joyce le symptôme i-5col´me-1--5-col.pdfj.a. miller’s consent in joyce avec lacan, paris:...

Page | 1

Joyce le Symptôme I (not published in Autres écrits) 1975 May 13 Last session of Seminar 22, RSI 1975 June 16 Joyce, le Symptôme 1 l’ouverture du 5e Symposium international James Joyce 1975 June 20 Joyce, le Symptôme 2 1975 November 18 1st session of Seminar 23, Joyce Le Sinthome 1975 November 24 Yale University Interview with students

The source for the French text is pas‐tout Lacan and Le Seminaire livre XXIII, Le Sinthome; pp. 161‐159.Éditions de Seuil, mars 2005. It should be noted that the Collins, Hecq, and Benanav translations were done before the official version in French was available.

Jacques Lacan Dominique Hecq translation Aaron Benanav

translation Adrian R. Price translation

Conférence donnée par J. Lacan dans le grand amphithéâtre de la Sorbonne le 16 juin 1975 à l’ouverture du 5e Symposium international James Joyce. Texte établi par Jacques‐Alain Miller, à partir des notes d’Éric Laurent. 1 L’âne, 1982, n° 6.2 1 Voir Joyce II, texte donné par Lacan à J. Aubert, à la demande de celui‐ci, pour publication aux éditions CNRS de la conférence donnée par J. Lacan à

Introductory lecture presented by Jacques Lacan to the Vth James Joyce International Symposium at la Sorbonne, Paris on June 16th, 1975. Text established by Jacques‐Alain Miller on the basis of notes taken by Eric Laurent. Published with J.A. Miller’s consent in Joyce avec Lacan, Paris: Navarin, 1987.

Joyce the Symptom (I). Conference given by J. Lacan in the large auditorium of the Sorbonne on the 16th of June, 1975, at the opening of the 5th International James Joyce Symposium. The text was established by Jacques‐Alain Miller, partially from the notes of Eric Laurent. Published in L'âne, 1982, no. 6.

Lecture delivered on 16 June 1975 in the main amphitheatre of the Sorbonne as the opening address to the 5th International Joyce Symposium

Page | 2



l’ouverture du Symposium, le 16/06/1975, Joyce II valant donc pour son auteur comme l’écrit de son discours d’ouverture. On notera l’écart entre ces deux textes : Joyce I et II. (Joyce II est publié en 1979). Joël Dor dans son ouvrage – Nouvelle bibliographie des travaux de J. Lacan situe Joyce II commeétant le texte du discours declôture du Symposium. J.Aubert qui était alorsl’organisateur du colloquenous donne une autreversion que celle de Dorquant au statut à donner àJoyce II.2 Il n’y a pas de publicationaux éditions CNRS de cettetranscription.: Joyce lesymptôme I. Par contre ilexiste une publicationintitulée Joyce avec Lacan,Paris, Navarin, coll. «Bibliothèque des Analytica »,1987, qui reproduit les deuxtextes Joyce I et Joyce II.3)Je ne suis pas dans mameilleure formeaujourd’hui, pour toutessortes de raisons.

For all sorts of reasons I’m not in the best of shape today.

I am not in top form today, for all sorts of reasons

I’m not on top form today, for all sorts of reasons.

Avec l’agrément de Jacques Aubert, à

With Jacques Aubert’s approval – Jacques Aubert,

With the approval of Jacques Aubert ‐ you see

With the approval of Jacques Aubert, to whose

Page | 3



l’insistance duquel vous devez de me voir ici – Jacques Aubert qui est un éminent joycien, et dont la thèse sur l’esthétique de Joyce est un ouvrage éminemment recommandable –, j’ai pris comme titre – Joyce le symptôme.

a distinguished Joycian who is famous for his excellent dissertation on Joyce’s aesthetics is also the person who invited me here today, I have chosen to entitle my speech “Joyce the Symptom.”

me here at his insistence ‐ Jacques Aubert is an eminent Joycean, and his theses on Joyce’s aesthetics are eminently recommendable ‐ with his approval I took the title Joyce the Symptom.

urging you owe my presence here – Jacques Aubert is an eminent Joycean, and his PhD thesis on Joyce’s aesthetics is an eminently commendable work – I have taken Joyce the Symptom as my title

Là‐dessus, vous allez me pardonner de poursticher un moment – cela ne va pas durer – Joyce, le Joyce de Finnegans Wake, qui est le rêve, le rêve qu’il lègue mis comme un terme – un terme à quoi ?. C’est ce que je voudrais essayer de dire. Ce rêve met, à l’œuvre, fin, Finnegan, de ne pouvoir mieux faire.

