be addL-d also the analysis of syntax and of tone (of "style"), the critical examination of the "genres" utilized, of circumstances, of those addressed,of supporting media,and so on-such adeciphemlentis certainlyIlL-cessary,onconditionhoweverthatthetranscriptionof philosophic-politicalconnotations doesnot go without sayingandis not authorized by some unspecifiedhistorico-sociological certitude.It isnL-ccssary,but it does not touch the esSL-nrial:that is, the question of the philosophicaltenor of thepolitical discoursepracticedbyaphiloso-pher in his capacity as such.In other words, the question still remains:Is it hisphilosophy or histhought whichengagesHeideggerinpolitics (inthispolitics), and allows him to state and justify hisposition? If onetakesasapoint of rcfcrt.-nceHcidegger'sown"posthwnous" declarations,theRectoralAddrL'SSinscribesitself inthewakeof the [nauguralLectureof 1929,"What[sMetaphysics?"'1Not onlydoes Heidegger indicate that he entered politics "by way of the Universityn and limited his political engagement and hisphilosophical rt."Sponsibil-ityto university politics,but heavowsat bottom that the politicaldis-courseof 1933saysnothing other thanthephilosophicaldiscourseof y."WhatIsW.alrc:rK.ulfmannIIIE."lStelltlirlumFromDos-tOCJ'Skyto Snrm. cd. Walter Kaufmann (NewYork'New AmerlcallLibr.u)'.1975) n"atlScendetlCe E'lds ;" Politics 19z9--r even thanthe philosophical discourse that prccedes1929.It is a philosophical discourse.I excerpt these two passages: Inthose days[he is speaking ofJ,I was still wrappedupwith the problems I deal within Seinrmd Zeit (1927)andinme writings and lec-tures of thefollowingyears,basic questions of thought, whichareindi-rectly rek-vant to national and sOCialproblems.rThe "indirectly," here,is evidently not accidental. ) As a univerSity tcacht.-r I was directly concerned wim the meaning ofintdlectual studies and therefore with the determma-cion of the task of the univerSity. This effort ISexpressed in the tide of my RectoralAddress,WfheSelf-Assertionof theGennanUniversity.nlG Thereason I asswned the Rectorate at allwasalready indicated inmv .. 1929Frciburgprofessorialinauguraladdress,'WhatIsMetaphysics?" There1 said:"Thevarioussciencesarcfurapart andtheirsubjectsare treatedinfundamentallydifferentways.Thisuncoordinatediversityof discipli ncs today can be held together onJy through the technical organi-zation of the universities and faculties and through the practical intent of their subject matters. The rooring ofintellectual disciplines in the grounds of their being has died away." II Andinfact,theRcctoralAddressretainsessentiallythe samelan-guage (except for aninvocation of a "will to csst.Tlce," on which I shall have more to say) and organizes itsclfin very large measure around the samecentralmotif;"If wewanttograsptheessenceof science,we must first faceup to this decisive question:should there still be science forusin the futurt; or should welet it drift toward a quick c..Tld?That there should be science at all,isnever unconditionally necessary.But if there isto be science, and if it isto be for us and through LIS.,under what conditions can it then truly exist?" ("Self-Assertion.,"p. +71). Of courscthetoneismodifiedandHeidcggcrattacksthematter from allother direction. I will return to dlis in a moment. This docs not prevent the gesture.,in what it indicates or inwhat it aimsto product; from being the same here asthere:it is a fOundationalgesture.In 1929 asin1933 ..Heidt.'ggcr'sphilosophlc-political discourseisdlCverydis-course of the i,zstauratw,in the Latin sense of renewal or recommencc-ment,of rdoundation; 12thatisto say,inthesenseinwhichinthe sameperiodHddeggerinterpretstheCritiqueof P'treReasonasa 10."'Only a God Can Saw UsNow;" p.8. 11.Ibid.,P7. 12Amotif frequentlylIl\'okcd,IIIHCldeggcr'swake,byHannahArendt,andrc-finedbyEmmanuelMartineauIn toRudolf IJoc:hlll,l.n"'itnpIJysilJ"t tfAnstote(pan'i.Galhmani,1976),p.6J. 27+ T1anscendence Ends in Politics GrundJegung of metaphysics(anunveiling of its "internalpossibility" or a "determination of its essence"), andin which, above all, hethinks hisown enterprise asa "repetition" of theKantianfoundation,asan activeandtransformingbringingtolight(orof its uproblematic" character.13 Asithappens one isnot entirelyinerror, cvt.