Archive FeverArchive Fever RELIGION ANLI POST MODERNISN A FREUDIAN IMPRESSION a by Munk C2. Faylon Jacougs Drerripa TRANSLATED BY Ekic PkeNowrrs. Tin Usivexsiry of Chcaco Press Cdicago #0 LondonJncatiis Direains as prafessar nf philesophiy ar the Brofe eles Hautes beudes Swence eejales and visting professar of cumpacisn’e lseraiure af the Unnsersity i Calufonia, frone, Ud his many baoks, die Unwersiy of Cheapo Peas bat yalaiyan hae Bavssouer ei alia blishrst ede yaa a ize on Eghislou sein the Center Eases Bétyanines vf Paris WIHT Mnivesitysehere be Inga thesis or tke work of Htine Ciayos anil fees Perth The Limwrssity ol lca ga Tres, Chica gin 647 The Upwversity of Chien Press, Li, Landon 1 (4S rhe falls Hopkins Un ieasity Press ErasLaoe’s Nowe © 19% hy ‘The University of Chea! AML ripins seta Unersity of (chicago Biess edition pnblished! [146 Vrinted an tte Laived States al Auuieniea SUHUS UROL UNIT HO LEAS TSRNE () 226 14836-8clorh) oy ly yuibloshedas Mlad Ar Aap ie an © Balidvnars (palitécy DIYS "Teds Segt ytd a Pouca inirmer PFS £ Congress Caralaging a Trerenga, Dacees [Mal daretiee Aebuve fever ah ish uaa onppeesanny | Jarars ened ranalanel hy dae Pn My Onngially presented as Igoture uae 5, 1A, ata eullxysaurt im seondon — (Relngion and postimesfernpsrth England Jeno laegeapialyeForences (ps) ISBN 22 143468 ctorhy 1. Mesnary (Philosophy 2.Psychiopnalysi. Hew, Signed, 1996 Veh 1 Tale, EL Saris RLORLTENETTE JH 1sunr2—aern Tee payer seca whos bi ony nee Bur anaiiagn sein emtenats of Lhe Aniericat National Stambard for Unfarmarion Sciences —Permairence nt Paper tor Pnted Labrary Marecuals, ANSI ZI%48 1954, Contents NOTE VIL EXERGUE 7 PREAMBLE 25 POREWORD 33 srHesés 93 POSTSCRIPT 97 TRANSLATOR'S NOTE (03 WORKS CLT DongLet us not ieyan at che beginaing, nor even at the archive e' and wath the archive of 9 lainilsara word, Argde, we eecall, uatnes at once the conenmencement But rather ar che word “archiv wal theeumnearidnene. This uame apparently earuedisates tweeps i ples in one: the prineyple accorditig to nature or history, shere where things commence — physical, historical,.or ontological prin Ciple—but alsorthe principle according ti the law, dere where nen and gous command, there where authority, social orderareexercised, sn bhas place ‘rom which order is given —nomological principle. There, we sane, and my this place, How are we ts chink af shere? Auul this urking plore we this havingse place of the arkhe? We have there two nidders al ater seqnemtuel and jacsive, Bron this point on, a series nl cleavages will incessinely divide every atom oF our lexicon, Already in the aekhé of the commencement, 1 al luiled to the commencement acconting tw nature oF acordiag 00 Distory, introducing swecepaniously 4 chann of belacei! and panbters atic apfiositinns between paysit and its athens, wheiis, edthmé, nomae, tes which are found i he ar work in the other principle, the immuloxiical principle of the arkbe, the priacple of the commanel- jet. All would be sitnple if there were one principle of two pan tyjdes. All would be simple if the plac: woul cach ane of iis athens were one or two, As we hive suspected (inca borg time, iis rathuny pf the sory, you we are-Tarever for genting this, There t ways MaiteHue wee ancl aniore ar hex than we. Lathe order of the cum inericerient ay well as dy the order oF Ae comrtenan lirica this mecnary of the name aekhe. But ak als shelters itSell trem thes inenaty which wt shelters: which comes down Lo saymny alse thar it The concepe of rhe archive shelters in uwli, of course luigets no There is nothing aceadental oe sucpersing about this Calabary | the in pressinn ane often has. ach a concept as not eIsy Jecaichive, One has tremble, and for essenrial ceasons, establishing ranch interpreting it in the doeumenr a delivers to us, here in-the word which mares, thar is the “archive” Le a way. the term in deed reters, asin would corrcetly believe, to the avkhé a the pvtral, Aisovieal, cw antolngical sense, whi fois Ww sy faethe oni cuaty, the first, the prineipial, the prienaiive, ia shir. 1 the covn m chive” relers to the nc ment But even more, and cecn carder, * arkhz inthe nomolngiced sense, to the arkhé of the commandant As. the case fur the Latin archeveent ox dicdhrani (& ward ehat is used ithe singular, asus the French arcduee, fornedy employed avn rabettlive satngular we archave), the ieantng of Narelive,” tts only iheaningg, Cones ty it frome the Gree hunse, a domicile, an address, the residence of the saperiie migis~ this Jield and signified politival power were considered to possess the Hight to take oF to represent ike law On aecabat of theve publicly lesedty, iF iSat theit Lome, in that place wwhicls oy tliein house (privave house, farnily houge, or employee's honse), deat of trates, the wrceni, those Whe cantmanded, ‘lhe ctttzcts wi! recogitieed 4 cal documents are hed. The archénsace first of all the documents’ tril They do por only easure the physical security uf what ss cyanate) aud ut the substrate, ‘They are also aevorded the herme- Newbie right atid competence, They hive the jawer te interpret the archives. Futrnsted te such archong these documents in effect ww. Thr e tate, they speak the laws they cecil the low and call on er impose the be guarded thus, an the jurisdienion of this peading needed aronce a guardian and a Ioculrzition. Bien ia thes guard ligyy un theve In ther wathnur substrate nor wiilwut resilence 4 HACHEULLC trCLiOn, Hie vrcluves cau alo te Lis thes in his deamaeidiation, +a this House arrest, thar arelaves take plice, The lavelling, this place where they-divell pexmancarly, inarks this uisuititional passage from the prvare to the public, which dues ust alswaycmiean Frome the secret co the nenaceret, Ut ty spenings night here, when a house, the Feends’ bast ini; the passage from one insntuGen team us, the documents, which are not always what is be house, becermes a min other} With such a sta dliscurswe writings, are only kept and classified under the ttle ol ke archive by vitlue af a privileged topology. ‘They anbabit this wwenynen place, hiv place of election whete Law ani singularity iuterstct in preifege, MV the intersceti¢on of the tapolexgicall and the pnmnlogical, of the place and the law, of the substrate and the au- thority. a scene of domieilfatian becomes at once vistble and invis- ible. 1 stress Uls point fir eeasans which will, | hope, appear mote cleacly Later, ‘They all have to ho with this topo-vieyanligy, selth thi forro dunmneihiation, with thisarchic, inarath pa anehiuutie slimes iriarchitc, function. without whieh no archive would eye conte Inte play or appear as stich. Ti shelter itself and sheltered, tu conceal Liself. This archontic function is not solely topo-nenioligical, 11 ves nocanty require that the archive be deposited soxiew here, wn antable substrate, sant at the disposinon of x legitimate heemenesthic authority. "The acchuntic power. which alsir gathers the functions of unification, of identificannn, of classification, mest he paired with what we will call the power of consignatiod, By cousignation. we do not only mean, i the urdiuary sense uf the word, the act Gf assigning residence ur of entrusting su-as to put iito reserve (te consign nd nity a substrate; buat here the act hf consaigning theanglt paddering rogether vig, It is nov anly the tralfitinnal consigmano, that is, the written proof, but what all eon agnatin begins by peesupposmng. Gonsigmusran aims to coordinate a sine corpus, ina system or a spnctirony 1a which all the elenierts to depenit), a a place a aruiculate the unity of an ideal coufigueation. [9 an archive, there should not be any abslute dissuciation, soy heterogeneity ar reeret whieh could separaie teecernere),.or partition, in-an dissolute man ner, ‘The arehnntic principle af the archive is aley ¢ principle ul consignanon, that is, uf gathering wgerher Ve goes withoue saying {rom nw Ga tat wherever one cuok| ater, he place aml the Taw according to whieh the archontic becomes ad particular an Freudian psychoanalysis, 1a eerhiik Jnstituted, wherever one could interrogate or contest, direcrly or indirectly, this archonric principle, its authority, ats tithes, arid (tsgchealogy. the eight that it commands, the legality or tbe macy that depeads on it, wherever secrets and heteragencity would went tenor even the possibility af cunsygrasion, tus cat wal’ hive grave canwequionces for a theory of the archive, aswell ae For its institutional implementation, A science of the archive mist i clude the theory af this inscitutionalization, that is ty say, the theory both of the Iw which begins by inscerhing self there and af the righe sebieh aurhorezes it. Thuy ryht imposes or supposes bundle of linnts which Base a histo yt leconst uctable history. and to the deconsarnietinn af velit payel ysis fay it Lace Corea, to sty the list. This deconsteneting iy progress converns, as always, the institution of lintits deetared Uy be insuiraountable," whether they uavulve Gundy ur state Law, the relations beeween the secret and the nonseeret, or, and tis is nee the same thing, beoween the private aud the pubihe, whether they auvolve property or as cess rights, pub: involve classification od jatinig data orders Whar comes under theory or under private hication oe reproduction rights, whether th 18 cause, the question of « panes of ue archie w aur pertaiment or citation ete, even UE the line Of a Fecture does: not permit us to teat Uns Hirectly and witl exanaples. This question wall never be letermened se ae Janay aehers. Ternns dhrongh the whole of the el ra srw cleteenes pies frre tps ta oma ws ves pubic. ‘Therese rus pit al prover without ceatral aD ke archive, iCwot of mennaey, Cltec uve dense alization cam always he mieasnredd hy this esscaveal ceitersons the parnicipan ij awd the aeesse ws the agchsce, ins constitution. and is interpretation, Ln davai Ihe Mieacbes Jol Uesiwieracy ea bewessured by what a:recera quad nay ny Saye CotnlafKable work entiles FaeBuldew ArcBroee (lrakanee weeps Let pens friempaises fre a Chnstatie contemporaine), Under this unle, which we ile 49 Ue snelitirng oC all thas dinprsrtans ere, Satie Comme Wises ut aly Able colleetine sel material to llgenefiate anh interpret et ahe ut tsionnal quescons abut the writing of Bustory, absint the “ie presto of fhe wtehive | MN), shout the vepressed archive” as” punet nf Hie stake weer the hbiariaie” [A2LL Anus all Ab these questi, sual 1 eeu retigoalar sevaeg to thn bs Jef ae blate het the one Halt is GoM, way, with the b Lone of vie biyemtbesis, overs if his Hdndamentil note, tie 6h tnivling some credit te the followingwleer pattuarelivecme ver eviieny all Hee wilices, Ay im passat Si fh ‘vation, bur irslues nen seer au ine ta h ob wells known bi few Catnbe “Ptr le paratinsed f Jurte purechance that the eunpérstion ance ty easctinall), Whi Ube tadse neste alse UES corresjanulence, for example? What comes under system? winder Luageaphy or aytubingraphy? uuder personal ur antellcerial ance esis! Fre work v said tw he Mienrentcud, what is woethy of eis waine uid what is not? Shwsubd une rely cn what Bren syps about this te classify his works? Should one lor example rake bina at his warel when he presents his Moses as a “historical navel"? Ineach of these rages, the limits, the borders, and the distinctions have been shaken by an carthquoke (sunt Which oo classiheational concept and ew riplenentatiow of the archive cay be sheltered. Order ix ne tomg assured, Jdreain new of having the ine to submuc for your discussian hore that one thesis, three at least. This ame will never be piven tone, Ale all, Fill never have the right to rake your aie sir as Wwriinpose tipor you, rapid-fire, these three + essays. Submit veel to the Gest ol your discussion, these theses thus remain, For the ume being, hypotheses. Incapable of supportmig thei demonstrs- ton, constrauied to posit thy appear at tamies dogmatic, E