Now you’ll have to excuse me for forstiching – I’ll be short, Joyce, the Joyce of Finnegan’s Wake, which is the dream, the dream he hands us down, the dream put as an end – an end, but what to? This is what I’d like to tell. This dream puts an end to Finnegans, the work, for lack of working out something finer.

Pardon my [pour]pastiche for a moment ‐ it won't last ‐ Joyce, the Joyce of Finnegans Wake ‐ it's a dream, a dream in which Joyce takes us to a limit – what limit? This is what I want to try to say. This dream, Finnegans, does something that could not be done any better.

You will excuse me if I purstiche a short while1 – it won’t go on for long – the Joyce of Finnegans Wake, which is the dream he has bequeathed, set down as an end‐point to – what? This is what I should like to try to spell out. This dream sets down the fin to the oeuvre – Fin again – of being unable to do any better. 1 TN We have used ‘purstiche to render poursticher, a combination of poursuivre (‘pursue’) and pastiche.

Je reprends – pourquoi vouloir que la pourriture dont l’homme pourspère – qui sonne comme « pourrir en espérant » – pourquoi vouloir que la

I’ll try again – why expect the mildew upon which man putrefaith – sounds like “putrefying on faith” – why expect the media that stuffs us with news to

I begin again, why would one want to spoil [pourriture] what man pourspère ‐ which sounds like "to spoil in hoping" [also: for father] ‐ why

I’ll resume. Why should one seek that the rot by which man protspers – which has the air of to rot in expectation – why should one seek that the

Page | 4



journiture qui nous enfourne de nouvelles, transmettre correctement mon titre ? Jacques Lacan, ils ne savent même pas ce que c’est, Jules Lacue ça ferait aussi bien – c’est d’ailleurs la prononciation anglaise de ce que nous appelons, dans la langue nôtre, la queue. Pourquoi imprimeraient‐ils Joyce le symptôme ? Jacques Aubert le leur communique, alors ils foutent Jacques le Symbole. Tout ça, bien sûr, pour eux, c’est du kif.

convey my title accurately? Jacques Lacan, they wouldn’t know him from a bar of soap, Jules Lacue would sound just as nice – this is how the English pronounce what we call in French la queue (the tail/tool). why would they print Joyce the symptom? Jacques Aubert passes it on to them and they stick Jacques the symbol. As far as they are concerned, it’s all one and the same.

would we want the journiture, which gives us the news, to correctly transmit my title? Jacques Lacan ‐ they don't even know who he is ‐ Jules Lacue would do just as well ‐ it’s the English pronunciation of what we call, in our language, the tail [la queue]. Why would they print Joyce the Symptom? Jacques Aurbert told them, and so they did Joyce the Symbol. Its good enough for them; it's all the same

drearly broadshit that stuffs us with news items relay my title correctly?2 Jacques Lacan, they don’t have a clue, Jules Lacue would do just as well. Besides, that’s the English pronunciation of what in our language we call la queue. Why should they print Joyce the Symptom? Jacques Aubert relayed it to them, so they went and put Jacques the Symbol. Of course, it’s all much of a muchness in their eyes. 2 TN Our ‘protspers’ is for pourspère, a combination of pourriture (‘rot’) and prospère (‘prosper’). In the Seuil edition, line‐end hyphenation has been introduced, accentuating (perhaps deliberately the final syllable père (‘father’). ‘Drearly broadshit’ is our rendering of la journiture, a combination of of ‘journal’ (‘daily newspaper’) and pourriture (‘rot’). Journiture also rhymes with nourriture.

