bion beckett.pdf

7/27/2019 bion beckett.pdf

1/24

Outse lves: Beckett, Bion and BeyondLuke ThurstonA b e r y s t w y t h U n i v e r s i ty , U K

' I h e article explores Beckett's encounter w ith psychoana lysis, which it links to the prop erly"modernist"dimension of his work, its creative resistance to historicist interpretation. Itfirst engages with biogra phical accouits ofBeckett-and-psychoana lysis, empha sizing theproblem posed by the concept of^transference^for an empirieist historiography and pausingover Beckett's remark that his analysis involved "intrauterine mem ories. " T h e article thenposits a triangular structure linking Beckett i analysis with Bion to his relations withjam^s Joyce and Lucia Joyce, a structure in which Jung occupied a position of false mastery.Ihe Beckettianphrases "never heen properly b orn"andxrc m a n q u e are shown to derive

from this triangle, and are drawn into a phonem ic cluster, centred on a mark oJ'linguis-tic and ontological failure associated with Beckett's mother, which is traced throughouthis work. Ihe article addresses Beckett's movem ent between languages, his refiection ontranslation and his sense ofthe relation between singu lar utterance and collective identity.Keywords: psychoanalysis / encounter / biography / identification / translation

Creating is not communication, but resistance. G I L L E S DELEUZE'

BIOGRAPHY AND PSYCHOANALYSISW ould it still be possible today to link Beckett's encounter with psy-choanalysis to questions of Modernist writing? There are two distinct,thoug h related, contempo rary argumen ts against any such atte mp t. Thelirst would contest the co ntinued validity ofth e term "M odern ism," referring backro Raym ond W illiams's warning tba t by using such a targe and loosely-definedconcep t, the critic risks failing to account for a rich variety of actual artistic p osi-tions and practices over the twentieth century (W illiams 6 5- 7) . For W illiams, it isclear that we should begin our theoretical reflections by concentrating on specific


2/24

1 2 2 J o u r n a l o f M o d e m L i te r a tu r e V o lu m e 3 2 , N u m b e

The second kind of argumen t against thinking of Beckett's relation to psychoanalysis in terms of Modernism takes a step beyond Williams's materialist skepticism into a full-blown historicism. Here, the reference to archival documents anbiographical data purports to do without the need for any theoretical frameworat a l l . From this perspective, what matters is the s ingular history of Beckett's actuaexperience of psychoanalysis in the mid-1930svisible not only in accounts ohis therapy with Wilfred Bion , but in his contemporary reading, no te-tak ing ancorrespondence. The truth o ft ha t history can only be obscured, indeed culpablmythologized, if we think of it as a momentous "encounter," following literartheorists who had either no access to or no interest in that history.

Now, it is undoubtedly true that the archival resources that have only quitrecently become available to Beckett scholarship do add much to the account ohis intellectual development, some of it perhaps surprising and some supposedhconfirming ideas ventured long ago by critics.^ W h at those new resources do nodo is provide clear answers to a set of crucial questions still posed to criticism bBeckett's writing, in particular concerning its ambiguous response to psychoanalysis. A nd it is those questions th at emerge from the gap between actualitand potentiality, from the non-coincidence of the empirical and the imaginarythat still very much characterize Beckett's work as Modernist. This is the case slong as we designate by that term not som e group aesthetic or vague Zeitgeist, burather something irreducible to any collective identity: namely an insistent fidelitto the unique "opening" that occurs in the singular event or being of literature, ll ilatter sense of Mo dern ism , which at first sight may well appear cryptic, obscure omystifying, will be clarified in w hat follows. If it can be seen as profoundly linketo Romantic aesthetics, we wnll also find that in Beckett's work it is illum inated iparticular by the encounter with psychoanalysis. Our argument will therefore bresolutely anti-historicist. It will envisage the relation between Beckett and Bioas one of a series of scenes, constructed by both historical and fictional texts, thaboth challenge and interrogate what we understand by life-writing or biographW e need to start, though , b y looking at the current biographical account of B ecke(produced by and after Know lson), to see how it treats the experience of psychoanalysis, indeed how th at experience has been a special problem for recent attem pto map Beckett's intellectual and artistic developm ent.

James Knowlson's Damned to Fame: the Life o f Samuel Beckett, published1 9 9 6 , sets out to provide a cotnprehensive biography of its subject, dra\\ng on substantial archive of material (correspondence, unpublished writings, intervietranscripts) that only became available following Beckett's death in 1989. In


3/24

O u t s e lv e s : B e c k e n , B i o n a n d B e y o n d 123Tlie therapeutic method used by Bion at this early stage in his career was

probahly, thinks Knowlson, a kind of "reductive analysis" that aimed to eliminate aspecific sym ptom by exposing its cause in a traum atic childhood event and allowingthe analysand to "re-experience" i t more actively (176-7).' Knowlson finds this ideaconfirmed by the account of his therapy Beckett gave in 1989 (the last year of hislite). I quote it at length because it will prove crucial to the su bsequent argum ent;

I used to lie down on the couch and try to go back in my past. 1 think it probably didhelp. I think it helped me perhaps to control the panic. I certainly came up w th someextraordinary memories of heing in the womb. Intrautcrine memories. 1 rememberfeeling trapped, of being imprisoned and unable to escape, of crying to be let out butno one could hear, no one \ras listening. I remember being in pain but being unableto do anything about it. I used to go back to my digs and write notes on what hadhappened, on what I'd come up with. I've never found them since. Maybe they stillexist somewhere. I tliink it l helped me to understand a bit better what 1 was doingand w hat I was feeling. (177)

It goes without saying that we can never know, nor can a biographical accountdescribe, what actuiilly took place in these sessions of psychotherapy. Knowlsonproperty refuses to speculate, rightly believing that only the notes mentioned byBeckett, or else perhaps Bion's own records, could be the only possible docum entarysource for such knowledge.* Knowlson does, however, think it worth quoting theopinion ot Dr. Geofirey Iliomp son, the friend w ho had originally recom mendedlieckett to see Bion. According to Thom pson, "The key to un derstanding Beckett. . . was to be found in his relationship with his mother" (qtd. in Knowlson 178)..'Vlthough our argument will not consider this claim in any psychological sense,what we will Investigate (following the lead of many critics) is the special sensegiven by Beckett's work to the figure of the intrauterine, of pre-birth and birth:in short to what we could term the textttal instance of the mother in Beckett (orBeckett-in-the-mother).

N o w , the fabled notes Beckett recalled writing after his sessions with Bion mayhave disappeared, but there remains a great deal of material he wrote at the time,in response to his fairly wide reading in psychoanalytic and psychological theory;,md this has recently become available (it can be found in the archive at TrinityCollege, Du blin: see footnote 2). A recent study by M atthew Feldman, Beckett'sBooks (2006), is the first work since Knowlson's to draw w idely on this unpublishedmaterial as part of a larger account of Beckett's personal and artistic developmentduring the 1930s. We need briefly to consider this account before we can engagewith the question of Becketr's psychoanalytic experience. Although in Feldman,that question can already he seen emerging in its distinctive form: th at is, as anepistemological stumbling-block for a historicist-biographical discourse.


4/24

1 2 4 J o u m a l o f M o d e m L it e r a tu r e V o lu m e 3 2 , N u m b e r

for the groundless speculations of previous critics about the supposed mutual influence of Beckett and Bion. (Didier Anzieu is singled out for repented chastisemenand mockery.) It soon becomes clear, indeed, that one of Feldman's principal aimin presenting Beckett's notes not only as part of his "encounter with eruditionbut also as "a personal attempt to diagnose his psychological maladies" (79), is tdiminish at all costs any significance previously ascribed to the therapeutic experience with Bion. (Thus, Feldman takes the fact that Bion was still undergoing training analysis with Hadfield in the period of Beckett's treatment as evidencthat he was only an "amateur therapist" at the time (92).)

This is not the place to discuss Feldman's work at any lengthcertainly noat the length required to show tha t it is fundamentally flawed, in my view, by ahistoricist methodology that precludes an effective engagement with "psychoanalytic experience." (My scare quotes point to a radical ironization of the lattcterm: precisely its resistance to the order of historicist empiricism.) W h a t must emphasized is that a whole dimension of psychoanaHtic experiencethe passionate ambiguity which Freud conceptualized as "transference"is simply lefout of Feldman's account of what he sees as Beckett's self-therapeutic "psychological enterp rise" (113) in the m id-1930 s. W h a t is therefore missing from attempt to historiclze Beckett-and-psychoanalysis is any sense of how analytimethodwhich aims, by means of a special syntax ot interpretation, precisely tdisrup t and interroga te, to "hystericize," the norm al protocols of inter-subjectivcommunication c a n open a new, singular relation to signification in its otherness, to the signifying Other. This opening to the Other is always a traumatic o"surreal" experience difficult to represent or theorize. This open ing can occur ithe psychoanalytic dialogue (or in the therapeu tic encounter, if we want to quibblabout Bion's professional status in 1934). But inevitably it^iiA to occur in any "selfconception" (101) or "self-education process" (78), to quote Feldman's formulabecause the Other as such is missing from the situation.It is clear that biography, a discursive genre necessarily wedded to an em piricisand historicist epistemology, cannot easily negotiate the ldnd of singular evenin question h ere, which I am designating (provisionally) as an "opening to thOther." If such an event occurs in psychoanalysis, we might imagine it as a kinof fantasmatic self-transform ation or radical alteration of the subject's relation tfantasy. But it is always an a c t . As such, it is imm anen t to its utterance and cannobe dissociated from the particular discourse through which it occurs. This act, likan anamorphic stain disfiguring an otherwise verisimilar picture, does not abide bthe semiotic rules governing worldly representation, the rules by which we char