will reeall heme in a aiote critical amu feral pay the way ina anode which will nner nt ciielision. The hypotheses have a common trait: They all concern the pre presion left. in my opinion, by the Freralia sygnatere on its own viehive, on the eoncepe af the archive and of archivtzatton, that is vor say also, Fyphy. Not only on bistoniegeaphy in gene tory of the aps alse. ar the Histon’ oF the firmiation of a concept an general, We are saying for the time being Fretdtar ngnutnre so as not (0 have 1 decide yet between Sigmund Freud, the proper name, ta the ane hind, aad, on the other, the wivention of paychounalysis: project ul kauwledge, of versely af as at indirect consequence, ne hastening al, nor only oa the his nceps of the archive, but pet practice and af mastitnting enpsinaiity, fainily, domnieihation, cop signatinn, “house” of “museum,” i the present state of its archivi- zation. What ie i question is situated precisely Aediveen she tee Having thus angounced iny intentions, and promised ta collect anized fashion, [ask yuu them sous tt conclude in a amore o werinissinds ty take thie ume ane) (he Hiberty te enter spate several tongely prelinuiary escrersiand,Exergue Aveorling Tir cite befinre beginning is to give the tone through the resonance bf a few words, the meaning or form of which ought eo sel the proven convention, the exergue plays with creation. stage, Inoter wards, the exergue consists in capitalizing on ui el Lipsts, Tn accumulating capital in plus vale alan archive, Am extrgiit serves te stock in anticipation anal 10 prearchive a Jexicon which, from there on, ought to lay iJowa the law and give he order, even af this means contenting sell lvatice ancl tw preparing the sr with, naming the problem, that is, the subject, In this way, the ex feqgue has af once an insticunive and a conservative funetions the ee nla power (Getewlt) whieh at once posits and conserves the ai the Benjamin af Zur Kvdtik der Gewuait would, say, What is las avisste: here, starting with the cxergue, is the vinlence of the ar Chmeitself.as arvhive, ar archteut violence. Teas the thy st Higure of an atehave, becitise exery archeve, we > Finan titi, ereutice Revelutionary and craditioaal. An ecn-tomar archive JF ance metitistive and con ill Jeawe some inleven saves, but in an this double sense: it keeps, tt pits im ceserv intinatural fashion, that Ws te say ia making the law (moras) oc tn ayaking people respret the law. Aananvent ag we called 1 uni Iigueal. has the farce of law ofa Jaw whiel is the lave of the hot vvikos) of the hose ws places ag became a anuiseom, Erond’s house takes an all these cil, Fartilyy Lineage, or insite thon, Lan powers of eennomy.Lio entations wall exercise in theruselves, ist Uhetr exerguill fein, such a funncturh of archival economy, Buc iy making eeference ws such an cconumy, an explicit and amplici. reference, they wall alse have this Cinstot ag theme ar as objeet, These citations enteeen ial bind bevween themselves, perhaps secretly, two places af fn sexepnion: pringeng and crrcamess2on he serie of dhesescxcrpuer is the stone sypographicul, “The archive erent here ta conform berter 1 ed = concept, Reenase tt is enti so the outside, to an external substrate anil pot, as the sign of the covenanie imeineumnersion, 10 ai intimate mark, right on the socalled body proper. Burwhere dues the outside commence? This question isthe gpiestion of die archive, Phere are andundedly ny udder At the beginning of chaprer @.0f Geidzarion and Its Discanserts (1729.30), Brevi pretends ter worry. Is he ne mnvestinng in useless expenditure? 1s he nor in the process of mobilizing a ponderous archiving machine {press, printing. wh, paper) to record something whidly i the end aloes mot eteeit suelt expense? Is aot whae be is 1a terdetiver tthe printers yo brvvial as tor be available ev eeywhere? The Fecisdian lessen bere thdeed stresses a cerviany “printing” technology of archrvizcation (indies, Liracch, dridehen), bur orily sos te feign the faulty cconontic caleulanon. Freud also entrasts (a us the “impression (Empfirding), the Fecking wspareul by this excessive and ulbomtely geutorcuuis Linvestemetit in ok ediapys useless archive Tr none oi cay jirevions writings have E hail so strong a feeling [Emplindiag) as now that whar bam describing is common kuuwwledge Lidfgenveite Meksrirites| andl that Lani Usenyg «pp and wk (upier wd Tia] ani, ia due ontiese, the compos turtsand printer's work and tmaterval [Sefserandeit cond Preiker ichewarae aatfbjeten) invasrder to expoutul dkings which are, in Fxet. self-evident jum eigentlich wdhaeverstindliche Lage rac eraitilen | [SH 203117] Hiannts (hiss 4 lott an onl paper fat norling, an entire Ly jwyzrapleical volurne, iv ghort, a erumeriul substrate whieh by out oF all proportion. ity the Last analysis, « “recount” (ersithlen) stocrey ‘thar eeeryune knows. But the iievenient of this thetoric leads ely Where. Beene Erend draws anuther inference, in the retrospective logic ua Hunure perfect: he will have co hare invented av original Pmpositina which voll make the investment profitable, In other woes, he will have ty have found something new vt psyelonitily sig: a anuratinn or a break within his ewe theoretical Wnstity And be will have not only #2 have arnounced sume news, bi lve terfatwe archiverd t= [a have put it, ax it were, ta the preci! For that reaseon 1 should be glad to seize the pornt fit ware te appear that the recognition of a special, dependent aguressive iiistinct Jemes Beiouderen, selbsiindygen Agressionstrictes| scons alteration of the psychoraneilytic theory of the fastinens, [SF ail) The rhetarie and the bogie of this paragraph are vernunously cunning. Allthe more wily becusethey feign slisarine! maiveté. I «asa theatricalizing of arehivyzation, Freud what can also be 1 sects at first a perfirra a courteous captatia benewatentiac, a lit Ike the unr Lanwe you here: in the end J have nathing mew to say) Why derain you with these worn-out stories? Why chis wasted ynve? Why archive this? Why these wivestinnchits in juaper, 11 Uk, obilize su tiaicl space ane susnudiebs wick, 9 iv characters? Why a javich typageaphie composition? Dars this therit pertains? Srea't these sturies to be had cverywh: [favis not without perversity, this aapaicin bemceetentiae tarts oUt ius be elf a ttstless expenditure, the Hetioe of a sort ot “rhetorical question.” livrediately afterward, Breudl suggests uh effecr that bl invatlie fyyprotlie remly knows hie yeluvizarion would uot be su vane ann pete do iy at 30 wontld cause sn aippeste sehat inv fact he will canse te appear, and thus chis is noe a hypathesis For hints hypothests submitted for discussion, but rather sin irresistible thesis, rumely the posability of # radical perversion, amdeed, a ciabutical dew); dave, an aggcession-oc a destiivton drive; a dewe, thus, of hiss, The tee of the chapter tecalleeverything which bad lee sine Heyural the Pleasure: Prevtciple {1920}, muire than ten years ear Tier, inrrodhiced this destruction drive in the psychic economy. ar auther the psychic ancconumy, in che sesursed share af dus pure fog eapenditire: Peeiid dewws the cabelusion bi wath respect tine, anal indeed to its discontems, while at the sare giving himself over to a sort of aansbingraphical, theoreeical, ans[ inststutoomal anarmnesis, In the course of this eecapitulation, fie seresses above all the resistances thar this death ditve incites, exery- nhere, (itsule as wouch as iastde, as 1} were, ind an psychoanalytic cordiey ay well as itr bien self J remember my own defensive ateitude [enener exgenen Abeetr| when the wea ul an instinct of deseruction first ererged an povehoounalyue titer ature, atid how long it rook belire | beearne receptive tat, (SE 21; 120) remarks, as i swe must nor fall an rake note. Hest of all, since oveecoming this He hail previously made awe vpassing, of hich resistance, he can ny Linger think otherwise ued miche mehr wuders denkew dunn), For Sygumul Keend hineself, the destruction drive is ta Uebatabie hy takes the form of «fixed thesis, ever if i ie never prnited, it is ain ley hesis Hven if this speculation never another name for danke, invencthle necessiry [tas ay if Freud conld no longer resist, henceforth, the irreduey ad Ongmary perversity ol this drive whict be mames here sometimes death leive, sonvetitives aga ressinw drive, someticaes destructaon drive, ais iCileve three wonls were inthis eayesynonyms, Second, this rlirce nanied drive aniite (tiene) Eh is at work, bot ssner tt always nwnie Te de- strniys in ddvanee sts own areluve, as il that were in irutly the very: operates 19 silence, it never eaves any archivesof its HUMOR OF TS PEST PLOpER Mevensene, Le works 10 desea the wrchive: on the ‘ouditvan of efficiviy bai albus avast a eneaw'tu effacing is noe proper” tuaves— which carnsequently Ginnee properly: be called “proper Tr devners ir even hefere prelucing 1 ne the ont ly 1 be anarchic, nary a principle, as are the pleasure aad reality sie “Ths deives from ther on, seems ner ¢ auarcbantic (we muse not forget that the death dave, or dla " ccrchionadirhic We will always hove been archivesdestraying, by silent voeation sil ve ny: be oy allamarechieie, oneealil ve poles} ie deal rive as ab Allowing tor excepuons. Hue whar are exceptions an this ease? When it lakes the futmouf dn interior desire, the anarchy Eve Urive eludes perecption, to be (l hire, save exeeption: shat ike Ft says, except iF it alisguises itsel/, excepr iF ir tints itself, rakes insel| ups we paints itself (pefirOe it) in some erotic colue. This anipsession neon the skin, In other words, the arivolithic drive is never present in person, neither 1a itseld of ctogenous color drawsa mask eofferts 1 Teaves na sonutient, it bequeaths na dricurent rin nf ts nwn. As inheritance, it Tea cx only its eronie sinmilaeriens, ats pscudenym in painting, its sexual idols, its masks off sedation: lovely ianpressions. These impressions arc perhaps the very vrijay of what is so obscurely called the beauty of the beautifull, As ten view of eutl, Mut, the poiit imtist be stressecf, this archaviolithie fotce leaves nothing. of its own behind, As the death drive is also, according, ty the mnst striking words of Hireud himself, an aggression and a che sirneton (Deerakton) dewe, it aot only ineites forgetfulness, um the sanibilation of memry,ax ranémé er anianmésty, bint Als -al effacement, in reuth the tradication, oP tht which can never be reduced to anneme or to anananzvis, that is, the archive, consignation, the documentary or monumental apparstiis as hyponinama, raneraotechnieal supplement o represcntative,ausx iliaty or nicinorudum, Because the archive. if chis word or this figure can be stabilized su as to take un a signification, Will eve be ejther auetmury of anatnesis a sporttarenns, alive an inter ul experienice: (nthe contrary: the archive takes place at the origanary and structural breakdown of the sar memory There ue no archwe eeithout a place of cortgnation, without a tech mgote uf repetition, und withouta certann exterrortty: Nerarehive with commands the radi ut onesie Let us yever furget this Greck distinction between range or anamnésis on the one hard, nil Aypomnema on the other, 'The ar clave is hypommnesic: And let us riote an passing a Ulecisive prarados towhich we will wot have sime to return, but which wndaubtedly es if tlncre ix tno archive avithe iy Freprailyction nr nf rein pression, conultions the whole of Urexe ret rikgniatins ity an externa place wyliclh assures the prsil pure ff memerization. 1h repernian thon we mune alen remember that reperition iyelf, the lager of repe "nione idee the reperinion sarnpulaion, renvatnss acorn. 