Du sym qui ptôme au sym qui bole, qu’est‐ce que ça peut bien faire au bosom

From the sym that ptoms to the sym that boles. What does it matter to

From the sym that ptoms to the sym that bols ‐ what does it have to do with the

From the sym that does ptom to the sym that does bol, what can that fairly do

Page | 5



d’Abraham, où le tout‐pourri se retrouvera en sa nature de bonneriche pour l’étournité ?

Abraham’s bosom, where the all‐putrefied will find itself at home again in its nature of goody‐nurse‐drops for all uptournity?

bosom of Abraham ‐ where everything spoiled finds itself, in its nature, as the bonneriche for etournity?

to the Bosom of Abraham, where for the nature of the pot‐pourrotten it’s a dogsbody’s life for all eturnity?3 3 TN ‘Ptom’ is for ptôme, the Romanized suffix of symptôme, from the Greek Πίπτω (‘fall’). Meanwhile, ‘bol’ is for bole, the Romanized suffix of symbole, from the Greek, βάλλω (‘throw’). ‘The pot‐pourrotten’ is our rendering of le tout‐pourri, which rhymes loosely with both potpourri and Tout‐Paris, a seventeenth‐century coinage referring to the capital’s fashionable ‘high society’. ‘A dogsbody’s life’ is an attempt to render bonneriche, which is a contraction of bonne et riche (‘hearty and wealthy’) and rhymes loosely with boniche (‘skivvy’). ‘Eturnity’ is for étournité, which introduces tour (‘turn’ or ‘round’ into éternité.

Je rectifie pourtant –, ptom, p’titom, p’titbonhomme vit encore, dans la langue, qui s’est crue obligée, entre autres

A little revision though ‐ , ptom, p’littleyton, p’littlymanton is alive and well in the tongue, that felt, among other tongues,

However, I will set it right: ptom, p'titom, p'titbonhomme [little guy] – see again, in language,what we believed was

I shall emend this, though. Ptom, p’tithomme, the lil’ feller still lives, in the language that reckoned it fell to it, alongside other

Page | 6



langues, de ptômer la chose coïncidente. Car c’est ce que ça veut dire. [161]

it had to ptome the coinciding thing. For this is what it all means. [161]

necessary, between languages: to ptom the coincident bits. Because that’s what they mean. [161]

tongues, to ptom the coextensive entity.4

Because that’s what this means. [161] 4 TN P’titom is a combination of ptôm and petit home (‘little man’).

Référez‐vous au Bloch et von Warburg, dictionnaire étymologique, qui est d’une assiette solide, vous y lisez que le symptôme s’est d’abord écrit sinthome.

Refer to Bloch and von Warburg, etymological dictionary, which is of a solid base, you read there that the symptom was first written sinthome.

Have a look at Bloch and von Warburg, the etymological dictionary, which is a mouthful, you will read there that symptom was formerly written sinthome.

Take a look at the Bloch & von Wartburg, an etymological dictionary of sturdy stock, and you will read that symptôme used to be spelt sinthome.

Joyce le sinthome fait homophonie avec la sainteté, dont quelques personnes ici peutêtre se souviennent que je l’ai télévisionnée.

Joyce the sinthome has an homophonous ring with being a saint, which some people here might recall my having televisioned.

Joyce the sinthome, homophonic with sainteté [holiness] ‐ some people perhaps remember that I televisioned it.

Joyce the sinthome forms a homophony with saintliness, which a few people here may recall I televisionized.

Si on poursuit un peu la lecture de cette référence dans le Bloch et von Warburg en question, on s’aperçoit que c’est Rabelais qui du sinthome fait le symptomate. Ce n’est pas étonnant, c’est un médecin, et symptôme devait avoir déjà sa place dans le langage médical, mais ce n’est pas sûr. Si je

Following up this reference in the Bloch et von Wartburg it appears that Rabelais is in fact the one who turned the sinthome into the symptomate. This is not surprising: he was a doctor and “symptom” must have been current at the time in medical parlance – though this is not certain. Now,

If one continues to read the reference in Bloch and von Warburg, one realizes that Rabelais was the one who turned sinthome into symptomate. It's not so surprising: he was a doctor, and symptom already had its place in a medical language, though it is not certain. If I continue in the same vein,

If we read the entry in question in the Bloch & von Wartburg a little further, we notice that Rabelais was the one who turned sinthome into symptomate. It’s not surprising. He was a doctor and symptom must have already held its place in medical language, though it’s not for sure. If I

Page | 7



continue dans la même veine, je dirai qu’il symptraumatise quelque chose.

pursuing this line of thought, I’ll say that he symptraumatises something.