5/24

O u l s e l v e s : B e c k e t t , B i o n a n d B e y o n d 125

Tlicre migh t b e another w a y , however, to respond to the kind of event in que s-tion herean opening to and ot the signifying Otherwhich reminds us thatsuch an event is in no sense restricted to psychoaniilysis or to its (rare) interpretive.icts (as a certain mystification of psychoanalysis may som etimes seem to imply):namely, the creation of a respon ding aesthetic event.Tliis event wou ld no t be simplyan etort to represent some experience that might be thought to entail an "open-ing to the Other." Such an event precisely calls into question the very possibility ofrepresentation. It is thus that Modernist writing, through its interrogation anddeformation of the readerly artworkwhat Blanchot calls its "unworking"canconstitute a paradoxieal account of that which always eludes an orthodox bio-graphical-historicist herm eneutic. Ho w does this "account" take shape in Beckett'swork? We need to start by looking again, but looking awry, at some of Beckett'sexperiences in the m d-1930s.ABOLISHING

.. .je suis dam quelque chose, c e nest pas moi.. SAMUEL BECKETT,L'INNQM/BLE

Let us to go back to 1 9 3 5 : to October 2 of that year, to be precise. Beck ett had beenhaving therapy with Bion three times a week for more than twenty-one months(with a few sho rt breaks for trips to D ub lin, each time marked by a grievous resur-gence of his psychosomatic symptoms) (Knowlson 185-6). On October 2, Biontook Beckett for dinner at the toile on Ch arlotte Street, and then on to a lectureby Carl Gustav Jung, who was giving a series of talks that autumn at the TavistockClinic (Knowlson 176). M uc h later in life, Beckett still recalled the impressionmade on him hy wh at Jung said that night. We'll examine that recollection and itsreproduction by criticism below. First, though, it is worth pausing for a momentover the lecture's date and examining how the figure of Jung in effect linked thequestion of psychoanalysis for Beckett in the mid-1930s to his contact with Joyce;uid Joyce's family in Paris, both bciore his therapy with Bion and after it.

A few questions of a speculative-biographical kind may help us begin to see thestrange, triangular repetition that took place here. First, did Beckett know on thatevening in Oc tober 1935 that injan uary of the same year, Jung had been asked andhad attempted to undertake tbe psychotherapeutic treatment of Joyce's daughterLucia (that "tortured and blocked replica of genius," a s Richard EUmann sees her(649))? Earlier, of course, in the late 1920s, Lucia herself had been desperately inlove with Beckett while he was a visiting lecteur in Paris (himself clearly in lovewith her father). The biographical sequel is well known: when Beckett had finally


6/24

126 Joumal of Modem Literature Volume 32, Numbfai led t o b e l p L u c i a J o y c e . A t a n y r a t e , h i s m e m o r y o f J u ng ' s t a l k o r r a t he r o fs y n e c d o c ha l fr a g m e n t o f i t i s i n m y v i e w d i s t o r t e d or refracted hy W ts m e m o r yL u c i a , a n d b y h i s sense o f h e r c h a r a c t e r a n d b e r fate as Joyce ' s daugh te r .

I t w o u l d o f c o u r se b e i n t e r e s t i n g , b u t n o t essen t i a l f o r o u r a r g u m e n t , t o k n ow h e t h e r L u c i a J o y c e a c t u a l l y m e t u p w i t h B e c k e t t d u r i n g h e r t i m e in L o n d oTh is t im e l a s t ed on l y abou t a m o n t h . O n M a r c h 1 6 s h e w a s m o v e d o n t o D u b l iby Joyce ' s hara ssed s is ter Ei lee n , w h o ha d b e e n o r d e r e d t o l ook a f t e r h e r a n d h ah a d e n o u g h o f L u c i a ' s " s c h i z o - p r o m e n a d e s , " t o use D e l e u z e a n l a n g u a g e , w h i ci n c l u d e d l e a p i n g on a bus to W i n d s o r t o s ee tbe K i n g ( E l l m a n n 6 8 1 ) . K n o w l s or e p o r t s t h a t B e c k e t t h a d been occas ion a l l y s ee in g o n e o f Luc ia ' s o ld f r i en ds , t hy o u n g i n t e l l e c t u a l N u a l a C o s t e l l o i n 1 9 3 4 a n d 3 5 ( K n o w l s o n 1 8 6 - 7 ) . It is easy ti m a g i n e t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n t u r n i n g t o t h e Joyces a n d t o L u c i a ' s s i t u a t i o n . K n o ws o n t h e n a d d s t h e fo l l owin g r a th e r e l l ip t i c a l accoun t o f w h a t m a y h a v e h a p p e n eb e t w e e n B e c k e t t a n d L u c i a :

Earlier in the year, he managed to avoid rekindling another unsatisfactory past non-affair with a now very disturbed Lucia Joyce who was staying in Grosvcnor Square,although Beckett's comment to MacGrecvy that th e "Lucia ember flared up andfizzled out"suggests that this did not happen without some ofthe acrimonious scenescustomarily associated with her. It was probably with a great sense of relkf that herema ined uninvoived and (mostly) celibate. (187)So there seems to have been some kind of scene, probably an acrim oniou s on

between the two ex-non-lovers. It is striking to see, incidentally, how the m etapb oused here by both b iographer and self-writer K now lson's "rekindling,"Beckett"ember flared up and fizzled out" unw ittingly recall a major symptom of Luciaillness: one specifically involvingjr^, both literally in her acts of pyromania anfigurative ly in her father's fam ous lam ent: "W hate ve r spark of gift 1 possess habeen transmitted to Lucia and has kindled a fire in her brain''(Ellmann 650). It characteristic of Beckett to have used a language of bathos, of humiliating disappointm ent "fizzled ou t" tha t subverts the implicit m elodrama of any sucm etapho r: po uring, as it were, rhetorical cold w ater on it .

At any rate, the "Lucia em ber" and its recent fizzling-ou t m ust have been iBeck ett 's m ind in Octob er w hen he accom panied Bion to hear Jung's lecture at thTavistock. But what was it precisely in the talk that made such an unforgettablimpression on Beckett? One ofthe main arguments advanced there made use odiagrams to show the results of word association tests on parents and childrew h ic h ju ng sa w a s indic ating the ter rible psychical -j/HK///Vjof family life. It w a


7/24

O u t s e l v e s : B e c k e t t , B i o n a n d B e y o n d 127quite like a family: a formation which can often plausibly be described as a set ofinterlocking "fragmentary personalities."

If for a mom ent we try to imagine how Beckett must have heard these Ju ng -ian ideas, we should recall his intense preo ccupation at the time w ith family, withits flmction as matrix o r straitjacket of tbe individual. Tlie speaker was "one ofrhcse new mind doctors" ( a s M rs . Rooney will say in Beckett's 1957 radio phyAllIhat Fall) (35), who had just recently attem pted to treat L ucia Joyce and who haddeclared her un treatable by anyone apart from her father (as Joyce had chosen tounderstand him , at least). Altho ugh Beckett can have known nothing tit the con-versations between Jung and Joyce, he must have heard in Londonfrom TomMacGreevy, Nuala Costello or indeed from Lucia henielfabout the consultation;uid Itsnon-outcome. At any rate, when shortly afterwards, in 1 9 3 7 , Beckett againbecame friendly with the Joyces in Paris, and came to greatly share their concernlor Lucia (who was by then permanen tly institutionalized), he would have heardin detail about the episode with Jung. 'Ihat account would certainly have given hismemory of the Tavistock lecture a greater intensity and an altered significance.

In 1935, Beckett was still undergoing the treatmen t th at L ucia had beendenied, a treatm ent tha t aimed, at the very least, to explore, dissect and reconstructthe individual's problematic relation to the family. In Beckett's case, if we recallwhat Geoffrey T homp son th ou gh t, it most probably centered on th e relation to theparents. (One was ret-ently dead, the other very much alive: Beckett at this pointwas looking rather morc Hamlet-like than Stephen Dedalus himself.) Beckett'sfascination with Ludawhich in my speculative diorama is rekindled by theiictual or remembered experience of hearing her failed analyst talk about familytelepathy and fragmentary personalitiesis thus a fascination with someoneinarked by a special kind o(failure: the failure to escape from the family "uncon-scious" in order to becom e a free, self-determ ining subject (or at least one able toLict, like Murphy "as though he were free" (5)). It is a failure, we might say, to be

entirely.H ere we are already knee-deep in w hat has become a locus classicus of Beckett

. A single anecdote is extracted by Beckett from Jung's talk and subse-quently evoked, both in fictional texts and In "non-fictional" interviews: that ofan "ethereal" girl whom Jung considered to have been unable to detach herselffrom the "archetypal" realm of the unconscious and so enter reality. But it is worthquoting here what Jung actually said on October 2,1935:

Rccentiy ! saw a case of a little girl often who had some most amazing ni)'thologi-ca.1 dreams. Her father consulted me about these dreams. 1 could not tell htm what Ithought because they contained an uncanny prognosis.The little girl died a year later()f an infectious disease. She had never been horn entirely. (Jung 107)