1 Fs fini. Conseqguense: right on that which prerimts and enditions J inthissuetable (run the death drive, Anil thus front Gestrate- accluvization, we will never dial anything yther thar diar which aces with destrcion, Hodocuigs o priae, Forgethiness aid the acelnwalalue uss the exposes destruction. anil an truths 1 Hreartulihe monument Imo the “by hewre™ itself. Phe andre ab cays Works, anid a prion, against sell The death drive tendy this 1 destroy the hypammnesic urelnye: exceprif it can be disguised, made up, painted, printed, repeesentedd as the ial uf its truth im parating, Anutliec ecomomy as dius at svorky the irafrsactud between dis death drive ail the pleasure principle, berweets Thanaroy aud! Frys, bac athe between the deady tlrive cout this appareat dual oppustion uf principles, al arkkus, Jon example the reality principle and the pleasure px seiple, The death dive 1s ov a prnciple. [even threatens every prnicapality, every atclwitic primacy, every archival desire, [tay what we will tall, Late 1, de na aturchave, “areheve fever.” Ch pothe scene, ar once withie and beyond all staying Freud ran only justify the apparently tsctess expendinure of paper, ink, and typogsaphic printing, an other words, the labosious ine Swstmcnt i the agelive, by purring lorwaed the nevelry at his discavery, die very ane whielt provokes so much resistance, au frst ofall is Iienself, and precisely beeamse its silent vncstiaty as tt burt tlie arctrive andl wo ancite atmnesiay thus reftecing the econ prinriple of the archive, animing ta run the archive as accaumularaon sind captalreation ol my My OW some substrate atid im an exterior Hor ws what? x What, iin general, Gan dig substeate consist OF? Whit duns “esterior” mean? Js a circumersinn, forexatnple, a revior mark? User an archive? Th czenni always to he puascble, however, ov compensate the the ancgonomy of chas anuibilating Jorce allied co the diabolical death Freud, it passing, gevesa strike Discontents (L929 —30), such aa exarnple olyave. Ths as at bes Lat appewrane nygycxanmple. Ac the ti teal) the toore significant, im its historical anv! pofitical rnapeert. We do nor like ro be reminiled, Freud notes, af the undenisble exis tence uf att evil which seems to cinttalliet the sovereign puudness oof God. But it this Devit narcied lrive seems, then, usthe eyes of Christians, for “Christian ther praper naile Loe the dhtce seience” (inv English in. the text), irreconcilable with: Grek, we s¢« fuw that it can also exctitpate Gad: evil for eyil’s sake, diabolical evil the existence of the Devil can serve as an excuse (Entichuelde~ gary) tor Grd, beens exteraay te ham, aduredie angel ave diseedens, of relief or in yebetlion agarnst hin, jase as, ane this es the poternical trai saalogy, the Tew can play the analogous rule af econony exoneration (ie selbe Bkonamatsch enstastence Rolte) assigned to him. by che World of the Aryan ideal, dav other words, the radical ale- structiou att aggny be vevapested in another logic, m the inexhanse- ible eeonunisie resouece of an arcluve whack eapitalracyeveryth seven that which euuns it cally contests its power! radical evil ‘car, be of service, infinite destruction can be reinvested in a the jodivy, the devil can also serve tn zeestafp—suich as the destination of ike Jew an the Aryan ideal, (Earlier in the same cext, Freud ro- poses ny interestang eftiiqule aif oationalisins aad) Gf aiiti-Senitisin no avbich we oughe te mecinute today but whieh we canent possibly enter tite here.) (va preliminary fashion, and still Limiting ourselves to thes a= chw ization of dhe Freudian archive, we ought to pay altention als Wow date, Let uy consiler the techaucal medel of the machine tool listesueal, Un Bretkl’s eyes, to sepreient an the oneside memncy ay Jnternil relivization, namely the Mystic Pad (der Wenderblocky This madel was also described, analyyed, presented after Beyond the Plewsere Prnieiple. the book 1m which Freud admits w playing “the dealt advocate,” “Vive dleserprun inicludes seyerat allusions to thar which in the functwmaag al dhe Msise Pad is conditioned by the caelier deseription, im Heyend, uf hee structure of the psychu apparati Ty rranslatingzand questioning thissteange Notis der dem rn anidlyae, as closely as possible, the relations between the rnucdel ul areluvization, technicality, time sro death. F teved to delint the chink nag this text enpendlereat [r within the Wiituderblock, Vatrem pied long a q ctapliysicl assurances in whieh, ie scems tev me, it ty held. Witbuut ¢ccalling here the questions | formulated ar the time (iv particular conccening the “Freudian concept of the hereditary mynemuie trace” (Writing and Difference 197; L'éerttare 24), wouldamply like 1 4m: one comment, Waketehed, by negpan atts the iorigue Lope we fallese ure elosely and differently wonaghe. Th represtcht the lunctienmg of the psychic apparatus in ant externe weclinical model, Ereut did aot haveat his eispusirion the resurces provided today by archival mdehuries of whieli one could havily Nive ilrearued si tite Test quieter of thas eentuny. Das these wew webival- machines change anything? Da they allect the essensuls sof Freee aiscrnrese? bir 1965, L notes the full Ans long wars (dere me for ication | will nor allow mysel¥ any others [1 Jhe Mystic I'ad, xeparseed from psychical resprnsiil arep resertawon alzimdoned 19 self, soll participates in Cartesian space and anechames: nated wax, exterionity ob the memory ad All thot Prowl hast bought abit the unity of fife nel thowever, alread have teal hay ty ase other gions bore. “ned te ask them explicitly. Breuel dics nwt explicisly examine the ized!” supplement which is necessary eo the alleged spantaneriyal menory, even af that spontaneity weredil status of the “rats Ierenitiated 1 itself, thwarted by a ccnsorshiprar repression whechy 1 tcf ya per tecrly sypontanieuns inemiey. fisin the machine being a pases abserice nf spanitanedt cits reseet lance vo the psychical appacaras, its existence an its necessity bear witness to the finituide of the mnemie spontaneity which is thus supplemented. ‘The uiachine— and, consequently, repee sentinon— w death and fiatide witha the psyche Now doc Feet examine the ssibiliey of rey mnactine, whieh an che world, has at Teast begun to resenshie memory, asl inene singly resomnbles it mare closely. Ire resemblance 1 meiiory is closer shan thar ut the innocent Mystic Pads the later is ne sdoutve iti )nely muse cumple chan slaie or paper, less aechaic chan a pa Fongpiseaty but, unipiared to other machines tor sturthig ar hives, in ty cull’: (oy, (UV rvtimy ancl Difference 227-28, Lceveture ihe Whar it ah issue Teves iy aonting less rhnaey the fete, if there Larson, te the esuch a thing! the Fire nf pevelnanalysis (nits re tueure ol science. As technoescicnce, science, in sts very movement, wats rehive aly COANE in a Leaishorination of the teelnadques ration, of pouting, of inscription, of reproduction, of lormaliza tion of ciplering, and of translanng marks, ‘The questions vehieli now arseare of at least gw one L Those of the fest engage the eheoretical exparitron of psyelio- analysis. They would concerw is objeed, ane in paericular all thar xy jnvestedd ye the representational models of the psychic apparatus ay 5tn apparatus for perception, for printing, fue recarding, For tape distribution of plees of inscriptian, of ciphering, of repression, of displacement, of condensation, These aft ous names far as nanny places uf reading and interpretadon, aeedless co say—snel this 1s whiy the field ofthese questions is not properly a fickl. fe\can Jonger be delivited. Thskepemfently of the resersations ¥ had for innilaved in "Provd and the Scene of Writing” abour the presupposs iv at least possibile 1 ask whether, concerning the escentlals, and beyond the extrinie details, the structure of the paychic apparatus, Ohi 895 ns of menfeling itself (rescevatiens | svill mot return a exe}, itis tert, at buce tanesic and hyponmnesic, which Frewd sought eo (le nystic pad,” resists the evolution nfarchival techirie science or not. Is the psychic apparatus better represensedt o is it fected differently Wy all the technical mechanisms for archivizauon, aud for reproduction, for prostheses of so-called live memory, oF seribe yout the“ id will incre siijulacrums of ving tings which already are, ligly be, more refined, camnplicated, powerful than the “mystic Jee” Invicrocomputing, cleetronization, com pucerrastion, ete )? Neither of these hypueheses can be reduced ta the other. Becaiise iftche uphearalsan progress affected the very structures oi Ue poy ve apparaties, for example se their spaual architecture anda ther amos of speed, ja there processing of spacing ane of tetaparal ivaliciy, 1 Woukl Be a question no longer of simple continumes progress in represenration, 10 the represenattive value of the mailele but rather of an entirely different logis. 3. Other velated questons, but oF another order; they concern ne linuger only the theoretical object of psychearalysis tn. its expost= tion, but rather the archivization ul psychoanalysis itecll, of ts "Lite." Wf you wall, of ts “uess,” uf its private aud public procedures,thane whieh sev tet ne aninifest, provisionally sr definitively en crypred; they concern the archivizatinn of ite nstirutinnal and clint cal peactice, of the academtc, scientific. and jurridica-cdiuorial aspect of the snumense problems of publication oF wl translauan with whieh we are acquaimed. The word “seis” can designate here at cnice the coutenc ul well isto be arcTivedd ard Dies hive itself the chivitble aod the aichiving af the arehive the printed and the printing of impression, Whether it isa question of the private or public hte nf breud, of his parmersorof his mheritors, someumes Ibu of his panscats, of the porsunal ve scientific exchanges, of the Jetrers, deliberation: ppsiercocansttuti J doeasians, a the plese oftheir rules (for exaraple, hosewf the so-called “aoalytie sit inati the plice and the length af the sessions, assneianian which is free, oral, in person, and in the presence of the analyst, without techincal revording), in what way bas the whole of this heli Lew ileteuanedd by a state othe technology of euranenica tion andl of archivreauan? Chie ean dean or speeulare abour the peo techn logical shocks which would have made the landscape of the prvehormalysic archive unreengnizable lor tlie pose cen uy if, to Tanmit rayself to these indications, Freud, his contemporaries, collaborators and inunediate disciples, unstead af writing thousands of Jetters by hunt. had hat access io MCP on ATCT telephone croalit cards, portable tape recorders, conyputcrs, primers, faxes, tclevtstons, teleconferences, and aleve all Femail U would have liked ta devote iny whale lectuce 16 this rertaspec sive sctence ficnon. | would have liked to imagine widt you the scone of that other archive alter the caethqwake and after the apres coup bits altershucks. Thisis auleed where wears, Ast ar) vd able eo his thas, an aceuiar of the still archaic or gunearion of our colloquia. of the Gtie andl the space ar ou ligpsesal, 1 wil) leouit mivself tu a cnectanieal repark> this archwal carthqtioke ‘weould tiet hhave linnaced its effects te the secandary recardeng, th the pean and to de consersauion bf the hiseory-ot psyelyiattalysis- I Lin the sould) have rvnsforaied this history fem top to buttons rrvsst intial ineide «af we pypaduction, an its very eeenee, This es an thier way of saying thar the archive.as printing, writing, prosthe- nneral ts not only Wie place bor stocking und far conserving anu chivable conteute/ she pase Wliccs site hypaninesié technique it avould exist ati Avny etiay sets us, gwitliaate they archive: lieves it was or will have heen, No, the tech archiving acchive also sleierthines the structure of the urehina ble content even an its very coming into existence and in its relationships wo the futute. The archividation prodices as much as | strnetire of the cords the event. This is alse uur political experience of the so-called news vive This means that, dette past, psychoanalysis would ne what it was (any more than so many nther things) if example, had