I would say that he symptraumatized something.

continue in this same vein I shall say that he symptraumatizes something.

L’important n’est pas pour moi de pasticher Finnegans Wake – on sera toujours en dessous de la tâche –, c’est de dire en quoi, je donne à Joyce, en formulant ce titre, Joyce le symptôme, rien de moins que son nom propre, celui où je crois qu’il se serait reconnu dans la dimension de la nomination.

What matters here is not for me to offer you a pastiche of Finnegans Wake – it would be hard to do it justice, but rather to explain how, by choosing Joyce the symptom for a title I present Joyce with nothing less than his own proper noun, the one that might bestow upon him some recognition in the dimension of naming.

The point is not to pastiche Finnegans Wake ‐ one would never live up to Joyce ‐ it is to say what I gave Joyce, in formulating this title, Joyce the Symptom: nothing less than his proper name, that in which I believe he would have recognized himself: the dimension of nomination.

The important thing for me is not to do a pastiche of Finnegans Wake – one would always be beneath the task – but to say in what respect, by formulating the title Joyce the Symptom, I endue Joyce with nothing less than his proper name, the one in which I believe he would have recognised himself within the dimension of naming.

C’est une supposition – il se serait reconnu si je pouvais aujourd’hui lui parler encore. Il serait centenaire, et ce n’est pas l’usage – ce n’est pas l’usage de poursuivre la vie aussi longtemps, ce serait une drôle d’addition.

This is just a supposition – he would be recognized if I were able to talk to him today. He would be in his hundreds, and this is not common – it is not common to live for so long. That would indeed be a funny sum.

It is an assumption ‐ he would have recognized himself in this, if I could still speak to him today. He would be 100 years old, and it is not useful to continue life so long; it would be funny to add any more.

This is a supposition. He would have recognised himself if only I were still able to speak to him today. He would be in his hundreds, which is not the done thing.5 It’s not the done thing to pursue life to such lengths. It would be a strange adherence. 5 TN Joyce was born on 2 February 1882 so, in fact, had he lived until 1975 he would have been ninety‐three.

Page | 8



Rencontre Encounter Story‐telling Meeting

Sortant d’un milieu assez sordide, Stanislas pour le nommer – enfant de curé, quoi, comme Joyce, mais de curés moins sérieux que les siens, qui étaient des jésuites, et dieu sait ce qu’il a su en faire – bref, émergeant de ce milieu sordide, il se trouve qu’à dix‐sept ans, [1] grâce au fait que je fréquentais chez Adrienne Monnier, j’ai rencontré Joyce. De même que j’ai assisté, quand j’avais vingt ans, à la première lecture de la traduction française qui était sortie d’Ulysse.

Originating from a rather sordid suburb, Stanislaus to name it – brought up by the clerics, a bit like Joyce, say, though less serious‐minded than his, who were Jesuits, and God know what he managed to turn them into – anyway, coming from this rather sordid environment, it so happened that I used to go along to Adrienne Monnier’s gathering, and so I met Joyce when I was seventeen. Besides, I heard the first translation of Ulysses in French at twenty.

Leaving a rather sordid environment, Stanislas to name it, the child of a priest, like Joyce, but priests less serious than his ‐ Jesuits ‐ and God knows what he did with them ‐ emerging from this sordid environment, at seventeen years old ‐ thanks to the fact that I attended Adrienne Monnier ‐ I met Joyce ‐ just as I attended, when I was twenty years old, the first reading of the French translation of Ulysses.

Coming from a fairly sordid background, Stanislas to mention it by name – I had a clerical upbringing, as did Joyce, but the priests were less serious than his, Jesuits, and God knows what he was able to make of that – in short, emerging from this sordid background, it so happens that at seventeen, thanks to the fact that I used to drop by Adrienne Monnier’s shop, I met Joyce. So too did I attend, when I was twenty, the first reading of the French translation of Ulysses that came out.