8/24

128 Joumal of Modern Literature Volume 32, Numbl ik e s o m e p r e c i o u s o r t r a u m a t i c f r a g m e n t , i n h i s m e m o r y . T h e p h r a s e , o r r a t h e rr e w o r d e d o r m i s r c m e m b e r e d f r a g m e n t o f i t , firs t r e - s u r fa c e s in t h e " A D D E N D At o IVatt, a t e x t c o m p l e t e d a d e c a d e a f t e r J u n g ' s l e c n i r e . T h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e b o oa s B e c k e t t 's m o c k f o o t n o t e t e ll s u s , c o n t a i n s " p r e c i o u s a n d i l l u m i n a t i n g m a t e r i a[ w h i c h ] s h o u l d b e c a re f ul ly s t u d i e d " : i n c l u d i n g , a m o n g s t o t h e r f r a g m e n t a r y j o tt i n g s , t h e l a c u n a r y p h r a s e " n e v e r b e e n p r o p e r l y b o r n " ( 2 4 7 - 8 ) . I f w e f ollo w B e c k e t t 'i n s t r u c t i o n a n d c a r e f i i l l y s t u d y t h e p h r a s e , w e c a n t h u s b o t h i d e n t i f y i t s s o u r ci n J u n g a n d n o t e t h e s u b t l e s e m a n t i c s h i f t i n t h i s v e r s i o n ( o r m i s r c c o l l e c t i o n" e n t i r e ly " is r e p la c e d b y " p r o p e r l y . " T h u s , i n c o m p l e t e is t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o i m p r o p eb i r t h o r m i s b i r t h . ( T h e m o r e p e j o r a t iv e s e n s e i s p e r h a p s i n t e n s i f i e d b y the spec i f iF r e n c h c o n n o t a t i o n s oproprr . w h a t is " n o t p r o p e r ," t h u s i m p l y i n g s o m e t h i n g b o t" u n c l e a n " a n d " n o t i t se l f. " )

T h e f i g u r e th a t h a s " n e v e r b e e n p r o p e r l y b o m " h a s s u b s e q u e n t l y b e c o m e au n a v o i d a b l e p r e s e n c e in B e c k e t t i a n c r i t i c i s m . I n a n e x c ha n g e w i t h L a w r e n c e H a rv ey , B e c k e t t s p o k e s o m e t w e n t y - f i v e y e ar s a ft er h e h a d h e a rd J u n g ' s t a l k it e r m s t ha t s e e m e d d i r e c t l y t o re c a ll it . H e d e s c r i b e d h i s s e n s e o f " a p r e s e n c e , e m b r yo n i c , u n d e v e l o p e d , o f a s e l f t h a t m i g h t ha v e b e e n b u t n e v e r g o t b o r n , a n tre many w i ' ' " ( H a r v e y 2 4 7 ) . ' I h i s l a st p h r a s e i s t h e m a r k t h e ^ nfl/w r', w e m i g h t s a y o !B e c k e t t ' s f a s c i n a t i o n , a f a s c i n a t i o n t h a t l i n k s h i s e x p e r i e n c e o f p s y c h o a n a l y s i s thi s c o m p l e x r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e J o y c e s . I t r e t u r n s , l ik e a n u n r e s o l v e d s y m p t o mt h r o u g h o u t h i s w r i t i n g .

N o w , t h e f i r s t th ing t o n o t e a b o u t tre mancjuc is p e r h a p s s o m e t h i n g r a theo b ^ d o u s : t h a t i t is a F r e n c h p h r a s e i n a n E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e . T h u s , i t i s c o n v e n t i o n a l l vt h e m a r k o f s o m e t h i n g u n t r a n s l a t a b l e s o m e t h i n g , as it w e r e , i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h o sp a r ti c u la r w o r d s i n e x ac t ly th e s a m e w a y th a t a ^ r o ^ r n t m , a l i n g u i s t i c e l e m e nw i t h n o s y n o n y m s , d e fi e s t r a n s l a t i o n . T l i e " p r e s e n c e " t e n t a t i v e l y e v o k e d b y B e c k e th i s s t m g g l e t o s i g n i f y w h i c h t e r m i n a t e s ( i n c o n c l u s i v e l y ) w i t h tre manqu^ i s t h u sw e w i l l a r g u e , a m a t t e r o f n a m e s a n d o f t h e i n s i g n i f i c a n t , o r r a t he r o f t h a t w h ici n s i s t s t h r o u g h a n d f y w / s i g n i f i c a t i o n .

H e r e w e s ho u l d t u r n t o a k e y d o c u m e n t f or t h e a n al y si s o f B e c k e t t s " d e v e l o pm e n t , " a l e t t e r h e w r o t e d u r i n g hi s t h e r a p y w i t h B i o n t o h is f a it hf u l c o r r e s p o n d e nT o m M a c G r e e v y . T h i s t e x t w i l l a l l o w u s t o s e e h o w t h e l in k b e t w e e n t h e f o r e i gn a m e a n d t h e u n b o r n " s e lf t h a t m i g h t h av e b e e n " w a s a lr e a d y t a k i n g s h a p e i n t hm i d - 1 9 3 0 s . O n M a r c h 1 0 , 1 9 3 5 , B e c k e t t w r i t e s t o r ej ec t M a c G r e e v y ' s r a t he r p i o ua d v ic e r e c o m m e n d i n g " g o o d n e s s a n d d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s " a s t h e b e st s o l u t io n s t o h ip r o b l e m s :

I c a n n o t s e e h o w " g o o d n e s s " i s t o b e m a d e a f o u n d a t i o n o r a b e g i n n i n g o f a n y t i in g .


9/24

Outselves: Beckett, Bion and Beyond 129M a c G r e e v ) ' , l ik e a p e a r l c a s t b e f o r e a (p r i e s t ly ) s w i n e . O n t h e o n e h a n d , fo r B e c k e t tl o a p o s t r o p h i z e h i s il ln e s s a s b o t h d e m o n a n d t re a s u r e w a s to s h o w a t h o r o u g h l yI V e u d ia n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e a m b i g u i t i e s o f u n c o n s c i o u s p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y , w h e r es u f f e r in g is c o n s t a n t l y o f fs e t b y w h a t F r e u d c a l l e d a Krankhei tsgewinn o r " g a i n f r o mi l l ne s s " (S E 7 : 4 3 ) , a n d w h e r e i n d e e d t h e m o s t d e b i l i t a t in g s y m p t o m s m a y t u r n o u tro b e t h e s e c r e t r e p o s i t o r i e s o f a p r e c i o u s , i r r e p l a c e a b l e e n j o y m e n t .

B u t if, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , B e c k e t t 's a p o s t r o p h e i s n o t s im p l y t r a n s l a t e d , i m m e -d i a t e l y l i n k e d t o a n e q u i v o c a l c h a i n o f s i g n i f i e r s , i t m i g h t b e t a k e n a s w h a t i t i s " i ni t s e l f : a m i m e 'p re cis ely t h e m a r k o f a " p r e s e n c e " t l i a t is m e r e l y it s e l f a n d c a n n o th e " d e v e l o p e d " t h r o u g h s e m i o s i s . S h o u l d w e t h e re f o r e a s k w h o i n p a r t i c u l a r B e c k e t tm i g h t b e n a m i n g as h i s a^xnom c prt i osa margari ta} T h e o l d s p e c t r e o f b i o g r a p h i c a lr e a d i n g t h r e a t e n s t o m a k e a r e t u r n h e r e a n d i t h a s t o b e t h o r o u g h l y e x o r c i s e d . S u c ha re a d i n g w o u l d p i c k a n o b v i o u s c a n d i d a t e fo r t h e p o s i t i o n o f B e c k e t t ' s " d e m o nf ro m " re a l l if e ": n a m e l y h i s m o t h e r . S h e w a s c h r i s t e n e d M a r i a ( t h o u g h s h e w a s: il w a ys k n o w n i n t h e f a m i l y as M a y ( K i i o w l s o n 4 ) ) , a n a m e e v i d e n t l y d i s c e r n -; i b l e a l b e i t i n s l ig h t ly d i s t o r t e d f o r m i n " m a r g a r i t a . " C l e a r l y , t h o u g h , w i t h t h en o t i o n t h a t B e c k e t t w a s s i m p l y n a m i n g h i s m o t h e r a s t h e b e l o v e d s o u r c e o f a l l h i sp a t h o l o g y w e r i sk l a p s i n g i n t o t h e m o s t v u l g a r r e d u c t iv e p s y c h o b i o g r a p h y ( a n di n d e e d e n d o r s i n g G e o r t r e y l l i o m p s o n ' s s w e e p i n g d e c l a r a t io n t h a t t h e m o t h e r w a s" t h e k ey t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g B e c k e t t " ) .