exostecl. And i rhe flume it-will ac longer be wh. have been mail, for ireudl and so many psychounalysts have anticipated, feoms the ee 1 find many inent Eamail, far example, became possible, One cow clites other than E-mail, Asa postal technology, the example un, doubredly merits suine privilege, First of all because of the major anil exceptional rite (exceptional in the history of scientific pro} gets) played av the center of the psychoanalybe atchive by a taunl- have yet 1 finish discovering and written correspondence. We w and perhaps in parr radically and irreversibly destrayed—for ex cxsing this adverse cor puis, in part unpublishes| in ypaet secret, innple by Kreud himself, Who knows? One must consider the historical and noriacciclental reasons which have tied sul an insti« tution, in its theoretical dnd practical dimenmons, tw postal con iniupicauion andl wo-this particulac fein of mail, coats substrates, ter ite average speed: a handivritten Leiter takes sommany lays ce arrive in sinnther Ruropean city, ad nothing is ever independent of (his, lolay. Everything femaines pn its Seale, Hut the oxample of E-mail ws privileged m my opinon fora Decne election 1 nyore unportant and obresous 1 even noone thea thie f public and gprivaite space of hnemanity, and first of all the lirnit be is ap the way to traunsfornn ing the ett txvon the private, the seerct (private or public), and the public or thy i hivited sense of the termi: at at unprecedented rhyythn, in quan instantaneous fashion, (Hie sasteynicntal passibility of production, amenal. Iris not only a technique, an the ordinary an if proting, of conse vation, and of desteyictien of the archive must Inevitably be accwiupanied hy juridical aml thuy political transfor mation. These affect nothing less than property rights, publisli- tng and reproduction rights. Lr regard ty aud an, keeping with theshenensiou at these teansforimations under way, these radical and interminable tnbulencesy we must ake stock tnelay of the classi cal works whic Continue ithe belive of Freudian sauties 1 cerning the mamucripts of Freud seul of his mtiniates, the pul lished and still-onpublished correspondence. the publicationsor re publ Tits, the vlrafts ane the sketches, the accessible and the inaccessible, the netncains filtecings uf the Library of Congress, etc These classical wand estraovhiary works nivve away from us at gtearspiecd, ies continually accclerned fashiow, They bu aay te the past ara distance more and more comparable tv thar which separates us Irony archacolugical digs (har bizarre senvity talked about by the author of Gridtos, w which we wall be tring shuctly), frat biblical phjlolagyy [rout the translations af rhe Bible, (rom Luthier to Rozenweig ar ta Buber, ur fron the establishing of the hyportineste watings of Phiwsor of Anstoile by medicwal copy iets. This ieanother way to say that 1 takes working away frome the from the indisputable necessity, and from the mcontestable legitimaey of this classical philelogy which is sy tate more Hiatt philoligy, Thue this should not clase our eyes to the ua Innnedd nplvewal way ler way an archival technology, fe sheild above All pemiad os that the sa adleoirable tebuli J archival téchaoligy no longer sleter wines, will never have determined, merely the moment of the can: servatinal recording, but rather the very institution ot the arch ¢ fore er che stn alle event. It conditions wor aly ture that priors, lat the prigiedl coment uf dhe prietinyy: the preetere wE the grinning. ele mpeeaion, belore dhe division berseen the printed anal the printer, This archival technique has commaneled that whieh hi the past even instituted and constitu whateyes (ere sas-as Ablictpatidas of the future Amv as wager [gageurr|. The vechive tas always beet pledge, andl ike every pledge [gugeh. tanken af the future, ‘Te pint im anute wrigaallys what te no longer archived Ter the site way as ree longer Hiveul inv thee sa wowsay: Archivable meaning is alsouand in adyance souleteranned by the structure that archives. It begins with the pine Wer shall leave these jtieatiune suispotded fie the angunen. Bat abs 1 Fir the anettivey a aa ing: this °mysric pad, this evterioy, Vhinearchival, rode uf tie pay susp cematts, al this is the sme cot ie recording and memorzagon apparatus, des wot uly inte geste the luaigural concepts of psychoanalysis, trom the Sherobes lex af the Metaprychalogy, by way of the Tretinidew up to the a 1 foggy, 1 particular all those which coneern for example repr censorship, recurdling (Wieder hrafi) in the twee systems (Cee Des), the three pornts of view (topic. dynamic, and esenentie). Tak count (he nultipbeity of segions sn the psychic appara lug ante a lus, this madel also anegrates the necessity, inside che py cde atself, of veertain ontsude, of cortit borders between insides ynd ony sides. Andt with chic domestic awrite, that is un say alser with the hypothesis of an unfermal substeate, surface, or space witlour which there is neither consignation, registration, impression adic supypees- sion, censorship, repression, tt prepares the ilea OF 4 psyehicarchive Ulstinet Hom spontaneous menary, ata Aypoomnests distiact fron meine nel Fron wnenmésts: Hie instivacian, in sum, of & srasthesh ofthe inne, We have sail “inseiturion™ (one eo aso mark, sight from the originary threshold of this prosthesis, €. The theory of pay Jd say “erection” tupuure which as just as onginary with i cho lysis, then, becomes a theory of the archrye and not nity a theory of memory, This does not prevent the Mreiatiiiy eM Ltee rove remaining: heterogetieanis, as F tried ro show in “Freud and the Scene of Writing” an antagonistic and trachnienal tnotif contin, ics in ths discourse tt oppose a. metaphystes to the rigorous cox 26 af hy pow ness: sequence af this prostheties, dhat is, uf w li The inodel of Hs sengular “ayitic pd” also iicorporates what diluy seein in the FoemeaParafestruerion drive, tw certuadict even the cuinervation dtive, shar we could call here the archive drive, Uy (3 what L called eelier, and in view of this auternal contediction, archnue fever. There would indeed be noarchave desire without Ub ralical fainude, witkwut he possibility uf a Korgerdilness ehtel lives nest Teta veld 40 tepression, Above all, and dhyiyis the mol sctiois, beyond or within this simple Init called finiteness o fink ery is nararchive fever without the threat of thys death ilnve, tole, This threat is imine, i this dugression and destruction driv sweeps avvay Hie logic of finnide and the simple factual licnuls, the transcendental aesthetics, one might say, rhe spativeteniporal con iivions of conseevatinns, Laer tis rather say at it alsunes there. Sule puliiical dimension of the problem an abuse opens the ethVhete aso Woivic aishive fevess wie lust or abe Nullering ot memory punhers: entisang tle instinite, archive fover verges I Lack us enicrust a second citation inte tlhe exergise. Less ayy igeapihe cal thaw the Dist, as ave said, at nonetheless still mrauwains a refer ute by the graphic mark and te repetinon, indeed ny prntins nt the rypmul sort, Recurrent and iterahle, at carries literal singulaeny into hgvrality. A gain anseeibong wnsenption, af coatienenseeates an its way, effrenvely, a etrceumetsion. -§ very singular anouuenent, a is rend ofan aechive. Inia retterater! mariner, it the trace of am incisor right an the shane rmsre alii qne sam more thaunene “To the lerter or by figure. The foliaceuuy strat ficatiin, the pellicular supenm position of these cutangous marks sues ety analysis, It accurmulaes so many sediniented ar éliives, sunke of which are written Fight on the epidecuuis of a Bou jotopers catlieas any the sa aww af an “exteaus” bully. Each layer here seers to gape lightly, as the lips of a swnundd, peritring ilinipses of the abyssal possibility of another deprh desmed for urclaiealogical excavation Ie has, 1 appearance, primarily to de wath a private iaieripuidn, Mhis ws the tithe nf a first problems cance ny the question of as belonging toon aseheccy which acchive? that nf Sigemutd Freud? thar of the pavchoanalyric institution or science? Where dees ane draw the limir? What rs this new science oF which the snstitutnossal nd theoretical archive ought by rights t cotmprise Uke anvst port wate docuinents, suneuinies secret beguanunp wall those al its pre sihica! founder, is aech-father, is patriarch, Freud? Indeed, of the cycle pultianel, Sign nul’s father, fakob? This brings it the Frey's huuise” J the arkheron af which we are the guests. which we speak fiom which we speak. To which squestion, which 1s always open, of whi the tth fneins, the Mreud Muse asa “House of Freued c speak, Lnughe alse say: addressing it The anchivesl the gingular private Insceiprion [will speale ol hay been in the pols fie dentin fir several years. One ca have access to at in several Langnages, beginning wath fis original in Hebrew. Public, and uttered fur interpretation, this docuitent is heneetorth accom jraitied, wndiowociably, by aut extiaurdinary exeyeticil or hermenett tie apparatus 1 the form of'a dedication, It was written by Te isan insersptve the hand of fakob, son of R. Shelamiol Ereud, the arch-pavrarek. the yrandiather af psychoanalysts, ane! addressed! to Tits son, She Sigmund! Freud, ou the day of lois thinty-fifth birthylay, in the sinth af May, [891 (2 Nisan 5651) jon, What the father pives to the son is Jan Vicwm. A gilt canard chis inser ar once a writing and its substrate, The substrate, ita sense, was the Rible irselt, the "Back of books/"a Philippsolun Bible Syzmusnd fhad scudied iw bis yourh, Fis father restores it ty fin cater having inode v present f it to hing; he restinutes it aus a gift, with a new learher binding. ‘Tw bind ancws this in an act of love; OF priteenal the text in neefitenh, those biblical Jowe. Tris no less mniportant tt Jiuurgical, or rabbinical fragments which compose’ the lung dedi extion and carry in turn the thoughts of the father, Qu cate subs tuglish translation of the jeer he speaks of u “new shan,” as the Hebrew says Like some nf yu, F suppose; P discovered the treasure af this archive, illaminateed by a new translation and by an original inter pretation, an Yosel Hayimn Yerushali’s handsome book Fred Muses: featziom Termmable und Interminuble. Thus book left strong, pression cu fie My recent diseavery oFit gave me incl eo chink aherut, tunte than F could say here, ane ac has accompanied the preparation of this lecture. So this lecture woll naturally be dedt cated, if hie-will allow it, to Yoset Hayim Yerushalmi,’ For a ceason iar will perhaps become clear later, L will dace w Gedlscate it at te wwheven to the mscmmary uf nee Fatlser, why atic Ge to my sans — Jol, us is Hite self, Mayinn hiearchived dedication that the yeandfather ot she arch- jurriarch of psychoanalysis, Jakob Frew, inscribed nn the Bible he gave, burin truth reaurned, some pouet neues [under new skin’. as they say it French, t-ts son, thatt 4s, ta the father or the yatriaret fof psyelioumalysis, Yerushaleod cives 1 with clrarnatie effect, a8 a e0mt sas abs ¢ Vere in z re been atts iddiateug, sel poietic ty ie cenlereace, wan tab Lnetnire, As he stay sek, he eral nit seal] by sonistric abc the weat day resent. and his nienecentrithicion wayde hare, av the enel of his book, just before Ue otlien aera with te yeliele | gall return at beng, Phe sees in this dechientisn, clfece of an andaciis fienun. the extjaontinary “Monologa Brewil, ‘one crucial episode,” and he speaks of the one canonical cexe ob Jakob Preud at omer disposal” [74 this is nat uctany archive seul yast any moment inthe history vf ilu achive. Later, beyond this eacegue, we will see how Yer shalmi presents (he character, w his eyes properly inaugural of chy discoverye of the reading, and of the establéstimeat of this “erueial’ wehive of Whiels teas in sun the first puardian, the first reader, tlhe fest lia tng mulees! die unly