Ce sont les hasards qui nous poussent à droite et à gauche, et dont nous faisons – car c’est nous qui le tressons comme tel – notre destin. Nous en faisons notre destin, parce que nous parlons. Nous croyons que nous disons ce que nous voulons, mais

Flukes of fate such as these that propel us hither and thither do indeed enable us to make – for we are responsible for weaving it as such, our own destiny. We use them to make our own destiny because we speak. We believe that we say what

. In fact, chances push us left and right, and we make of them ‐ because it is we who braid it ‐ our destiny. We make of these chances our destiny, because we speak. We believe that we say what we want, but really, it is what the others wanted,

Such are the happenstances that drive us from pillar to post, and from which we shape our destiny, for we are the ones who weave it thus. We shape our own destiny from them because we speak. We believe we say what we want, but it’s

Page | 9



c’est ce qu’ont voulu les autres, plus particulièrement notre famille, qui nous parle. Entendez‐là ce nous comme un complément direct. Nous sommes parlés, et à cause de ça, nous faisons, des hasards qui nous poussent, quelque chose de tramé. [162]

we want, but it is rather what others have wanted, our family in particular, that speaks us. And I mean “we as direct object. We are spoken, and hence we weave the flukes of fate that force us to move into a weft‐like‐thing [162]

more particularly our family, that speaks us ‐ take this ‘us’ as a direct object. We are spoken, and because of that, we make, of the chances that push us around, a sort of weave. [162]

what the others wanted, more particularly our family, qui nous parle. You should hear this nous as a direct object. We are spoken, and, because of this, from the happenstances that drive us, we form something textured. [162]

Et en effet, il y a une trame – nous appelons ça notre destin. De sorte que ce n’est sûrement pas par hasard, quoiqu’il soit difficile d’en retrouver le fil, que j’ai rencontré James Joyce à Paris, alors qu’il y était, pour un bout de temps encore.

. There is indeed a weft; we call it our destiny. It can therefore not be by chance, though it would be hard to pick out the right thread, that I met James Joyce in Paris where he was to live, by the way, for some more time.

And indeed, there is a weft ‐ we call that our destiny. So that it is surely not by chance, though it is difficult to find the thread of it, that I met James Joyce in Paris, whereas he was there for some time.

Indeed, there is a texture – we call it our destiny. Such that it is surely not happenstance, though it would be hard to pick up the thread, that I met James Joyce in Paris while he was still here, for a brief spell more.

Je m’excuse de raconter mon histoire. Mais je pense que je ne le fais qu’en hommage à James Joyce.

Sorry for recounting my own story here. I think that Im purely doing it as a tribute to Joyce.

Excuse this personal history. But I think that I do it only in homage to James Joyce.

Pardon me for telling my tale, but I think I’m doing it only in homage to James Joyce.

Université et Analyse University and Analysis University and Analysi Academia and analysis J’ai toujours trimbalé dans mon existence, errante comme celle de tout le

Throughout my life, a wandering life, like everybody else’s, I have

I always lug around, in my life, wandering like everyone, an enormous

Throughout my existence, as errant an existence as anyone’s, I have always

Page | 10



monde, une quantité énorme – il y en a haut comme ça – une quantité énorme de livres dans lesquels ceux de Joyce ne vont pas plus haut que ça – les autres ce sont ceuxsur Joyce.

dragged an incredible amount – about this high – of books among which Joyce’s books don’t reach up to higher than this – the others are books about Joyce.

quantity ‐ there are so many ‐ an enormous quantity of books, and Joyce's are on top ‐ the others are about Joyce.

carted around a vast quantity of books – there’s a stack about so high – in which those by Joyce only go up to here – the rest are books on Joyce.

Ceux‐là, je les lisais de temps en temps, mais je m’en suis appliqué, Jacques Aubert en sera le témoin, une tripotée tous ces temps‐ci. J’ai pu y voir plus que des différences – un balancement singulier dans la façon dont Joyce est reçu, et qui part du biais dont il est pris.