W h a t w e n e e d t o g r a s p , o n t h e c o nt ra ry - , is t h a t it i s n o t t h e m o t h e r ' s h i s t o r i c a le x i s t e n c e b u t the ut terance of her name w h i c h is " k e y " i n B e c k e t t 's w r i t i n g . T h e n a m e ,a s w e n o t e d a b o v e , i s a l i n g u i s t i c e l e m e n t t h a t in a c r u c i a l s e n s e r e fu s e s t r a n s l a t i o n .I n i ts e s s e n ti a l fu n c t i o n a s n o m i n a t i o n , i t c a n n o t b e a n d y z e d o r d e v e l o p e d in as i g n if y in g c h a i n . A s s u c h , i t m a r k s a l i m i t o f k n o w l e d g e , t h e p o i n t w h e r e l a n g u a g ec o l la p s e s b a c k o n i t se l f in p u r e p h o n e m i c t a u t o l o g y . I n n a m i n g , t h e w o r d d o e s n o ts i m p l y r e f e r d i a c r it i c a ll y t o a n o t h e r w o r d . I t i n s t e a d g i v e s v o i c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r b e i n g ,m a r k s t h e m e r e e v e n t o f i ts b e c o m i n g - p r e s e n t , i ts m e a n i n g l e s s a p p e a r a n c e t o t h ew o r l d . T h e p r o p e r n a m e t h u s h a s a n o n t o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n t h a t t r a n s c e n d s . I t i sa l w a y s ir r e d u c i b le t o a n y " c o n t e n t , " a n y m e a n i n g i i i l b i o g r a p h i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a ln a r r a t i v e . I n B e c k e t t ' s t e x t s , m o r e o v e r , t h e r a d i c a l o n t o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n o f n a m i n gi s a l w a y s g i v e n I n a d d i t i o n - .performative d i m e n s i o n , b o t h i n t h e s en s e of d r a m a t i cp e r f o r m a n c e a n d i n t h a t o f p e r f o r m a t i v e s p e e c h a c t s , t o r e f e r t o t h e l i n g u i s t i c t e r mi n t r o d u c e d b y A u s t i n .

W e w i ll e x p l o r e t h e a m b i g u o u s d i m e n s i o n o f p e r f o r m a t i v i t y a n d t h e n a m e inB e c k e t t b y l o o k i n g a t t h e in s i s te n t r e t u r n f r o m t h e margari ta o f t h e 1 9 3 5 l e t t e rr o t h e r o l e o f M a y i n t h e 1 9 7 6 d r a m a Footfal ls o f a p h o n e m e o r p h o n e m i c c l u st e rt h a t u n m i s t a k a b l y r e c a ll s o r r e c it e s t h e n a m e o f B e c k e t t ' s m o t h e r , e i t h e r a s o f fi ci al lyi n s c ri b e d ( M a r i a ) o r a s a c tu a ll y s p o k e n ( M a y ) . B u t t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t s y m p t o m a t i cr e t u r n a n d t h e o n t o l o g i c a l - p e r f o r m a t i v e i n s t a n c e o f t h e n a m e t h e r e , w e n e e d f ir st


10/24

130 Joumal of Modern Literature Volume 32, Numbt h a t w i l l b e c ru c i a l fo r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e f a n t a s m a t i c a n d p o l i t ic a l a r c h i t e c t u ro f B e c k e t t ' s w o r k t h e p o s i t i o n o " m a s c u l i n e " d i s c o u r s e o r k n o w l e d g e a n d i t( " f e m i n i n e " ) l i m i t s .

A s w e s a w a b o v e , w h a t B e c k e t t r e c a l le d i n t h e y e a r o f h i s d e a t h a b o u t h ip s y c h o t h e r a p y w a s a n e x p e r i e n c e o f " i n t r a u t e r i n e m e m o r i e s " ( K n o w l s o n 1 7 7 ) . Ih i s v o r a c i o u s r e a d i n g o f p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h e o r y a t t h e t i m e , h e h a d b e e n p a r t i c u l a r ls t r u c k b y t h e w o r k o f O t t o R a n k , t h e F r e u d i a n d i s s i d e n t w h o c a m e t o t h i n k t h at h e w h o l e s p e c t r u m o f p s y c h i c a l a c t i v i t y a n d p a t h o l o g y c o u l d h e r e f e r r e d b a c k t" b i r t h a n x i e ty , " o r t h e t r a u m a t i c r e c o l l e c ti o n o f th e p r i m a l s h o c k - e x p e r i e n c e ol if e ( 1 7 8 ) . B e c k e t t ' s n o t e s t u r n o n e o f R a n k ' s i d e a s i n t o a l i t tl e s c e n a r i o , a v i vi dd r a m a t i c u l e : " A n x i e t y o f c h i l d l e ft a l o n e in d a r k r o o m d u e t o h i s u n c o n s c i o ub e i n g r e m i n d e d {er~innert) o f i n t r a u t e r i n e s i t u a t i o n , t e r m i n a t e d b y f r i g h t e n i ns e v e r a n c e f ro m m o t h e r " ( 1 7 8 ) . T h e w o r d ' ' t e r m i n a t e d " h e r e of fe rs a n a p t ( t h o u g h nod o u b t u n w i t t i n g ) p r o l e p s is o f B e c k e t t s l a te r p r e o c c u p a t i o n s , n e a t ly e n c a p s u l a t e d , aC h r i s t o p h e r R i c k s o b s e r v e s , i n t h e e q u i v a l e n t F r e n c h w o r d a n d i ts " t e r m i n a t i o n .l l i c v e r y t e r m termine' , h y c o n c l u d i n g w i t h c ' ( " h o r n " ) , s e e m s t o e n t a i l B e c k e t t i a nb i r t h - i n - d e a t h ( R i c k s 4 0 - 4 1 ) . A s w e w i l l s e e, t h i s s i m u l t a n e o u s o p e n i n g a n d c l o si n g o f b e i n g In l a n g u a g e , t h i s terminascence, i s c e n t r a l t o h o w B e c k e t t ' s w o r k r e c a lla n d r e m a k e s s o m e t h i n g o f p s y c h o a n a l y s i s .

B u t f or t h e t i m e b e i n g , a t l e a s t, w h a t i s c l e a r a b o u t B e c k e t t ' s i n v e s t m e n t i nt h e i n t r a u t e r i n e , h i s p r i v i l e g i n g a t t h e t i m e a n d i n r e t r o s p e c t o f t h o s e " e x t r a o r d in a r y m e m o r i e s o f b e i n g i n t h e w o m b " ( K n o w l s o n 1 7 7 ) , is t b a t i t is b o u n d u p i n ar e l a t i o n o f t r a n s f e r e n c e , a s i g n i f y in g e x c h a n g e , t h a t b y 1 9 3 5 h a d e s t a b l i s h e d i ts elb e t w e e n p a t i e n t a n d t h e r a p i s t . B i o n h i m s e l f , a s h i s s u b s e q u e n t t h e o r e t i c a l w o r k w at o r e v e a l , h a d a l o n g s t a n d i n g i n t e r e s t in q u e s t i o n s o f b i r t h a n d t h e i n t r a u t e r i n e . A1 9 7 5 a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d " C a e s u r a , " f o r i n s t a n c e , e x p l o r e s t h o s e q u e s t i o n s i n t e r m s ot h e " p r e - m e n t a l " ( r a t h e r a B e c k e t t i a n - s o u n d i n g c o n c e p t ) . A l r e a d y i n 1 9 3 5 , h o w e v e ra t t h e v e ry b e g i n n i n g o f h i s c l in i c a l c a r e e r a n d i n t h e t h i c k o f h is w o r k w i t h B e c k e t tB i o n i s d e e p l y e n g a g e d w i t h t h e s a m e p r o b l e m , t a k i n g h i s cu e p e r h a p s f ro m F r e u d 'r e m a r k a d e c a d e e a r l i e r o n t h e " c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n i n t r a u t e r i n e Life a n d e a r l i e si n f a n c y " ( F r e u d , Inhibitions 1 3 5 ) . A n d o n e p ie c e o f e v i d e n c e f or t h i s h e r e t h et r ia n g l e s t a r ts t o b e c o m e v i s i b l e e m e r g e s f r o m a s ig n if > 'in g re l a t io n t h a t o p e n sfo r a m o m e n t in 1 9 3 5 , b e t w e e n B i o n a n d J u n g . W b a t w e s ee h e r e is h o w B i o n 't r a n s f e re n t i a l e x c h a n g e w i t h B e c k e t t a b o u t t b e i n t r a u t e r i n e t o o k a s p e c ia l t u r n , as ig n i fy i n g d e t o u r , i n t o a q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e l i m i t s o f a n a l y si s . O n O c t o b e r 1 , 1 9 3 5t h e e v e n i n g b e f o r e h i s n i g h t o u t w i t h B e c k e t t , B i o n a s l t h e fo llo w in g q u e s t i o n at h e e n d o f J u n g ' s l e c t u r e :


11/24

Outselves: Beckett, Bion and Beyond 1 ^L a c a n ' s n o t i o n o f t r a n s f e r e n c e . T l i a t is , h e i s t h e o n e w h o is s u p p o s e d t o k n o w ( t h ea n s w e r t o t h e F r e u d i a n r i d d l e o f h o w t o t h e o r i z e t h e " c o n t i n u i t y " b e t w e e n m i n d,u id b o d y , o r b e t w e e n h u m a n s u b j e c t a n d f e t u s ).