legiuirate aéchon, Hirth ily of this vasesaption oye ast at Least undeytine all the wonnels-that poent, analers!, toseaird the instiuating and the tradition of the law ("Lawmakers") that iy to say, toward thar archontic di mension without which one could nor havearchives, butalso, more ilireetly. coward the logic and the seunapticy of the archive, ul menney and of tke evermuesal, of conservaniow nd of inscription which pun imo reserve ("stor ), accumulate, capitalize, stocks a quinr-infinity of layces, oF archival steats that ae at once superim paced, overprinted, and caveloped in-each other, Ta read, in this case, requires working at geological or archaeological excavatias, on subbstvates ur under surtices, oli! or new skins, the hypermupeste and hyponmnesie epidertmses of buoks ur penises —anil the very first sentence revalls, at least by figutes the citcumension of the fa ther a’ psychoanalysis, Sin the seeenth in the days of the years of your Hite.” Lwilhicte the translation giveri by Yerushalrat while un, + Valevistigh T tine stale in pvvedent at Heaer by Figure”) alter \ feevilly talks with: Verushali, bay several moni later in New York. cor aly Wate te agaisat a vescleig velba fs wiswhl soni ett er i divest + fosthe dated event na diqcnidisnors Face ay he vewes asi hint nines cleanly aware of AC today tHeanles try hei This as yet another reason Fier vy guatstuite, Ag ir sects riowetticless lfdiculy qu cunweseebar thus aheics- suis rvelifovds gathers alli ghar inakes AIT 6 Fgh (agg ith havin the: "hore skin!) converte feward the rminment af a covenant iv tech iL a renewed covenant, fort abapeupsr co zeal here an aesnisersa ry asta by + Lasher tu ae, Cunliehib? That of the Wary figure we abe env eMantym Lis typéral minmeni in (Br rjqpe of an incisive iiseri pln, ih Hs Aierueten, were suvnugatral avd te uly cehewell? Ulertiniyg & few septs, ane the [will abandon this exert, te slvich Fywill return late San who is dear tw me, Shelomoh, bn the seventh in the chiys ob the years of yaor Life Uie Spirit of the Lard began tu niave you and puke sithan yous Ga, read iny Book thar | have written and there will burst apron lor you the swellsprings of understanding. knowledge. anil wisllam, Behold, wis the Book uf Books, frar which sages have exenvured and lawmakers leased knowledge and judgervent. A vision of the Almighty didl you see, yous heard ud strove ti dla, aad you saree on the wings of the Spirit. Since then the buok has heen stared like the Fragmenes nf the tablets in-an ark rurth me, For the day on which your years ywere led to five and thirty [have put upon ita ener of mere shin and have called it: “Spring up, © well, sing ye unto it!” Aud 1 have presemied ab te yur asa memorial dud as a reminder [a mesial Had a reniuader, the one and the other at unce, the one in the her, and we have, perhaps, in the economy uf these two wards the whale of archival law: unammgsis, napems, hyponmema of love from your tather, who loves you with everlasting love. jakol sun af KR. Shieluntoh Feead [ste] 29 Nisan (5}051 © May [1}891 (71 Tin thie capatal ey View Archearchive, the liek was stored” wath the arch-pairiarch wt pivehoanalysis, be as stared there in the Ack of the Covenant [Deut 11-3) Area, this baie ue Latin, 15, the chest, the “ark of facacla woudl,” whieh contains the stone Tablecs, but arcu isalso.the cupboard. the coffin, the prisan cell, at the cistern, the reservoiet tukyon Seay: te. Lahvelh hand sant MU] Shortly fier the renpitulee ufthe Ark of the Covenant fipanes the reer to eiteuinicee the tovestin ot alee Heart [10-(6) A/V ek stays soit ele father of the Kallory vl yoye la Hoe torts Menay, send thenPreamble L undoubtedly owe you at the begsnniayg of this preamble, 2 first explica title, hetinge suntrewhat enigmnanc, | became aware of this alter ot concerning the wocd impresion, which risks, 1m my ward whew Elisabeth Roudinesco asked me on the telephone fi a peovisional title, se ence tt press, alitiast a year before inseriing and printing an my eurputer the first word of what 1am saying to you here, the re- symnse F then uuprowised ended up in effect imposing the sore nipression. ‘Aged any any instan thenisel¥es and overprinted each other from the back of my mem= ary. Which were they? Without waitag, [ have spoken w you uf my computer, of the tiule portable Macincosh un which t have begun te write, For it inglecd to send the program of thus « it was as if thee meanings hal condensed Ins not urly- eon tle First sulatrate to supysor| all of these word, Cie a heantifal mori in Calfacnia a fow weeks ago, [asked Inyself a certain question, among so many others. Withiat being able to find a respense, while reading on the one hand Freud, on the other Yerushaleni, and! while tinkling away os iny cumputet, 1 ddskud dayself swhat is the matnent proper tw Whe such a thug, the instant of archivization steictly speaking, which ul Twill come back to this, so-called live or spontaneous mesiity (ntaénié ov anamnesi’), but rather a certain hyparmnesicand prosthetic experience of the technical substrate. Was it not at this rchuve; there i is non avery instant at, haviag Weitten sumething oF other on the screen. tlie le yet atthe surface blu Inquied clement, E prished certain fee 1 "a x marks from being erased, so as tn ensure in this way silvatian and urdenmy, wo stock, § remainog a5 if suspended and fasta text nda aged, ink a hae ant lusting, way, 10 prot te accumulate, aitd, im what at once the same thing and seme stag else, « anake the sentence avaliable mths way’ fur praia. und (or reprinting, for reproduytion! Dues ét change anything that Byeuil diel not krrow about the computer? And where should thre imomient nf suppression or vi reptessiim be situated im these mew mendes of recording and impression, or printing? This condensation of thece sycanuigs Of the word “unpressint’ wos aanly able co unpewit atsell ae jit a sinygle stroke, appar ently in an instant of wo duration, alicr inch work, discunting cous though at inay have been, with Freud's feats, with certain of hie writings, bur also with themes, with figures, with conceptual schemes thar are Famihar to mie to the point of clbsessian and yet remain no fess secret, yourrg, and stall w Come For tc; writatig, the trace aii Fiption, an am extertor substrate oF on tle so-called! body proper. as for exainpile, antl this is pot just any example for me, singular ated immemorial archive called grrcimcuran, and which, thouigh never leaving You, nonetheless has come about, and ry x1 Jess extern, ettertar night on your body praper So what ave these three meanings which, sf 2 single gustan, eon densed themselves atel-overprinted ench-other, that is to aly aver letermined each nther, a che word “impressiar” and ve phrase “Broudian impression’? And above all, of course, in their relation ship) to that te-producible, irerable, and conservative peiniichon ot temory, to that abjectivraable storage ealledd the archwe? Fo The fest impresion is scrptienid or typageaphie, Wat of ae in fh 4 sa mur at the surface-or an the thicknessef a substrate And aeration UNieders 4 Bread thromghout his works) whack Jen any case, direetly or indirectly, this cancept—oe tather thas fiz row of the substrate-—amarks the properly fiedumedtal assignation ragital- (Can ome irene ‘of our problem, the peabten of the fine ay avebwe withene foamiation, wirhour substrate, without sub stance, without subjectile? And if i were anpossibley whan of the Insinry nf stistrates? What of the future ofthe sbsttate in its re Iationship to the history of pspehuanalysie? Brom the Skerehes ups 10 Heyond, to the Mystic ad and beyond, there is no limit to atts prvlt- Jemauie of the impresson, that i, of the inscription, which leaves 4 auuaik (ght on the substrate, This then becomes a place of eansig ation, oP" nenplins” oof “recordings asthe Metapsyeholney frequently says (*Niederdassumy oder Niederschnift.” “sivstallarion,* lacation wr registration”) when at recalls, for exainple in: The Un wongeroety at least three things: ie espalogical hyputhesis of several pisychologieal systenns (rive on thts") thus whtat peemity ene ta jastily tbe vhstinction Lerwveets memury anal arclrive—cxplains why psychoanalysis wie spoken of; and. in par meorreetly, as a “clepth-psy “aby poychology” (Tiefenpeychologie) \SE 14:173|; bs, this topic has wothanig to-do, bur the iaoenent, a this tng the present (wndetlived by Fiend), with: au aus view-on cerebral localizati AL paver ul >, Lly stressing un italies "Yer the present” lowifialig), Frevol cleadly wants 19 leave ream for what she fuusre af science may teach us about this; &. lastly, these hiyptheses are nothing other, and nothing muse thai, UAWLve representations (Versuschundichungen). “graphic ib Jusieuetons” according te the English transkinion. They Set out ti the ao snore than graphic illustrations” [S26 145175] This probleunatic of pmpression is discouraging for those who inght wish ta find am at a privileged entrance, Because t becomes confused with the whole curpus of Freud’s works, whether tt hay to de with enflecuy’ wi uneivacliial riemery, swith cesiseorslipy OF pressing, wank alyecunic, with topic, o7 with connomy, with the Vey fu Pes gysterns, with perception. with mnesie trace Ih rs unilonhtedly because b had already privileged it, in many utter texas, that this typographic Jiguire uF the press, af pring, or of the stmt atupased self su quickly on ane over the Lele Phone with the word “impression” This ward capitalizes on a 4 countey of Enlil: spoiking eal ture, [ov abe first place, ic mawakens the cove of Knyglish empiricerm: dunble advantige, abe al the concepts of sensible “impression” and of éopy play a mayer riethere yu the peuealogy of deus: and is aol the copy at an aiypee sign aleeaily a set uf archive? Tu the secund place, the wuril Sjenpression’” eminels us that no tuanel in history will ever alia the two translations af Verdningieng: “repression” in English, as ia Spanish, a word that belunge to the same family as “impression” (the Ferdningeerg alveays repeesses ais inipressiou), and refasilement fa Bench a Word that is jut allied tthe seacantic Family ol the “jnnyrtesston,” as as he Worl repression, whieh we reserve ri French fur the translation of Clrteredniéeherng, a2 which, as in Spanish and Portuguese by ‘The stakes of this conceptual difference herween Perdeangung and Dieterdrsiekungg are wot limated wo nnnsital questiuns af trate often translared in Fry “supression.” TJatniny, nf rhetone or of semanuecsy all howgin they atte al accom lured! thers, ‘They eliterrly concen the stroctures of archivizarion: Hecate they touch un the epic differences anil thus on the loca hl Uhe substrates of traces, on the subject 0 of consignation (Niederwhryi), froin une sysitin to the other Unlike: repress) (Werdsamig), whieh fematyy unicunsciaus an iis operation and Tie As result, suppression (Llnzerdie kang) effects wlan Freud calls a ‘wcond cemsimship” — heeween the conscims and the precon suous or rarher affects the altect, which 1s to say, that which curt never be represserl in the uncenscious but only siippeessed aod aie flowed in another afteer, [ys une of the nomerous questions we will not he able we tient here: In dherr epiterology, in there historiography, in their upeny ions as synll as in theyp object, what should the classical acchivasts or historians make of this distinction between “repression” and re presi, between Vendrangung and Unterdruckung, bewwecn “rs [rressiani® and “oupprenseon™® TF this dastisctivis hats any: relesnn ry ib will be caonngh WeraTiseupe the trwnquil Landscape of all historical Lewis lealge, nf all historingsaphy, aul even of all self cémsiste«l “Scholarship.” Whr could say thar this has only begun to happen? Avid even a Jess ought ty be Uie first te rework their asieunasics sind then iicthodology event assuerang thar the classical conceyse of histors al ong the hestortaus of psychoamalyans, who ieverte serenee nil ob "a hualarsbip” still resists ane reds cant thee anuntiony ntact? 