I used to read the latter occasionally, and as Jacques Aubert can testify, I’ve had some good reason for kicking myself for it recently. I’ve been able to see in this collection more than differences – a peculiar sway in the reception of Joyce’s work depending on the angle of approach.

I read them from time to time, but I applied myself in reading them, Jacques Aubert will be my witness, loads of them. I could see more than differences – I noticed a singular prevarication in how Joyce is received, and some of the prejudices with which he is used.

Once in a while I would read one of them, but of late I’ve been dabbling in this a great deal more, as Jacques Aubert will testify. I have been able to make out more than mere differences. There is a peculiar wavering in how Joyce is received, which depends on the angle from which he is taken.

Conformément à ce que Joyce lui‐même savait qu’il lui arriverait dans le posthume, c’est l’universitaire qui domine. C’est à peu près exclusivement l’universitaire qui s’occupe de Joyce. C’est tout à fait frappant.

According to what Joyce had predicted of his posthumous fortunes, academia is on top. Joyce has more or less become the exclusive property of academics. This is very striking.

In accordance with what Joyce knew would happen after his death, university professors dominate. It is almost exclusively academics who deal with Joyce. It is striking.

In conformity with what Joyce himself knew would befall him posthumously, academia is the dominant factor. It’s pretty much academia alone that busies itself with Joyce. This is altogether striking.

Joyce l’avait dit : « Ce que j’écris ne cessera pas de

Joyce had predicted it: “My writing will give

Joyce said: ‘What I write will not cease to give work

Joyce said as much – What I write will go on and on

Page | 11



donner du travail aux universitaires. » Et il n’espérait rien de moins que de leur donner de l’occupation jusqu’à l’extinction de l’université. Ça en prend (4)bien le chemin. Et il est évident que cela ne peut se faire que parce que le texte de Joyce foisonne de problèmes tout à fait captivants, fascinants, à se mettre sous la dent pour l’universitaire.

academics work forever.” And he hoped no less than to give them food for thought until the extinction of the University. It’s looking that way too. Obviously, this can only be so because Joyce’s text is packed with fascinating – indeed, captivating, problems for academics to get their teeth into.

to the academics’. He wanted nothing less than to occupy them until the extinction of the university. That clearly marks a path. It is evident that this is possible only because Joyce’s text abounds with completely captivating problems, fascinating problems, to be put under the teeth of the academics.

producing work for academics. He hoped for nothing less than to keep them busy till the university is no more. It has certainly been carving out a path. And it’s quite clear that this has only been able to come about because Joyce’s text is teeming with utterly captivating problems, fascinating problems that academics can get their teeth into.

Je ne suis pas un universitaire, contrairement à ce qu’on me donne du professeur, du maître, et autres badinages. Je suis un analyste. Cela fait tout de suite homophonie, n’est‐ce pas, avec les quatre maîtres annalistes, dont Joyce dans Finnegans fait grand état, et qui ont fondé les bases des annales de l’Irlande. Je suis une autre espèce d’analyste.

I am not an academic, despite the Professor, Master, and other badinages, people stick to my name. I am an analyst. That sounds instantly homophonous with the four master‐annalists in Finnegans, those Joyce talks a great deal about, those who laid down the foundations of Irish historical records. I am another kind of analyst altogether.

I am not an academic, contrary to how some take me: as professor, as master, or whatever else. I am an analyst ‐ which immediately gives us a homophony with the four master annalists, of whom Joyce makes a great show in Finnegans, and who layed the foundation of the annals of Ireland. I am another species of analyst.

I’m no academic, contrary to what is thrust upon me by way of professor, mentor, and other dalliance. I’m an analyst. This produces immediate homophony, does it not, with the four Master Annalists whom Joyce makes so much of in Finnegans Wake, who laid the foundations of Ireland’s annals. I belong to another species of analyst.