A n d h o w d o e s J u n g r e s p o n d ? A t first, h e s e e m s s i m p l y t o r e je c t t h i s t r a n s -t c r e n t ia l s u p p o s i t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e : " Y o u to u c h a g a i n o n t h e c o n u o v e r s i a t p r o b -l e m o f p s y c h o - p h y s i c a l p a r a l le l i sm f o r w h i c h 1 k n o w o f n o a n s w e r , b e c a u s e i t isl ic y o n d t b e re a c h o f m a n ' s c o g n i t i o n " ( 7 2 ) . B u t i t s o o n b e c o m e s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h i sii vo w a l o f n o n - k n o w l e d g e is a r h e t o r i c a l m a s k f o r a d i s c o u r s e o f o c c u l t k n o w l -e d g e , o f e s o t e r i c w i s d o m : fo r w h a t L a c a n w o u l d c a l l a d i s c o u r s e of t h e m a s t e r .J u n g r e p o r t s t h a t b e h a s s u c c e s sf u l ly d i a g n o s e d a n o r g a n i c d i s e a s e o n t h e b a s i so f d r e a m a n a ly s is , " a c c o r d in g to m y id e a o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o f t h e p s y c h e a n d t h el iv i n g b o d y " ( 7 3 ) a n i d e a w h i c h j u s t a m o m e n t b e f o r e w a s d e e m e d " b e y o n d t h er e a ch o f m a n ' s c o g n i t i o n " b e f o r e r e fu s i n g a n y f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n ; n o t n o w d u eId t h e i m p o s s i b i l it y o f m a n c o n c e p t u a l l y g r a s p i n g t h e p r o b l e m , b u t r a t h e r b e c a u s e" i t i s r e a ll y a m a t t e r o f s p e c i a l e x p e r i e n c e " ( 7 3 ) . J u n g ' s r h e t o r i c h e r e is i n d e e dm a s t e r ly . H e c o m b i n e s a n a p p e a l t o t h e o b v i o u s e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l i m i t s o f i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n " T h e s e t h i n g s r e al ly a r e o b s c u r e " ( 7 4 ) w i t h t h e a s s e r ti o n , e v e r y w h e r ei m p l i e d a n d s o m e t i m e s s t a t e d , t h a t b e hi m s eL f h a s o v e r c o m e t h o s e l im i t s t o a c q u i r ea " s pe c ia l k n o w l e d g e " ( 7 5 ) o f w h a t r e m a i n s h i d d e n f r o m o r d i n a r y p e o p l e . ( O r d i n a r yWestern p e o p l e , w e s h o u l d a d d : J u n g r e a c h e s fo r t h e s t a n d a r d i d e o l o g i c a l p r o p o f a na n c i e n t E a s t e r n w i s d o m u n a v a i l a b l e t o s t u p i d W e s t e r n e r s , a n d s o o n . )

N o w , w i t h t h i s m a s t e r l y r e s p o n s e b y J u n g t o B i o n w e a g a i n f in d o u r s e l v e sL l o s e t o t h e t re manqu o f B e c k e n ' s m e m o r y . F o r t h e a n e c d o t e J u n g w i l l re l a tei h e f o l l o w i n g n i g h t a t t b e T a v i s t o c k , w h e n B e c k e t t is p r e s e n t , a g a i n h i n g e s o n au p p o s e d e s o t e r i c k n o w l e d g e w h i c h m u s t b e k e p t h i d d e n f r o m l i m i t e d W e s t e r n

t n i n d s : " H e r f a t h e r c o n s u l t e d m e a b o u t th e s e d r e a m s . I c o u l d n o t t el l h i m w h a t It h o u g h t b e c a u s e t h e y c o n t a i n e d a n u n c a n n y p r o g n o s i s " ( 1 0 7 ) . T h e g i r l , i m p r o p e r l yh o r n a n d e x p e r i e n c i n g " a m a z i n g m y t h o l o g i c a l d r e a m s , " is a h i e r o g l y p h w h i c h o n l yl u n g , w i t h h i s e s o t e r i c k n o w l e d g e , c a n d e c i p h e r , a n d w h i c h h e c a n n o t c o n v e r t i n t oo r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e t o c o n v e y t o h e r f a t h e r .

W e c an m a k e o u t a d i s t i n c t s t r u c t u r e o f t r a n s f e r e n c e a n d n o n - r e s p o n s e h e r e .!'" irst a q u e s t i o n is p u t t o t h e m a s t e r b y t h e u n i n i t i a t e d , c o n c e r n i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t -; ib il it y o f a f e m i n i n e e n i g m a a t t h e t h r e s b o l d b e t w e e n b o d y a n d m i n d , a n u n c a n n yz o n e w h e r e t h e h u m a n s u b j e c t is s ti ll s t r u g g l i n g t o e m e r g e f ro m i ts a r c b a i c , e m b r y -i nic p r e - e x i s t e n c e . T h e m a s t e r r e s p o n d s b y r e f u s i n g t o i n t e r p r e t , d e c l a r i n g t h e] > ro b le m i m p o s s i b l e t o t r e a t u s i n g o r d i n a r y l a n g u a g e . I t is n o t h a r d t o s e e t b e s a m es t r u c t u r e a t w o r k i n t h e e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n J u n g a n d J o y c e e a r li e r in 1 9 3 5 . T h i st i m e i t w a s J o y c e w b o a s k e d J u n g t h e q u e s t i o n ( a l b e it w i t b e x t r e m e r e l u c t a n c e , a n do n l y af t er m a n y o t h e r t h e r a p e u t i c e ff o rt s h a d p r o v e d f r u it l e ss ' ' ), a q u e s t i o n a b o u ti b e p o s s ib l e a n a l y t i c t r e a t m e n t o f h i s d a u g h t e r L u c i a . J u n g ' s r e s p o n s e , a c c o r d i n g t o


12/24

132 J o u r n a l o f M o d e m L i t e r a tu r e V o l u m e 3 2 , N u m b e r , tbe possible analysis of the feminine enigma at the threshold between th

formal coherence of subjectivity and its archaic formless origins, is answered in thnegative, abolished or annulled by the master with a simple appeal to esoteric (anhence conveniently inexplicable) wisdom.And wha t position does Beckett occupy in this structure? In both scenes, hecaught up in a complex transferential exchange:firstwith Joyce, involving the intesecting problems of writing Finnegans Wake and dealing with Lucia; and then vnBion, involving the similarly interlinked problems of intrauterine memories ancdealing with his mother. W e can picture these scenes with the following diagram

1 9 3 5J u n g -I tre m anque'

1928-35Jung -' Lucia

Bion Beckett Joyce BeckettA fewwords should be added to explain the diagrams. Tlie symbol = marks thmovement of signifiers (corresponding to the psychoanalytic concept of transference), while the symbol -' marks the blockage or failure of signification (nontransference). Tlic vertical interrogative arrow on the left m arks a question posed toJung in 1935 about the limits of analysis. The first diagram figures Bion's questio(asked in October) concerning the possible link between archaic forms of bodand psyche, or between intrauterine life and infancy. The second diagram figureJoyce's question (asked in January) concerning the therapeutic prospects of LuciaJung's response to both questions is the masterly gesture of pointing to a thinand (thus) declaring it unspeakable, both laying claim to a hidden knowledgand forbidding its actual utteranc e, its reduction to mere signifiers. W hat flickerenigmatically beyond the determinate, historically certifiable domain of masculinsigniiying exchange is thus an apparition offemininity, the nebulous anamorjihiimage ot a non-existent or improperly-existent female. It is this phantasm, at onpoint given the name tre manque', that sticks in Beckett's memory and returthroughout his work.

Here we can return to the question of the proper name, and of the utteranc


13/24

Outselves: Beckett, ion and eeyond 133W ill the de m on pre tios a margari ta! disable m e any the less . . . because mymotives are unselfish . . . ? Ma cch ! (qtd. in Know lson 18C)-1)

Ihe first name uttered,/>riVfOii margarita is, as we saw, rich with semiotic potential(with im plicit allusions to C hrist's parable as translated by St. Jerome , to a bio -graphical mother called Maria, to psychoanalysis with its notion of enjoymcnt-in-pathology). In the second, Macch,we are dealing with som ething qu ite diifcrent: anutterance whose exclamatory, percussive force marks it, not merely as ano ther linkin th e signifying chain , but as the interrogative ("hysterical") rupture of significa-tion itself. But wh at groun ds do we have for thinkin g of it, this violent utteranceor expectoration, as a name} An answer wall be spelled out in Beckett's 1950 textMolloy (here as tran slated an d we will come back to this transformation intoEng lish, in 1955). Tlie narrator is talking about addressing his mo ther:

I called her Mag, when I had to c;ill her something. And I called her Mag because form e, with out my kno wing why, the letter g abolished the syllable Ma , and as it were spiiton it, bett er than any other letter would have do ne . An d at tbe same time 1 satisfieda deep and doubtless unacknowledged need, the need to have a M a, that is a motber,and to proc laim it, audibly. For before you say ma g, you say ma, inevitably, And da, inmy part of the world, means father. ( The Beckett Trilogy 18)

W ha t is at stake here is the transformation of the word thro ugh the act of its utter-ance. Beckett turns this into a fleeting dramaticule w here wh at is originalmater-nal origins, mother tongue, motherland or (franglais) "ma rgion"is at oncenegated, rendered abject, and self-mockingly re-avowed: said yes or da to. Thatthe name M ag (a word with an old En glish sense of "chatter" and "tittle-tattle ") isno more than a re-voicing of Macche'is made abundan tly clear if we look back toBeckett's "original" French text of 1950:

Et si Je l'appelais Mag c'tait qu' mon ide.. . la lettre G abolissait la syllable ma, et pmirainsi dire crachait dessus.. . .(MolloyH)

The Italian cV ("wh at"or fVatt}) is a stiU more forceful exp ecto rant,/>oa ri/u//irc ,than the letter G. It seems much closer phonemically to the French crachait, withits "phlcgmatopoeia." But what does it mean for a letter or a phoneme to "abol-ish" cancel, obliterate "lasyllable ma'r Here Beckett mockingly holds out theprospect of a "psychological" interp retation (note his satirical swipe at the languageof psychobabble: "a deep and doubtless unacknowledged need"). This prospect isgiven added credence in the English translation, when ma is rendered as "Ma."'The proximity of Mag to May, the name of Beckett's Ma, is of course obvious:not so much as a letter, no more than a single pen mark or trait, tells them apart.(W e will have more to say abou t the function of the add itional pen mark below.)W ha t we have here, thou gh, is anothe r instance of how the utterance of the name


14/24

1 3 4 Joumal of Modern Literature Volume 32, Numbsy l l ab le m a c a n p e r h a p s , t h e n , b e r e p h r a s e d a s the shif t from signif ier to nam e. I t is n ot h a t t h e p h o n e m e c e a s e s t o s ig n i f y a s s u c h a n d t h e f ac t t h a t " m a g " s e c r e tl y c o nn o t e s " c h a t t e r " i r o n i c a ll y a c k n o w l e d g e s t h i s . R a t h e r , i t s u t t e r a n c e n o w a l s o e n c a ps u l a t e s a ^2Jd\ failure o f s i g n i f i c a t i o n , a p o i n t w h e r e t h e d i a c r i t i c a l n e g a t i v i t y ot h e s i g n i f i e r g iv e s w a y t o a s i n g u la r t r a it , s o m e t h i n g u n s p e a k a b l e o r u n t r a n s l a t a b l

T h i s n o t i o n o f s i g n i f y i n g f a i l u r e t a k e s u s b a c k t o t h e p h o n e m i c r e c i t a ti o n t h aw e h a v e c l a i m e d , r u n s t h r o u g h B e c k e t t ' s w o r k . A s t h e n a m e M a y b e c o m e s t hsy l l ab le m a p l u s a g u t t u r a l c o n s o n a n t , w e c a n h e a r i t r e - v o i c e d n o t o n l y i n M ao r M a c c h b u t a l s o i n manque . T h e " f a i l e d b e i n g " o r tre manqu t h e f e m i n i ne m b o d i m e n t o f ( i m ) p o t e n t i a l i t y B e c k e t t h a d g l i m p s e d t h r o u g h a n d b e y o n d h ir iv a lr o u s s i gn i fy i n g e x c h a n g e s w i t h J o y c e , J u n g a n d B i o n t h u s r e t u r n s a s a n o t h en a m e , o r a n o t h e r v o i c i n g o f th e s a m e n a m e . 'WhaX fa il s in l a n g u a g e c a n n o t bt r e a t e d , f u l l y s i g n i f i e d o r r e s o l v e d b y t h e s ig n i f i e r .TITTLE-TATTLEB e c k e t t i s f a m o u s , o f c o u r s e , fo r h a v i n g c h o s e n t o l ea v e b e h i n d ( h i s m o t h e r i nI re l a n d " L i k e c o m i n g o u t o f g a o l i n A p r i l ," a s h e s a id o n a r ri v in g in P a r is i n 1 9 3 7( Knowison 274) a n d fo r s h i f ti n g h i s m a i n l a n g u a g e o f c o m p o s i ti o n , h i s li te ra r y s i g n a t u r e , a s i t w e r e , fro m h i s m o t h e r - t o n g u e E n g l i s h t o F r e n c h , "une languq u i n 'e s t p a s l a m i e n n e " {L'Innomable 3 9 ) . T h e r e c e iv e d c r i ti c a l w i s d o m a b o u t tt r ans i t i on is t ha t i t was fue lled by a des i r e t o e scape f rom the "Ang lo - Ir i sh exu bera n c e " w h i c h , as B e c k e t t l a t e r p u t i t , h a d m a d e h i s e a rl y w o r k t o o c o l o rf u l, m a r k ei t as to o l i t e r a ry o r s ty l ized ( too Joy cean , c r i t ic s u sua l ly add ) ( Know lson 3 57) . Bufro m o u r p e r s p e c ti v e , w h a t is m o s t s t r i k i n g a b o u t B e c k e t t's p ie c e o f li te r a r y selft h e o r i z in g , fa m o u s ly s u m m e d u p a s t h e d e s ir e t o w r i te " w i t h o u t s t y l e ," is prec ise lh o w it reverses t h e l o g i c o f B e c k e t t i a n u t t e r a n c e t h a t w e h a v e b e e n e x p l o r i n g . a s w e s aw in Molloy , a n e x p e c t o r a te d o b j e c t - le t t e r w a s r e li sh e d b y t h e n a r r a t o r as o m e t h i n g t o o b l i t e r a t e t h e s e m i o t i c v a l e n c y o m a ( w i t h t h e p r e t e n d e d c a n c e l l at ion o r d i savowal o f a ll i t s "psycho log ica l " r i ches : m a te r , m arga r i ta , m ar i a , ma regioia n d s o o n ) , t h e n b y c o n t r a s t to w r i t e i n F r e n c h , a t le a s t a c c o r d in g t o B e c k e t t i n h im o m e n t o f s e l f -t h e o r i zi n g , w as t o r e e t h e s ig n i fie r o f m a t e ri a l im p e d i m e n t . D o i n gs o r id l a n g u a g e o f a s t y l is t ic e x c e s s o b j e c t , t r a i t o r s i g n a t u r e t h a t o t h e r w i sw o u ld h a m p e r i ts c a p a c it y to c o m m u n i c a t e .

W h a t is " l o s t in t r a n s l a t io n " is t he re f o re the key. If th e o t h e r la n g u a g e s e e m e dt o o p e n t h e p o s s i b il it y o f s ig n i fy i n g " w i th o u t s t y le , " in a d is c o u r s e s t r i p p e d ou n n e c e s s a r y r h e t o r i c s t r i p p e d d o w n , t h a t is , t o a n e s se n t ia l s ta t u s a s d e n o t a t i v


15/24

O u t s e l v e s : B e c k e t t , B i o n a n d B e y o n d 135a radically ambiguous object. It is both the st)'listic materialit)' or symptomaticremnant of a rhetorical culturebefore which the young Beckett felt himselfsilenced, stifled atidxhe insistent retu rn, through and beyond signification, of anirreducible act of self-prese ncing, an untrans latable signature or self-identification.Ajid furthermore, as we shall see, in both of these senses this object is marked byBeckett 3S feminine.

O ne way of making sense of the "self-contradictorv'" logic of disavowal andidentification seen here would be to map it onto the history of Beckett's artisticdevelopment. We could thus think of the initial moment as an identification witht h e signifier, the latter conceived o f as a pure effect of denotation unsullied by traitor voice, and link tbat moment to Beckett's decision, shortly after the end of histherapy with Bion, to move to France and write in French; while the identificationwith a name, the latter heard as the singular voicing of what resists signification,t:ould be seen as an experience that emerges from Beckett's intense "frenzy owriting " after the war.

W h at we also havr he re, interestingly, are two distinct models of how analysisshould end: either in the elimination of the symp tom, a s in the early Freu dian, stillpseudo-medical, notion of the cure; or in an identification with it, as in Lacan'slater, often paradoxical formulations on the end of analysis. The symptom itself,moreover, changes status in this shift from an "early" to a "late" model (of analysisorperhapsof Beckett 's work). If at first the symptom is taken as a signifier,som ething constitutively linked to other signifiers and thus in principle translatableinto new and supposedly less pathological forms, wb en it "returns," the symptom isa mnxc jouissance. As such, it is irresolvable, irreplaceable, and "incurab le." Alongsidethis fundamental alteration of the symptom, fiirthermore, comes an altogetherdifferent sense of identification. T o identify is no longer, in this late model, for thesubject to negate and thus overcome the symptom, to attain its own coherence as.in " I " encompassing and mastering its pathological history. Rather, it becomes anevent deprived of symbolic efficacy, involving no transcendent ego or meaningfulteleology. We can see this transition from one kind of identification to anotherinscribed in the prose Beckett later dubbed bis "frenzy of writing ."At the opening o Molloy, the narrator can still presen t a minimal picture ofibe self, locating it with a pronoun in a meaningtlil narrative space: "I am in mymother's room" ( 7 A ' Beckett Trilogy 9 ) . Indeed , the book's very title, like those of theearlier Murphy and IVatt, c a n be seen as an implicit reference to the idea of au thorialself-portrait (an idea which Joyce, of course, had powerfully appropriated). But byL'Innomable and again the title ann ounces as m uch w e have lost this minimalcontact with " I , " with a signifier that can generate and govern a stable narrativeworld or can coordinate sentences into a meaningful statement. It is not tbat " 1 "has disappeared, exactly. T h e problem seems to be either tbat the self has lost itseli