-nif one isnot wholly correct,inconnectingthisfoundationalgesturewiththespeculative institutional projects tor the University of Berlin: inboth casesit wasa question of reorganizing the University or rather of replanting theUniversityin,thefoundationsof allscienceand allknowledge-metaphysicsorphilosophy,inthesenscof primaryphilosophy.The diftcrencc,however,is that metaphysicsishenceforth,tor Hcidegger., "metaphysicsof metaphysics" I"-andprimaryphilosophyisfunda-mt.-ntalontology.Andthequestionof esscnceor foundationisnow none other than that of the nt-ant or Ab-grund (of the abyss). Thus., if there is speculation, wemust still ask of what nature:whether it isnot closer to Schcllingia.1l than to Hegelian speculation and wht.-dler., despite the frequt.,..t appeals(explicit or not)to On the Essence ofHuma1Z Free-dom,Schellingianspeculationisnot itself already(before the It.-ctures published in1936)on a tight rein. 15 Ileavethisquestionhanging:itwouldrequireaverydt.tilled examination. In 1929 as in then., the question of the University is the question of theessence of science,because the foundationor the refoundation of the Universityisnot itsdf possible except on the basis of the rigor. ous dctt.-rmination of its essence. Betwt.-cn 1929 and 1933,however-but Heidt.-gger isnot verytalkative on thispoint, the context having been totallymodi1it.-dandHcidegger'sownpositionhavingchanged-the sense of this same qut.-stionhad bt.-enradically overturned. It isnot that thisnewpositionasrector of theUniversity of Frei-burgsuddenlygivestoHcideggerthepowerto do ortoundertake what in 1929, fromthe place he then occupied, he had to be content to I Sec the:introduction and the begmnmg of thefourth section inMartm HCldeg-gcr,KalltandtlJeProblemof Metapl1ysics,tr.ms.JamesS.Churchill(Bloommgton: Indiana UmversityPress,J4-.Ibld.Seealso Ernst C.assirer andMartin Heidcggcr. Dihnt slIr It'Klllltlsnze et la pl,'/osophle,ed.Pierre Aubenquc(Pam: Bcau,hCSllc,1972.),p.2.I. It shouldbe shown here how "Vom Wc..oscndes Gnandes" rctersmorc or less to Schc:lhngforanelaboration of aproblcmaticofwInchwdlbec:xplit::lfly ab.mdoncdan1941,secMartinHc:idcggcr.Sellelling'sTreatise011theRuCII"ofH"mllII Frredom.trans.Joan Stamb:tugh(Athens: Ohio1985) Trtltlscendence Ends in Politics 275 suggest. He assumes this position on requt."5t (and alnlost.,if he isto be beliL"Ved,against hiswill), and he assumesit indue ordt.T.,on the out-come of a legalelection;but he owesit, asheknowsperfectly well,to the change of regimeandto thebrutal(andiUegal)dt.-positionof his SocialDemocratic predt.-cessor.Not only,furthermore,doesheknow it,but up to a certainpoint heacceptsit;the corpsof professorshas not turned to him simplybecause of his reputation and hisintellectual authority,butwiththeknowledgeof hispoliticalorientation,about whichheprobably did not make.,andin any case will nt."Verafterward make,anygreat mystery.Intheexplanationsthat hewillreservefor Der Spiegel,he wiUmaintain that the saluterendt.Tt.-dat the end of the Rectoral Address, four months after Hitler's accession to power, to the "grandeur" andthe "magnificence" of this "deparnlre" (or,in Graners translation, "to the nobility and grandeur of thisirruption") 16tht.,..CO-tirelyreflectedhis"conviction";he willspt.-akalsoof hishope of cap-turing "whatever constructive forceswere stiUalive[in order]to head off what wascoming"; 17andjustasafterhisresignationhe willstill speak of the "internal truth" and the "grandeur'" of National Socialism. Sothere isno reasonto impute to tacticalprudcoce or circwnstantial rhetorical emphasis the constant reminder, in allthe texts, of the "total overrurning of Germanexistence"provokedbytheNationalSocialist rt.-volution.18 In spite of thisheissrill dearlyaware.,atthistime,of a danger or mt.-nacethat looms OVt.TtheUniversity and augnlcots that of the Uni-versity's fragmt.-ntation into regional disciplines, of its subordination to extraneous ends (i.e.,professional ont."5),and thus ultimately to that of the coUapse of itsfoundations. This mt.,..aceis.,if you will,the menace of "idt.'Ology."But the word istoo weak.It isinrt.-alitythetotalitarianmenaceitself,that isto say., theproject of the "politicization') of theUniversityand of science.In otherwords,intile vocabulary of the epoch, the politischeWissenschRft calledforat thetime, "within theParty andbytheNationalSocialist students," Hcidegger will sayin and which, farfrom designating politicalscience,wasunderstoodtomeanthat"scienceassuch.,its 16ILacouc-LabMthe:rdcrs tothe:translation of theRc:c:toralAddn.."S6 by Gerard Grand and pubhshed, With a facllilmllc of the original German edition. in L'lfllto-alfirmn.tiollde/',mil'mite allnna1lf1e(Paris:Trans-Bump-Repress, 19S,,).-EditlW 17O&