Page | 12



De l’analyste qui, depuis, a émergé, on ne peut pas dire que Joyce ait été mordu. Des auteurs dignes de foi, qui connaissaient bien Joyce – moi, je l’ai entrevu –, qui étaient de ses amis, avancent volontiers que s’il a freudened, s’il a freudenedé ce fredonnement, c’était avec aversion. Je crois que c’est vrai. [163]

What about analysis? It has come a long way since Joyce was around, though it can’t be said that Joyce was mad about it. reputable authors who knew Joyce – I, on the other hand, only caught a glimpse of him, who were his friends, like to say that although he “freudened,” or intoned freakish freudian tunes, he detested it. I think it must be true. [163]

Of the analysts who later emerged ‐ one cannot say Joyce was smitten with them. Some authors, worth believing, who knew Joyce well, friends of his ‐ and me, I foresaw it ‐ readily attested that Joyce was freudened ‐ if he was freudened of this humming [fredonnement], it was with aversion. I believe it’s true. [163]

It cannot be said that Joyce was particularly enthralled by the analysis that emerged thereafter. Authors in whom we may put our faith, who knew Joyce well – I merely caught a glimpse of him – who were friends of his, willingly suggest that whilst he freudened this fredonnement, it was with repugnance. I believe this to be true. [163]

J’en trouverai le témoignage dans le fait que dans la constellation du rêve dont il n’y a pas d’éveil, malgré le dernier mot, Wake, dans la trame des personnages de Finnegans, il y a ces deux jumeaux – Shem, vous me permettrez de l’appeler Shemptôme – et Shaun.

As a testimony to this there is the constellation in the dream from which there is, despite the last word “Wake,” no awakening. In the interweaving of characters in Finnegans, there are twins: Shem – allow me to call him Shemptom, and Shaun.

I find evidence in the fact that, in the constellation of the dream ‐ from which there was no waking, in spite of the last word, Wake ‐ in the weft of the characters in Finnegans, there are these two twins: Shem ‐ allow me to call him Shemptom ‐ and Shaun.

I think this is borne out by the fact that in the constellation of the dream from which one never awakens, in spite of the last word, Wake, in the texture of characters in Finnegans Wake, there are the two twins, Shem – whom you’ll allow me to call Shemptom – and Shaun.

C’est comme ça, j’espère, que ça se prononce, parce que je n’ai pas consulté là‐dessus Jacques Aubert, qui, pour la prononciation,

I hope this is how you pronounce it, for this time I didn’t check with Jacques Aubert who has however

I hope I am pronouncing this right, because I did not consult Jacques Aubert, on whom I relied terribly for this concoction

That is how they are pronounced, at least I hope so because this time I didn’t consult Jacques Aubert, who has

Page | 13



m’a rudement bien soutenu pendant ce brassage.

been invaluably helpful to me in this mixing.

supported me so terribly well throughout this brewing process. So, we have Shemptom and Shaun.

Il y a donc le Shemptôme et le Shaun. Ils sont noués – rien de plus noués quedes jumeaux. C’est àl’autre – pas à Shen, qu’ilappelle, en luiadditionnant un épinglage,the penman, le plumitif –c’est à Shaun que Joyceépingle le docteur Jones. Ils’agit de cet analysteauquel Freud, qui savait cequ’il faisait, à donné lacharge de faire sabiographie. Il leconnaissait bien, c’est‐à‐dire qu’il était sûr queJones n’y mettrait pas lamoindre fantaisie, qu’il nese permettrait pas, entreautres, de mettre latouche, la morsure,l’agenbite of inwit.Quelque part dans Ulysse,Stephen Dedalus parled’agenbite of inwit, de lamorsure – on traduit ça en

There is thus the Shemptom and the Shaun. They are entwined. Nothing could be more entwined than twins. Joyce appoints the other – not Shem, when he pins the penman, the plumitive, onto him – it is indeed Shaun who is pinned together with Doctor Jones. We are talking about the analyst whom Freud – who knew what he was doing, appointed as authorized biographer. He knew him well, which means that he knew for sure that Homes would do nothing fanciful, that he would not allow himself to add the touch, the bite, the agenbite of inwit, the bite – the French translation is ensoi, “inself,” I don’t know why, since it really means wit,

. There are, anyway, Shemptom and Shaun. They are knotted, no more than twins often are. It is the other ‐ not Shen, whom he calls, by adding a pin, the penman, the pen‐pusher ‐ it is to Shaun that Joyce pins Doctor Jones ‐ that analyst whom Freud, the latter knew what he was doing, charged with writing his biography. Freud knew well enough, that is to say, he was sure that Jones would not put the least fantasy into it, that he would not permit himself, among other things, to push Freud's buttons ‐ to bite, the agenbite of inwit. Somewhere in Ulysses, Stephen Dedalus speaks of the agenbite of inwit ‐ the bite ‐ it is translated, I don't know why ‐ la