16/24

1 3 6 J o u r n a l o f M o d e m L i t e r a tu r e V o l u m e 3 2 , N u m b e r

then re -emerged , in 1958, from the agonies of Beckett's self-translation as "we'ldways be short of me ' (T h e Beckett Trilogy 311). Note how the switching-round pronouns here reverses the sens, the w hole orientation, of Beckett's "original" utteance. The strange, disturb ing, "I will always be lacking to u s " becomes the deliberately ofhand, "we'll always be short of m e. "W ha t has been lost in this translationi s , first, the force of direct utterance carried by the initialst?, but more importantlythe key term manquer, which recalls the tre manqu of Beckett's remembereJungian fragment (and along with it the other ma + crachat vTints: M ag, MaccbManquer deserves its own chapter in the story of Beckett's bingualismThe word is always the mark of an intense writerly fascination. In his discussionwith Lawrence Harvey, we recall Beckett implying tha t it also marks som ethinguntranslatable, som ething properly expressible only in French. To render " J e noumanquerais" 2Ls'*yNc"]Xh sbort of me''was in effect to make the same po int: mEnglish lacks an active intransitive verb like manque. A rigorous translation"will always lack to us" becom es nonsensical, a foreigner's English. W h at is los(or rather: c e qui manque) in the translation is the very gist of the original lineW h at fails or is deficient in any social identity, any statem ent issuing from "we,is bound up with my utterance. T t is no t, writes Beckett in a "langue qui n'estpla mienne" {L'Innomable 39) that social discourse merely forgets to represent mproperly (that goes witho ut saying), bu t that the singular act of my utteranc e leave.its mark, its untranslatable^w/ii-/m, upon tbe collective discursive reproduction oidentity. It marks it, tha t i s , with a fault, a point at which signification fails or falbshort. If "we'll always be sbort of m e " perhaps serves as a melancholic rebuke tothe "original" line, with Beckett sardonically deflating his earlier hubristicyV, thetranslation might also, more subtly, be a way of showing w hat Eng lish i s , precisely"short" of:yV manquerais.

The loss ofth e " I , " the n, can be said to take place in Beckett's frenzied p rose, iby that loss we understand not so much the disappearance of th e ego as its regtirgitation, its re-emergence as an untranslatable excess or exuberance tha t perturbthe smooth social circulation of signifiers. The " I , " in short, is regurgitated in thetext as an asemic object. This rgurgitation turns ou t to have everything to do w ithe transition between languages, since it simultaneously m arks wha t most demamhtranslation and what most resists it. If Beckett theorizes his turn to French as thtranslation-away of his sym ptomatic "Anglo-Irish exuberance," wh at returns in hiwriting is an exuberant object, an excess utterance, tbat cannot be reduced to anycollective iden tity (let alone any specific national culture or languag e).The transformation of"!" into an asemic blot or trait that disfigures the rep


17/24

O u t s e l v e s : B e c k e t t , B io n a n d B e y o n d 137

Dear Mr Watt,With reference tayourlctterof September 3rd and Samuel Beckett s "novel," I will

strictly avoid any puns in writing this letter turning the book down. Puns would be tooeasy but thi- book itself is too difficuir. It shows an immense menta] vitiilit)', an outra-geons metaphysical sidll, and ii very line talent for writing. It may be that in turning thisbook down we arc turning down a potential James Joyce. What is it that this Dublinair does to these writers? But all the same, we think that the appeal, keen though itwould be to a few hundred people, would not be sufficient to make its publication com-mercially remunerative, especially in view of the great length of the typescript, and thedifficulties in connection with setting up parts of it Samuel Beckett is clearly a writerto be watched, and it goes without saying that we should be interested to see his nextbook, but at the moment what appears to us as liis perversity is so considerable thatwe find outselves [sic] unable to make an offer.

Sincerely, tF.J.W.(qtd.inBeer45)

It is this closing felicitous slip, "outselves," which makes the letter such a preciousdocument. The writers determination to "strictly avoid any pun s" falls comicallyflat when a typois it a Freudian slip or a sheer accident? spells out, perhapsA little too neatly, something like a formula for what we have been envisaging asBeckett's disfiguration of collective identity. The publisher's m ain objection to {iitt,lifter a l l , i s that it is t o o individual, insufficiently part of the public culture wherc we"find ourselves" and are able to imagine or represent ourselves to ourselves. Onemay indeed be tem pted to read "outselves" i n a psychoanalytic sen.se. Perhaps u singKleinian terms one could see it as a perfect name for the fantasmatic bad objectsexpelled from the e g o , just as iVatt is rejected, the piickage returned or projectilevomited, from what rhe publisher imagines to be the proper corpus of publicBritish culture. But if the self i s thus thought to have expelled an object from itsown m eaning-oriented dom ain, we should be careful not to re-endow that objectwith semantic content (referring to the subject's pathology, memories, and so on).Here we return to the notion of identification with the symptom, which is markedprecisely by A failure of the signifier, not by its imaginary-semantic padding-out.In other words, if w e wish "outselves" to name the Beckettian transformation ofidentity, it should be as the displacement, not the confirmation, of the meaning-oriented, psychological " I . " And as we saw, what takes the place of that " 1 , " whattransforms its site, is a textual exuberance or excess utterance that obliterates ordisfigures meaningful, psycbological space.

How, though, can we relate this modernist rgurgitation of transcendent self-hood as textual blot to Beckett's movement between languages? We have alreadyseen in the problem of self-translation faced by Beckett with/c manquerais howsom ething is lacking in the making-meaningful that constitutes translation (in this


18/24

1 3 8 J o u m a l o f M o d e m L it e ra tu r e V o lu m e 3 2 , N u m b e r

individual signature or "exuberance." W h a t is lost in tran slation, then, i s " T " : as lonas that letter marks something wholly irreducible to the socially-adept ego, thmaster of what Freud designated the "reality principle."" It is the ego where w e "finourselves." It is, in other words, an essentially social locus. And the untranslatabje returns there in Beckett's writing only as an altered e g o : an insignificant trait, aadditional mark or mere speck on the imaginary mirror.

A string of altered egos is named in Beckett's titles, where once again we oftesee traces of the symptomatic phonematic repetition of m explored above. (Tliletter M followed by vowel and crachat can be heard, Uke variations on a themin Murphy, Mercier, Molloy, Malone, Moran.. . .) And it is Beckett's title Watwhere th e initial letter is simply flipped over, that embarrasses the man from SeekecW arburginto writ ing "Dear Mr W att," childishly cornering him into makingpun. It is here, in the gratuitous, slightly improper flourish of these titles theiinfantile dimension, the ma-ma babble or smirking punthat we can discerBeckett's inscription of an " 1 " that exceeds the grow n-up , "realistic" ego. Let uhear wha t Beckett's "Unnam able"voice makes of these outselves, these altered ego

AU these Murphys,MoUoys and Malones do not fool m e . . .They never sufFered mypains, and their pains arc nothing, compared to mine, a mere tittle of mine, the tittle Ithought I could put from me, in order to witness it. Let them be gone now, them andal! the others { T h e Beckett Trilogy 2 7 % )

The extra letter which turns a title into a "tittle" is the key. The OED has threintriguing definitions for "tittle":

1 . (noun) A small stroke or point in writing or printing . . . ; any stroke or tick witha pen.

2 . T h e smallest or a very small part of something.3 . (verb) Speak in a l o w voice, whisper.

So the extra pen mark, itself a tittle, turns these titles , with their assimilative "m'into tittles. It makes them almost noth ing, reduces them to a low m urmur. But "thtittle I thought I could put from m e, in order to witness it" reminds us, somehowin its very rhythm , how this writing is thoroughly informed by Beckett's experience of psychoanalysis (and probably also by more recent discussions he had haby 1958 about Klein's work). If the titles are outselves, the n, they are also tittlebut with a little extra: a still more tasteless pun on "tit" (as the mammiferous "m"migh t also suggest).A tittle is therefore an additional mark or letter added to the Beckettian tex


19/24

O u t s e l v e s : B e c k e t t , i o n a n d B e y o n d 1 3 9Ces Murpbv, Molloy t autres Maione, je n'en suis pa s dupe.. . . Ils n'ont pa s souffert mesdouleurs, leurs douleurs ne sont rien, ctt'dfs miennes, rien qu'unepetikpariie d e s miennes,celle dont e croyais pouvoir me detacher, pour la contempler. Que maintenant U s s 'e n aillent,eux et Us autres {L'Innomable 3 2 - 3 )

Une p etite partie,""^ little b i t " thus becomes, nine )xars Iater,''a tittle," a word Beckettrepeats as if to emphasize it. I h e French phrase, it is imm ediately clear, entirelylacks senses 1 and 3 of the O E D entry. There is no trace in this ordinary bit ofFrench of either "penstroke" or "murmur." In other words, the crucial Beckettiannotion we read embedded in the English "tittle," that of a trait or vocal noise linkednot to the meaningfijl ego but to the unaccountable " 1 , " appears only in Beckett'stranslation: as if it is bound up with the "Anglo-Irish exuberance" to which hereturns, having w ritten "without style" in French.

SINNING AG AINST MY TONGUEOn pense contre un signifiant. ('One thinks against a signifier.')