2. ‘Tis onemts us tuward the second valence of the word "vim riesstin.” FE isidombe secuns less imiediarely necessiory ancl oti aus, “Impecesinn.” “Freudian impression”: chis no doubt made smnething else he felt in anticipation. What? Well, concerning the archive, Freud never managed co form anything that desceves w he called a concept. Nether have we, by Hie way. We have ihe cncopt, Orly aa vinnpression, # series ir pressions avsuciaed with a wurd Ththe rigor athe eomeept. [iit hj posing hete the vagubencss of the open imprecision, the relative indetermination of such 9 notion. “Archive” is only a rindion, an jmipieession associated with a word and. for which, tugether with frend, we de nut hs a concept. We only have an unpression, ant nsstent impression through the unstable feelierg of a shitting Hig ore, af a schema, of of am infinite or indefinite process, Unlike philosupher or scholar would he tempted to dey 1 (lo noreonsider this rripressiony or the notion of this impression, whit a classic he a subconcept, the feebleness of a blurred and subjective pre Knowledge, destined fue 1 Raw sok whit sin af nomisalisi, but fe the contriy, aS @ will explain Laer, Tconmder ie te be the pox subility. tle hunters, if there 1s-suct «ching and if, as 1 beliewe, the idea of tlic archive depends on it. This ts one of the theses: there are esse «Vibe very fetes of the esneept, t9 be the very concept oF ul reasies foe Which « soaeepe in the provess uf bem formed always retains inadequate relapve ta whos it ought to be, divided, Usjointed between ae forces. Aud ahi dlisjointedness has a nec euary relationstay with the stenctitre pParehivization It follows, ccrrainly, that Freudian psychoanalysis projioses a new theory at the archive; sc tukkes unto account a topre and a death dave withaut which there would not an effect be any de ur any possibilicy for the archive, Hot atthe sane time, at once fir strategic rasunis arnl Hecansse the convlitions of archjvizarion) inaplicate all the Iensions, contradictions a aporias we are trying to formalize here nitably those whick make ir into a moverment uf the promises uf the futare no less thaw af recording the past, the concept af the aiehive must inevitably curry in atsell, as does every concept, ant rel newalle werght The jiesupposatron of this weigh also takes inthe figtees of “repression” and “suppression,” even iFit cannotnec| essauily be feducedd to: these. This double presuppocitin leaves an inupritn, Hanseribes ant inipesssivt in language ane iv discourse Me tinknowable weight that imprints aacif thurs docs not weigh only asa negative charge It involves the history of the concept, it intlects archive desite ar fever, theie opening on the future, their dependency with respect to what will come, an short, all that ties krinwvledge and mernory th tle has a third, nacaning, unless it ts the Firsts the impression feft by Siginane Frou frou his birth and Ins covenant, from his creumersion, theomgh all the nranitest if of the correspondence, includ 3. "Froudian ampressinn heginneng with the impression deff 1a han, auseribed in hin nr sectet history of psychoanalysis, of the institution works, by snip ef the public and priva jing this letter [ram Jakob Shelomoh Freid ro Shelomol Sigmund Krendl in memory of the signs or tokens of the covenant anh 10 aecanupany the “new skin" nf'a Bible, | wish co speak of the mu presuvn left by Freud, by the event whieh carries this family name; r \ nearly unforgettable and incontestable, undemable jenpeeerien con and abowe all for choscowho deny it]thar Sigaaind Freud will have nade an anyone. after hint, Who speaks of dim or speaks to Jit, and who qust chen, accepuny itor nor, knowmg it or not, be thus marked un his or her culture aad disepline, whatever it aay be, us parveidar ghilosuphiy, medicine, prychiatry, aod sure pre cisely fore, became we ate speaking of memory and of archive, the diseourses, palitieu ro culture, the history of religion and religion, history of feats and luistory, legal history the bristory nf ulea inself, the history of institutions and ef seiences, 1n particular the Tustity of this institucional and seenutic project called paychee alysis Nut a wenunn the history of history, the hestery nf Wis uringeap iy. Li any given discipline, one cats ww longer one shoul) sngee be able ro, thus one no longer has the right or the meant te claim 10 speak of this without having beer marked in advance, it one-way or another, by this Freudian impression. His in possible nl legetinate ta de sv wsthuut having tegrated, well or bay, {iy git Larprtatrl way oF eat, recogniing. it ur enti, Tey wvteat hi o called the Freeahan reapeennan, [Conve is unnder the impression thal iL is passible not to take this intoaccount, forgettinyeit, effacing, it, crossing it out, oF objecting th it, one has already confirmed, we could even say cehuntersigned (thus archived), a “repression” or 4 “suppression.” ‘This, hen, is perhaps what f heard without hearing, har 1 understood without understanding, what 1 warited aly surely ty overhear, allowing these wordy to dlicuite to meover the telephone, in Freudian impresion.”Foreword ciethus our impression that we can no longer agk the question of Ihe concept, of the history of the concept, ane notably of the Lom ‘cept of the archive. No unger, at least, in a temporal or historical ivdulity dhattinated by (he present or by the past. We ae longer feel we have the raght to ask questions whose form, geaminar, and lexicon nonetheless seem sa legitimate, sametimes so neutral, We no Longer find assured meaning in questions stich as these: do we olready have at our disposition a concept of the archive? a concept al the archive which deserves this name? whieh is one and whase inity is assured? Have wr ever been assured of the heamogeneity, of the consistency, of the sinivoeal relationship of any ex sormar em such a word as “archive? In their form and in shear grammar, these questions are all nurned toward the past: they ask 1f we aiteady hive at our Uasprosll uch a cauceptand if we fave ever fad any assurance fa this ce \ee pit te a gat, Ty have dcuncet at one’s disposal, ty have assurances witht regard ta il, js 16 presuppose a closed heritage aud the goaeanter sealed, in) some sense, by thar heritage, And the word and the nn- ton of the archive seem at first, admittedly, to port toward che post, to refer to the signs of consigned memury, te recall faithlul- ness Heradition. TF we have wtrempred cy underline the past on hese questions From fhe ourset, a is alin tis biclicate the sleet oP another problematic. As inuch as and more thin a thing #f die ast, before sucli a thing, che achive should calf into yaestiun thecoming of the tunure. And iP we still tack a vinble, wanted givch concept uf tie aidhive, it jy adoubtedly mer a patrety: conceynieab Heurencil, cpistetuolergical insullicsency on the level of suultiple andl sperific liwiplines, iis pethaps nor for lack of sufficient che oodation in ceriain circumscribed domaies: archazalogy,sloctmen- tography, Lilifiography, philulogy, bscaringraphy, Lieb ts imagine inelfect a projectof general archivialoygy. sl wand that does aot exist baie thral coud desyuiate a general and inteeilis- ciplnary sexence of the archive, Such a discipline ryust pr etteet risk Jhoinyy paralyzed an a preliminary aporia. [t wuld have either 41) 20 inelinde psychoanalysis, @ scientific project which. ay one cla easily show aspires to bea general science of the aucluve, ul every- thing thar cam happen 16 the economy of metnory and to ats sub) jurates, traces, doctiments, in their supposedly psychical or techne: prosthetic farms (internal or external: the mystic pads of the past jy of the hitiice, what they represent and what they supplement), ow (2) on the contrary, to place itself Uader the cr#vcal authony (in the Kantian sense) of jsychasnalysts, coutinic to dispute it, of course, but alter baving integrated its lugic, its euncepts, Ne meta payeliblugy, ttvceonmrny, its tops, ete as Heewd eepeats they again anrauich jatccise fashiva in the third part of hrs Mfoser, when he treats au tength the “difficulties,” the acchival problems of oral narrative aml public property, af mnesic traces, of archaic and transgenes tional hentage, and of everyehing that can hype ty an” sium fu these at once "tape" (toptich) and "generic (genet bh pro. cesses, He repeits here chat dis topic has nothing ro do. witty the id this is enangh to complicate the phylo- genetic chmeusion, which he judges wo be un effect irreducible bt anatomy oF th which he is far from: simplifying 1 us Larsarckian scheavats lie is often accused of this, by Yeeushalnai alsu), or ever us Darwen ones. The authercace ty a biological doctrine of yeqqpreed charac ter val the béolngical archive, ia sum—cannar he made to agree in a siauple anil immediate way with all Freud acknowledges othe ‘erwise: the memory of the experience of previous generations, the time ev the fortnation of languages aud of a syenbolicaty that tu jroud ¥y careful stends givers Languages anul diseursivity as su He knows and secaghiaes expliviily “the presene attitinde of bie ugical setence, which refuses to hear of the inberitance of aequired| characters by succcediing pend ratiionn" (Miser andl Minorkeiom, SE 23; UNL Ane AE fie adits that tt is dlficule for him to do warthout a relerence to hinkngical evolutiun land whe could seriously re eoach tiny for that, an principle and absolutely? any the nace of what!), he saws bitusell ui thes cogaed to be ture reserved anil inure eircunnspect tThun as usually acknowledges notably between acquired cha listingsrishny worery (wvhiely are harid to grasp” 100). These char= acters anil these traces cold well follow (Ercud would certamly plicated linguistic, cultural, ciphered transgenersiional and tea and “memory -lrices of exterisal events” (5, 1 say it here in this form} quite cu epheruble, aad in get individual relays, iransiting Huy thinogh an archive, the science vehich isant at a standstill, This dies not necessarily bring us hack to Lamarck or a Darwin, even if ar obliges us to articbiate the story of genetic progeains and ciphers on all the symbolic and dividual archives citferently. Al chat Freud says a Ula we are feeoptive to ati analogy hetecen the tein types af teansgenerane tneannety HE archive (Ive memory Of sun ancestral experience or the sled bielogically acquired character) and thar “we cannot Est}, Without the irrepressible, thav is 10 say, only suppressible and cepressible, Imagine |warstelen | ane without the other” |S (orce and authori? af is eransgencranonal rey 1, tke preaerns Uf which we apcak would he dissolved and resolved in advance There would no longer be any essential history of culture, there wwunlil na longer be any question of memory and of archive, al Si Yerushny sakes hese tents ble is well aware that Freud poPacquired claeacsers wa esstested by “Tio explain a naethdless sbstinate preileernin for Lamarck an, he cvnkes the precious sorks wf Hse Grub y-Siawniy om abs suebyeet, thew asker pnuuselt 1 Lamarckesin twidhout of puntve being semvetberig “Tewinls| ial rc rejnpe the feve toot sigty tli ough was deter maya Lag way try the Father read. *Paeeenestricteal inti Jewish terri,” es Lamarckeysns Jw cannun verse beng Fein “because vives Fate wy Merny il shat ulten what ene Ieels 6° 31)? A denver fears Frew) tw sven speaks the same language, in efleet, rincerning the baud wl Fonuel wna te heritage the Wow tiv oepiy atl otievchy ix énlling, wire iv the De cerituricy ef ufaabitainae Ihane peel Ff? (sta (tC aneves” fepal an esas SUL Yeatishubat abe ites Balter im sav note! for Prewl,ineifier, “although human evalurnan 5 'Thevwansar via the jets 1c aurarck ar ya Rasyguge aud cubtuce!