JACQUES LACAN,L E SINTHOME

Beckett's return to E nglish, then , also sees the return of a verbal exuberance (sup -posedly) curtailed by the signifier in French. W he n u n e petite partie becomes "atittle,"a bit of ordinary,"colorless"language becomes a complex p u n , where "little"merges w ith other signifying traces inc luding "title," "tattle" and "tit." TKere issomething in fact untranslatable, w e might s a y , about "tittle,"just as tre manque'Unto be left by Beckett in the "original" French . Tlie movement from one language toanother exposes a flaw in the transfer of meaning that marks the linguistic utter-ance as a singular, as well as a signifying, event. Tra nsla tion , we m igh t thereforeargue, exposes gaps in language-as-signification. thus it reveals Beckett's notionof writing "without style" as a fantasy, an impossible idea of a pure, flawless inother words fully translatablesignification.Beckett's clearest and best-known theoretical reflections on language andtranslation come in the famous "German L etter"of 1 9 3 7 . Here the movem ent awayfrom English into other languages is rephrased, with a touch of self-melodrama, asan attempt to get through language, to penetrate to "what lurks behind it." "Andmore and more my own language appears to me like a veil that m ust be torn apartin order to get at the things (or the Nothingness) behind it" ("German L etter"171-2). The writer's task, in short, is to expose the non-totality of the signifier, togive voice to an event of language that is irreducible to its comm unicative function,which that function threa tens to eclipse. This very Romantic view of literature asthe aesthetic refuge of a non -ins trum enta l language is then rephrased , given a more


20/24

1 4 0 J o u r n a l o f M o d e m L i t e r a t u r e V o l u m e 3 2 , N u m b e r

A n assault against words in the n am e of beauty. . . . On ly from time to time I h avethe con sola tion, as now, ot sinn ing w illy-nilly against a foreign langu age , as I sho uldlove to do with full know ledge and intent against m j' own and as I shall do Deojuvante. (173)

Speaking a language as an outsider, without the innate linguistic saiiair faire thaeloquently inhibits one's mother-tongue: such would be Beckett's fantasmatii"consolation." W h a t is crucial about this "sinning" Is that it is unwillkrlich, not matter of individual volition or effort: one's very ineptitude in the foreign languagebecomes a weapon to be used in tbe "assault."There is thus something randomaleatory about this Wrterstrmerei, this offensive against the signifier. Here Beckreprises a classical modernist topos where the un itary e g o is eclipsed or fragmentedby an alienating structure, whether an effect of inhuman technology or merely ocon tingent historical events. W hat turns "ourselves" into "outselves" may be a meraccident of the typewriter (or a note on the Freudian Wimderhlock). But its "sinninor transgression of signifying propriety does not leave the ego, as supposed subjecof enunciation, intact.

A revealing mise e n scne of the intersecting "psychoanalytic" questions we habeen ex plo ring the fragmentation of the ego, the emergence of a traum atic oecstatic "object" through and beyond language, tbe peculiar ontological status otthe nameis given in Beckett's 1976 piece/^)o////..Tlie "pacing play," a s Becketsometimes called it (Knowlson 614), was first written in Eng lish, although itsFrench title would be the wondcrfiiily Beckettian P a s (outdoing in its minimalismeven the preceding P a s m o i ) . It features a woman pacing hack and forth on the stageand talking, seemingly both to herself and to the disembodied voice of her motherBeckett first called the pacing woman Mary, then in a second version took awaya letter to produce May (Knowlson 615). At one point in the piece, the letters arjumbled again to generate "another character," A m y . lliis last name already hintsat what Footfalls will rapidly reveal itself t o be: a circulation, an endless "revol\inof signifiers around some enigmatic kernel, rather than a dramatic form involv-ing distinct speakers and promising some kind ot action. "Amy" thus re-inscribesthe crucial "hysterical" question of the self, "am I ? " that repeatedly returns in thefirst )\-\S o Footfalls: "What age am 1 now?" asks May (242). The self is thus bsubject and scene of the drama. As sueh, it becomes no longer properly "dramaticand starts aping the novel: "Old M rs Winte r, whom the reader will remem ber .. .(242). A key Une is spoken at the end of each halfi first by the mothers voice andthen by May "herself": "Will you never have done .. . revolving it all?" (240,243)W hat we see here is Beckett redeeming his pledge of four decades earlier, to he


21/24

O u t s e i v e s : B e c k e t t , B i o n a n d B e y o n d 141status as textual surface, as well as bodily perfo rm an ce at least two othe r ghostlysignifiers, separated from the actual utterance by only a single disfigurative letter:

[revolving] it allresolvir^

revolting"Will you never have done resolving it all?": the misreading takes us back to tbeidea of the text as auto-psycho-biography, with its symptomatic or theoreticalconundrums in need of a Freudian Lsung or "solution." Bu t indeed Beckett's text,revolving the key autobiograpbical letters m-a-y, will never have done resolvingrhe problem of self and origin inscribed by those letters. It mocks the implicitteleology of any such reading or the self-analysis it postulates. That which is irre-solvable wh icb remains as untreatable symptom refi.ises to be dissolved intothe linguistic negativity o ft he subject. It persists as object, revolving in th e sameplace. A "late" Freudian reading would identify th e meaningless repetition, theissueless self-relation, wh ich Beckett stages in Footfalls as a clear man ifestation ofthe death drive.

This reading of Footfallsas at once a mockery of Freudian interpretationand a re-affirmation of its final pessimismfits in with a conventional image ofBeckett as a kind of one-man memento mori, an a rtist whose w ork set out to provideiin uncompromising vision o the bleak consequences of human finitude. But heremy second ghostly misreading of May's or her mother's line"Will you neverhave done revolting it all?"might offer us a way of complicating this readingand this notion of Beckett. We argued above that the eclipse of single or coherentsubjectivity in Beckett's prose can be thought of as a rgurgitation ofthe "I," itstransformation in and as the meaningless blot of tbe crachat. What is revoltingin Beckett's writingand Denise Gigante has located this within a history ofromantic-modernist distaste'is a reminder that, for all its moribund scenery,it is fundamentally invested in life and its unspeakable origins: "I was born grave"{ T h e Beckett Trilogy \7% . ^ .

N o t e s1 . Decuzc, Pourparlers 1%; quoted in Hill 80.2 , The "Intcrwar N otes" bequeathed by Beckett at liis death in 1989 to Triniry C ollege Dublin andHeading University were fully catalogued and microfilmed in 2002, and have subsequently beon availabletn scholars (see Feldman 2 1 ) . James Knowlson's biography Damned t o Fame: th e Life of Samuel Beckett(1^96) also draws substantially on these archives..3 , Beckett ccrtaitily did not have a Jungian analysis, as is frequen tly asserted on the intern et. The


22/24

1 4 2 J o u r n a l o f M o d e r n L i te r a tu r e V o lu m e 3 2 , N u m b e r 34 . See K nowison 738, note 51,5 . Tlje Latin phxzsc pretiosa margarita is used in St. Jerome's Viilgate translation of St. Matthew 's Gop e l , chapter 1 3 , and is translated a s "a pearl of great pric e" in the Authorized Version. T h e fiiU parable ias follows: "Again, rhe kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: / Whowhen he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it"(v. 45-6). IsBeckett consciously alluding to the Vulgate? He was taught Latin and Scripture by a single teacher atPortora Royal School, so he may well have studied S t . Jerome's text {Knowlson 41),6. See Em aiin 679-81.7 . The translation was the work of Paul Bowles and, although it was revised by B eckett himself, in thetransition from tbe ambiguous ma to the unequivocal ''M a"w e can see definite evidence of a translator'sdesire to iron out semantic uncertainties,8. See Krcud, "Forn mla dons ."9. See Gigante.

W o r k s C i te dBecltt. Samuel A/I ThatFall. Collected Shorter Plays, London: Faber, 198 4.9-3 9.

. T h e Beckett Trilogy. Molloy, Malone, Ike Unnamable. London: Calder Publications, 1994.

. Disjecta. Ed. Ruby Coh n. Londo n: Calder Publications, 1983.

. FootfaUs. Collected Shorter Plays, London: Fabcr, 1984.237 -243.

."German Letterofl937."Trans.Martin EsslJn.Dw/('i-/a, 170-173.

. LTnnomable. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1952.: Molloy. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1950.

- . Murphy. London: Routledge, 1938.. Watt. Londo n: Calder Publications, 953

Beer, Ann ." W&w , Knott and Beckett's ^'An^sism."Joumal of Beckett Studies, T O . 10, Lon don: CaldPubcations, 19 85.3 7-75 .Ellmann, R ichard.y^ffitri/i^i. New York: Oxfbid UP, 1982.Feldman, Matthew. Beckett's Booh. London; C ontinuum, 2006.Freud, Sigmund. "Formulations on the Two Principles of Mental Functioning" (1911). Standard

Edition \2.2U-22(>.. Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety (1926) Standard Edition 20 .75 -175 .

Gig ante , Den ise. "The En dgam e of Taste: Keats, Sartre, Beckett." Romanticism o n t h e Net, 2 0 0 1 ,Harvey, Lawrence E. SamuelBeckett: Poet and C ritic. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1970.


23/24

Outse lves: Beckett , 8ron and Beyond 143Moorjani, Angela. "Beckett and Psychoanalysis." Patgrave Advances in Samuel Beckett Studies. Ed. Lois

Oppenheim. London: Palgravc, 2004.172-193.Ricks, Cliristopher. Beckett's Dying Words. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993.Senn, Futv.. Joyce's Dislocutions: Essays on Reading as Tran slaton, Ed.J.P. Riquclme. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins UP, 1984.Williams, Raymond. The Politics of Modernism. London: Verso, 1989.


24/24

bion beckett.pdf

Documents