™ {4104ih | parnarchive or bf nvarriarchive, andl one would pe louger ever se dlertand how an ancestor can speak within us, Gor what sense there might be in us ta speak zo hin ne berg te speak be such a aahenalich, “ancanuy” Cashion, tu bieor her ghost Wath i Ae hte already emcountered this alteenanive, we oll return to ir agains Miiat oie apply to what will have been predefined 4s the Freuilian or psvchosnalytic arelave an general schemas ot reading, of interpretation, wl classification which have been te caved and fellected aut of day corpus whose winty a5 Hus pts supposed’? Or cater, [scar on the canteaey tie right te rear lhe said paycheonilyliese Mreuelian arckive according tO a Ingle or 4 iethoda historiography ura hermeneutic independent of Freu= akan psychoanalysts, indeed! anterior even us the very aaue of Freud. while presiysposing im anotler ananmer the clustire tnd the ideutity of any corps? This indeyenidence can take nurncrms farnyes pace ur [esstpsychounalytic, with or without an explicit pro- ost! to imeyeate and to formabice what aamimane ago we called the Frenidian aipressi, This 140 experience familiar to a number ul Whose wher are participating an this conference ue who share thes concen, aid not only, here and there, tthe tose emtment Histo bratty of payewamalysts Tn ancenigmatic setuse, which will clarily itself perhaps (perhaps, cease nothing should be sure here, Heir essential reasons), the question of the archive is not, WE repeal, & question af the past I is not the question vf acbncept dealing, widh the past that nught tulréndy be avotir Uisposal ar not at our alisposily der dpehieible com rept nf the arcthive, Ue iva squcstion of thy Fri the Incite asells thy quertion ala response, af preumise anil af # re 1 thie question y sponsibility for romero. The archives af we wane 19 Koo what hate vill have nian, we willonly know an tases to caine. Perhaps Sion torn ruw but snctuntes to-cone, later om ar perhaps mover A spoetnul messianicity iv al surk an the congypt af the archive ancl ey it Like religion, Tike history, like setence itself, rou very singulas experience vi the promise And we are never far from Freud 1 sity does not ream messianisin, Havs &- sayiny, this, Messia plained myself om this elsewhere in Specter of Mara, anu even il us dist ctaone rerviaiass Fragile atu enigmatic, alow rise to teat il dan exildished, jn veder in save'tione: Later, we ought, perhaps, 10 formulate the concept and the Lor mak bnw af this messianie hyputlesis, For the monsent, allow ite ¥" usrgte ie avtale evaliig againt one of the mst striking moments inc (he wen, UCD ony say it an Ftone of him, that Yerushalmi has With Freud, at rhe ead of bis bool, in what he calls his “Monologue with Breud” We must cure to the moment at which Yerushalenn eens to suspernl everything, un particular everything, bie Hits saul jul alone up te this point, (ram the thireaal of 3: discrete sentence (ine could hye tempted to regard this thicead ay the uinbilical cord af the bank Fyeryt cord—hy the unsbilieal cord of the everic which such a book as this i scctns to he suspended frem this umb For ina work enticely devoted i meunory snd to the represent archive, a setrtence on the Last page says the Future, 1é says, ar te Hatare tense: “Much will ole tw, of eourse, on haw the very terms Jewich and yeience ave to be defined” [LOO], This sentence followed Gn allusion te “much future work.” and it aggravated the ope ‘of this future, enlarging it accordingly, in which the wery possibilty of knowledge remained suspended in the condivonal Veofessor Fecud, at thas point] find i fatile roask whicther, ge pvetvcally ng structarally. psycho fiat we shall koow, of at as at all Anoecable, only when rnucli furure work has beer done, Much will depend, af course, oF lysis is really a fewish sciences Jusw the very veri feawisb andl screnee ae te be defied, [TM co rinpbasss) Tramtatie tir, stroke uf theater, comp de tédine wathin coup ihe Phédtee In an instant which dishoestes the bnear order of presents, a seuund coup de sheditre illuminates the (ars. Heys alsu the chuneer ince) cli, in a flash, traashixes woth tight the memory of the first dot love at first saght, a conp de fonare (lueve and tea w Wala tenie OF this theater will have been, the first steake of theater, the First stroke, the iris, ‘The first period, Phe questiai of the archive reuaans the saame: What comes ttl? Jean better: Who cinies first? And sect At the ertd af the preeeding chapter, the first cautp de rhedare in shet light; One rio Fonger kews what the time, sehat the wolving.a “crucial epaside” and a "canionical text”: Yerushalmi hadestablished the extraordinary archive we dusetibed wn the exergnc He tied gaven hes readers the didigiie copy given, hur first yt all setiarnicil by fie areb-piutttiee tw the patrareli: by Fakobs tr Six nuuind. and yers right nit the substrate nF ats "new skinne” Mee fase tree temiinder of w eirsinncision, the tmpreession left an bis body by the archive of a dissyeunieteteal covenane wath our contract, ofa het eregonue covenant to Ww ly Sigsetad Sheloanuly subscribsed lye Fre even haaseinyg bow bo aig avuelt less canmnter sigan —has nannies Ta the batinmaless tlaickatcse nf this inscriptions ert adtyrne, in the instant of the acchio-nomological event, unider the new: skin of'a bre that consigns the new skin, wounded and blessed of a newhorni there resonated already the swords uemded:for the newbora of a Gud spelen to Inari in (weit you") even before he could speak, giving hiv to uirulerstand ta brea ve tet t peed oe tordecap hr “Ge, read my Book that 1 have wrten” Giving ns thysaretave te read, offering it tty us an tthe course Of a masterly deciplierient, Yerushalioy, uy turn, means less 0 giee on give Sig ‘rived his Bible but rather grves (back whim, Retains iv ae hips Unto ge dick He acts whi like Jakub, who dis Tar giving us this lneument tooread, this trie schuilae vats ails iy rove back to Froid hisown competence, his own capacity 1 fecetee anil thus to. read dhe Hebrew inscription. Le wants abuye all te id, atu this is the declareed wine ouistration, Hist aye know, fret a youtig ae, make bumn conlers it. Because Yerustialnat hue ty fead the dedication, He ought, an cenarquence, have com fessed belonging, thus nak ing his Hebreyy culrtiere pattie si nvore clearly cham he diel. Yerushatuat recalled all Freud's denials self (all e rated usher! be claimed, all Voltaisins? and who reranned little dingy on this subject, eoncerming his owit family or iv f Jewish cultiaec!), Like Frevd’s father, the sehiolar seeks te call Shemund Shell back to the covenant by est ablishing, thar is no si pestine af the father, He recalls ur he sepeats the circumcision, event ly restoring, the covenant. ‘The scholar repeats, int « ways thie iT elit owe and the over can only dat, of course, by figure Alter the first, a sceond coup de thédtre: WL is the moment when Vrafemor Yer usl)alusyy, wally ath Init a6 ais apparently arnare filial positions a tenaly rm address Professor Prey lin reuth (3 ontestal wichurity of thescholar Iresies ot eather aly. sad's ghost, dir v the respect of a con, n-ne way contradicts the repetition of the ag ihe posits thon as iene Rial, thar in manifests che Love ane parernal gesture. Quite possibly it confirms ane relaunches it en abyme. A scholar addressing a phantom reealls irresistibly the tspeninyg of Plamict, AC the speeteal apparition of the deal father, Marcellus implores Horatio: “Thou art a Scholler, speake tin. Horatio.” [have tried to shaw elsewhere that thengh the classical schular chd not believe in phantoris and rely would: not know how to speak to them, even jurbadding himself to do so, iis quite possible: that Marcellus hack anticipated the coming of a seholar of the futwve, 4 cellar wh, sn dhe funire and so ay to concereof the {umiee, would dare to speak tee the phantom, A schalar who would {lave ta adunit that he knows how to speak Zo. the phantor, even clainning thay thes arship but will div truth have conditioned it, at the price of some sullincgnvewable complica only neither contradiets nar limits his selval oii that may yet prove the other one, hats, the phantom, ti be correct, And perhaps s the yraternal jihantots, that is, who is ii a pasition ro be correel, co be proven correct and to have the last word, “Dear and most highly esteemed Protessor Freud": so begins thes Jeter. An intensely filial and ypectful Letter, indeed, but all the nore bitter, cutting, Hereileay 4 (}ve reproach, ane would say ne lerous in the quilsbling, Fhe other were nut dead, and thas Hoi nitely inaccessible i his all yrowerFil vitlnerability These thirty-add. pages are nor only to be classed as fiecony which would alceady be a break with the language thar has done ated up) ta this point yi thie book, that is,the discourse of sclvalar dhipythe discourse of a historian, of a philulogist, of an expert on sth sjeak in alLobjectivity while basing himselfon anicient or new chives—and the wealth af these novelaes has to doin particule with the fact hat sertauy of these doctoicnts, wnt! nosy hardly the history of Fudausm, ofa bsiblival sehalar, as they ving to - vhihle OF inaccessible, seeret or privates hive been newly inter prcled, newly teawalated, newly illuminated fiom histories oF philological view points No, this tictinwe has another originality, webbiels sets the fictionality Uf the “Monologue” as «fen abyme; the apostraphe ry addressed ardead pecsun, tw the history object become spectral subject, the |wietsal addrewes oc mterlocuior of @ suit of open leer Another archive effcet. Io is very fiction, this apostrophe enriches the cor pu it clainns te treat but which itenlargesancl nf swhich, in fact, it encetorth:a part. At the end af x tight discussion with the phan toni aceording 16 the intersected rales.of psychoanalysis and of the "Lalnwud, “in the xpirit of ledidadd,” the sygnatary of tle book and of the lettcr ends by inecrogating the specter af Fret We wi the “lecce:” hecause ifthe letter is apparently # partof the book, if © "Monologue with Freud” resembles a last chapter of the book, one Lan also note Use other structural singulariues abuut its reli ne ii this For the moment, we say the “buak" tionship eu the book whic, at least according tothe editut ial con ventions al it bildingraphic archivzznon, contains at within itself, To the few plac the honk. in its status, yn ats project, in Fs forma; ie is thus by pure juodieal fievon thar such a fietion 1s, in effect, buund in the same Louk signed by the same aucliur, ant tae itis classified wider englae wicanhe™ cubries (nonfienon: this fictintows “Monologue” ix heteragencnats ta neither poctic nur novelists ner shig calaliygne Whose classical categories he second place, this postscript of sores retrospectively deterrmnes what precedes it Ie does th id a devisive fashion, marking 1 indeed wath an essential Ieraey) int the bible reall Found ar the beginning of the work. tn indecision, namely the wnbilical opening of the Biesce, which malees the worils “few andl “seience” indeterminate ar the very. Joust —or inv any case accedes to their indetermination. Thus nne can just as well say thal the entire béok is in advance contained, as if carried away “Monologue. drawer 1m, enulied by che abysmal elesneur af the tur which it constitutes a Kind of long preface, ais eortgitey «preamble, oe at foreword, The true title of the lao, ats ust appropriate title, i16 triith, wank Indeed be Monologue eorth Pred, Ler us nore this av least ony aceonint of the archive: Ly reel] lat there sould be ne archwing without tiles (hence without names and without the archonte principle of Fegetinszdteon, with wit Hows, satliout criteria ob ckissifiqatinny uadeol hictarely zation, wirhour order and without under, i te double sense of rhe wort) i the colts uf Uits téte-d-1éte discussion, bun im the presence of the reader that we are (or God knows who) as tenieés, chind party or Witness. Freud is ait longer treated as a third person represented by his wren works (public and private writings, climeal, dheorctieal. or autobiographical, institutional or not psyehnsiualytie aid polity ral, setentifie or “novelistie”—because Yerushalmi’s entire book fuiras araund a book by Freud tlar be himself wanted to present as ui fiction, Der Man Moses, ein histors:her Raman, while airmieg at ew concept of Guth, thats, under the name of “histerieal truth” a truth that scholarship, historiography, and peelaps philosephy Tuve same difficulty thinkin rreatexd as witttess in the third person (teratisl; he finds himsel/ called ta vsmess as. asecond person. A gesture incompauble an prin through), Preud is thus no longer aple wath dic noms of classical seiennifie discourse, in paftivallas With these of history or af philology, which liad presides! over the same book: upto this point, [n addition, he signatery of thes marie logical ferter all of a sudden jleoposes to this second person, who is at first addressed as “you” and ot “he," ta-speak inv teres af "we." ‘And as he recugiees that this other dees nat have a true right of ly, fre responds for fay; “Ly whe is at issue hete, aided bas beers so ull alung, we bath have, as Jews, ab eqpial stake, Therelore nt speaking ofthe Jews [shall nor say “they! | shall say ‘we.’ The distinction is familiar ro yout” [81] Ry dehnition, because he is dead and thus incapable of respoud ig, Broud can only acquiesce. He cannot refuse this community at vice plaposed afsd iimpnced The cam only say "ves" te this eoveriamt inte which he rmust enter ove more génte. Because fhe will have hae! tw enter it, altcardy, seven or eight days after hiv birth. Mutatis na tandvs, thisy the sitanion of absolute iissyrnmietry and heveranomy mn which a son finds hunself ou being circwneised aftertheseventh, lay send one beng made iu enter nian ervenant ot aanoment when, i 11, the archive marked once in his bady, Frew hears himsctl jlisoweut th ay recalled to the indestauctible cavenant that this extraordinary per- formative engages tion that be respond, sign, o countersiya. Mere “L yhall say we!" —when at is adubresseal to phantoms or a newborn. {hee us note at feast nt parentheses: the violence of divs eanenasinal dlessytniietry reniaina at once extraordinary and, precisely, most common, Tre the ovigity nf the eomevan, happening cach nme we aildress someone, each rime we call them while supposing. that Is to say while forpasing a “we,” and tls while inscribing the otherperson int tbs atnation oF an at ouee spectral anal patraazeliic awursling) Fverythung biappens here aa at Yerustialiny bad dlecaeted ety iis trciseameise Feevid, as if he fell ant dbligation yer to.come ('T shall cay we") to cecirenmease hitn by Fygure while confiriaing the cave nan, as if he felt the duty, air truth, to repeat Jakob Freud's gesture when, in al inscription at uuce outside aud rustle the book, syghe un the Book, in meliizad, he reunited Stielomoab, “Tar alve seveatly us tke days of the years nF yur il the Spirit uf the Lael began to J in my Beaks thar Lave move yuu. ane spoke wathen your Gan written 7 (7H) (The memory withour memory of a muck retuis everywhere, about which we ought i debate vith Lreud, euscer ini bis vutnny ing bere aeewie) on this subject: Teas clearly the questing of the ive matned “circumcision,” Although he speaks oF it ashe theer from Fresnl’s or fram Jones's point of view. Ye alini dees not place this rank, at lease mats hteealness, at the center ol Ins book’ —and the engiaa uf circumcision, notably io the great n Judaisny andl Ch liveralness and off all that depends om this. Although T belie ris questing tebe irreducible, in paricular ia the rereading of Freud wor betue stianity, 1s quite often that of is irrevhicthle notably to thar of castration, { must put it aside here without some regret, along swith that of the phylacteries, tse ar- ddhives of skin or parcluuent covercd wath Weiting that Tewrb wien, here tou, and nut Jesvish women, carry close to their body, on thet ‘vein aiid don ther forehende vighr om the bordy Jeb mésne de corp | like Uhesign of cérreumcisian but with a Beurig-riglt-on [étre a-meéme thar this timedoes net extuide che detachment sad cheumyingof the hpa- incrityof the substratc,and of the text sismultancously. Tn this dlelibscracely filial scaave Uhae Yerushaliny has wails che pro irelt oF paychoanalysis, the apostrophe as laanehed frupe the por 4. The tee Cveuncision is, Watrever, taker uy am wevetall iy ot sviews tie Mawr Fonte Histintcal prane nf ess, 12) 2 "cond uring final and Ph He ieety 6 4088 1g rrenery am interpret the Firactites’ relations with ide in 9d dhe ecelus frora byy ph where ireumicisions ay at an actice), Voie amare steuctityal jean views eiceurvepton tbe he sn oy she pritnitive father sition ot the father, the father uf the dead father. The other speiks. Luis olten thus in scenes the son has wil the father, Speoch comes back ro the grandiiather. Speeck rerarns, at French le paervle reene nt av act ol speaking: aint as aight te speech, Why as this monolague clearly not a monologue ar a sililoquy? Bocuse it plays on the Moriologue with .,,"? Because more that One person speaks? Unudoubtedly, but there ws more than the irony uf presenting itself piwniber, There ithe order, Fur if the signatory of the monolayguie is wot alone im signings, far fein at, be is above all the first to sto so, Me speaks. fiom the positian of the otter: he carries in himself, this moihpiece, he bears the vorce that could he that of Jakob Freed, namely the arch-patruirch of psychoanalysis. Aad thus, an the name of Jakob, the vuice of all the arch-parriarelis in liistory, 1 Jewish history ia particular, far example those who wot only in scribe heir suas ie the covenaar at the mament o€ cireiincesinny Jind shy it enare than ones, literally of hy figure, but do not cease tey be surprised and to remain skeptical about the possibility that daughter could speak in her own name. Thave just alluded te the Fast request that the synatury af (hv inunolugue withour response addresses ta ecud’s plantain. This feajtest 1s cartied in a question; we aust distinguish herween the ane andl the wer here: the request questions ow the siibject of Anna rend: “your Antigotic,” says Yerushalmt in passing, Yerush= alin, pus, thinky perlups—perfaps— that th why, dearly thus idemifying Bread, his spectee, with Cedi will suffice to dle-ugeipal ine its ett eeJationsshap weeks Freud, as if there were no possibility of ever becoming Qedipus’s Ceipis: In 1977, Anna Brend was invited by the Hebrew University of ferusalen to inaugurate an enulowed chair carrying the name of her—long dead —father. Uu- alle to go she fo—she sends, she tg, a written stwemrent, 1h Unis otlter archive cheuianut, which Yeruslalni invests with pas: sinm, Anna declares, among other things, that Ihe accusation we cording: to which psychoanalysis is a “Jewish science,” “under pres ent circum: ances, can serve asa tile of honour” | LO) Yerushalini asks linisell whether thas sentence rovitten by isandeed uyned by Anna. ineeslueiior (hie avtes hanisell (0) Ins specter why ayoutd First have Asking lnmelf this, he ashs his special asked himself thes) (7 his daughter spoke in her own name:as if he #niet that a shnugheer, above all the daughter af brew, could wab iivher owit ante, aloust siiy yeues after he father's death, ved aibave all ay of xe wisledd, etill see ly (a secre which he nays hie wants tr keep, thst is to say, to share wath Prend, 10 be alone m shaving auth Freud}. thar she had always spoken an the name of hiet Lather. uv the name of the Father: Tis fart Vall, nuit myself even fierther andl be content il you nny amis oie question: When your danghiter conveyed thiase worls 60 the congress in Jerusalem, ous she speaking im yorm manne? PPhodse tell mie, Presson. | primuse Fort reveal your unser wsanyene, [LOD] Th scaled hy rhis uleimate signature tn she fousiaf 8 promise: Seeretly bout visibly, sheltered by a secret he wanis snanilest, by a secret he ieiiniows to make public, Yerushaloi wishes that Anma-Aniygune ace the last words af the book. Furryibing xecams 10 be hud baly bee the living spokesperson, the (aith(ul iateepestet, the vnine bearer come tn support ber dead father and.te represent hiv word. hiy namie, his belonging, his thesis, and even his fall, What, at in spite ol all Freud's strategic denials (uéndgatiwns|, an spite of all the yailetcal according 1 Yerushalmi, did sbe say, then? ‘T precattions he espressed throughout his lite comermang the um versal (c108-Jewish) essence al poyChoanulysis, ieeughe to honor tt self foe being Fevash, fen being. a fundamentally, esseutsally, radi cally Jewish science, Fewish io a differnt sense from the anti-Semitic jnti-Setnitesm, ste nse that Yepuasliabyn's thesis advances here whele-with alleganons, while revealing the “histortcal truth” ot The cleawengy siielf Liar 708 4 theses wi: f a paras hee paresculas stavus— aryl lexical moverneht it posits nok so mich what eas whip eat have beer: uid onghe to er shots be ire the fate. namely that psy hownlysis should in the future have bect a fewath science (L will Fe|Uri a1 J tnoIyieUt to this temporal modality), ta sense, dint Jy iy cadically dlitferent (rons shat of the anti Sevitie bur wlack would bring to light, one me telly, wi eran etic, nul recording, (0 a very Freudian gesture in its style and rraditinn, the truth that cuild be carried by the anti-Semitic ungonscious, We wal reruirn 10 this quiesenay i the time betryg, veld pull from thes web a single interpreraie fwus suamenrarily. te threail, the ie that concerns the archive: Whar happens to the status uPthe archive in this sisuauan? Well, the day when in an abyolutely exceptional, unpreecileated, untae, and waugarll asks 1h, uteleed one that is aucurnpatible vith the teadstion andl the very idea af ciences ol épinind, of histori, av ob theoria, indeed of (hi Tosrphiy tn the Wess, the day presenting itself as such and under this name binds atse¥E intrinsi- J fre the moment when a science cally fot only to the bistory ba proper name, ofa fliawon, and of a bwuse, here Freud’y hause, but co the name and to the law of a nation, af & peuple, panralyons as Je i a veligion, Wy € prye science, this woul! have the comsecjuence, among othery, of ra tally wansforming the relationstap of such a scienee ty 1S OWA ar chive. And in the sume stroke, having kept an essential aecount of the singularity of an ardeion, Uhes would traistone the concept of sevence and the eoneepe of Uae arelive, To che edasical stracture ul tlicir concepr, 4 secuce, « philosuphy, » theory, a theerein are or shnulil be utristicully iadependent of the singular archive of their histary. We know well thar these things (science, philosophy. rick and complex history that eairies thera and produces chem ina thousand ways, We heave well eluat aveil ways, jindper ames anil signatures theney, et.) have a history, in diverse and cum chionit, But the steucture of the theoretical, philesaphical, scientific statement, anh ever when concerns history, does not have, shoul but in principle have, am intrinsie and essential necd for tlueareluve, and fue what binds the aschive i all its forms 10 some proper sal) fli toseetets. Ir has na such need, tn any case, in ts same or to sume body proper, iw sane (aunifial orate froth, Lo Loeb alate ship ar in its clay to truth —in the classical sense af the erin), But as soon as une speaksaf a fewish science, whareyer one's understanding of this word (and 1 will come back w this ina instill, the wrebive Lecomes a founding moment fer science ay such: nov baly the Listry and dhe mernory of singular events, ul exemplary proper names, languages and filiations, but the depost tion in an ankheron (whiel can be an ark ura terapie), see covusig ation in a place of relarive exteriority, whether it las eer do. with writings, documents, of ritualized marks on che budy proper (for n