They are knotted together. Nothing could be more tightly knotted than twins. It is to the other one – not to Shem, whom he calls, tacking on a label, the penman – it is to Shaun that Joyce tacks Dr Jones, the analyst to whom Freud entrusted the task of drafting his biography. Freud knew what he was doing. He knew Jones well, which is to say that he was quite sure that Jones wouldn’t be in the least bit fanciful, that he wouldn’t, amongst other things, go fishing for the agenbite of inwit. Stephen Dedalus speaks about the agenbite of inwit somewhere in Ulysses, the bite of the ensoi – as it’s been translated in French, I don’t know why – when really it means wit, inward

Page | 14



français, je ne sais pas pourquoi – de l’ensoi, alors que ça veut plutôt dire le wit, le wit [2] intérieur, la morsure du mot d’esprit, la morsure de l’inconscient. Avec Jones, Freud était tranquille – il savait que sa biographie serait une hagiographie.

inner wit, the bite of wit, the bite of the unconscious. With Jones, Freud had nothing to worry about. He knew that his biography would be a hagiography.

morsure de l'ensoi; whereas what it means is the witticism, the internal witticism, the bite of a joke, the bite of the unconscious. With Jones, Freud was quiet ‐ he knew his biography would be a hagiography.

wit, the bite of the flash of wit, the bite of the unconscious. With Jones, Freud could rest easy. He knew his biography would be a hagiography.

Évidemment, que Joyce Shaunise, si je puis dire, le Jones en question, c’est ce qui nous donne l’idée de l’importance, comme dit l’autre, d’être Ernest. Beaucoup plus que Joyce, Jones – je vous le dis parce que je l’ai rencontré – faisait la petite bouche sur le fait de s’appeler Ernest. Mais c’était sans doute à cause de la pièce de ce titre, si étonnante, de Wilde, dont Jones fait grand état. Plus d’une fois dans Finnegans surgit cette référence à l’importance de s’appeler Ernest.

Now that Joyce Shaunises, so to speak, this Jones, gives us an idea of the importance, as some other would say, of being Ernest. Jones, far more than Joyce – I can say this because Imet him, disliked the ideaof being called Ernest. Butthe title of Wilde’samazing play is probablyto blame for this, the playJoyce raved so muchabout. There is indeedmore than one referenceto the importance of beingErnest to Finnegans.

Obviously, if Joyce Shaunized, if I can say, the Jones in question ‐ it gives us some sense of the importance, as someone said, of being Ernest. Moreso than Joyce, Jones ‐ I tell you because I met him ‐ made no small thing of being named Ernest. It was certainly a piece with that astonishing title of Wilde’s, of which Jones made quite a show. More than once in Finnegans, this reference emerges ‐ of the importance of being named Ernest.

Clearly, that Joyce should Shaunize, if I may say so, the Jones in question is what gives us some idea of the importance, as the other fellow put it, of being Ernest. Jones, much more than did Joyce – I’m telling you this because I met him – sniffed at being called Ernest, but this was doubtless because of the play of this name, such an astonishing play, by Wilde, and which Joyce made so big a deal of. This reference to the importance of being called Ernest arises more than once in Finnegans Wake.

Page | 15



Désabonné à l’inconscient…

Unsubscribing to the Unconscious

Unsubscribed from the unconscious ...

A cancelled subscription to the unconscious

Tout cela n’a porté que d’approcher ceci, que ce n’est pas la même chose de dire Joyce le sinthome ou bien Joyce le symbole. Si je dis Joyce le symptôme – c’est que, le symptôme,le symbole, il l’abolit, si jepuis continuer dans cetteveine. Ce n’est passeulement Joyce lesymptôme, c’est Joyce entant que, si je puis dire,désabonné à l’inconscient.[164]

All this to suggest that it isn’t the same thing to say “Joyce the sinthome” and “Joyce the symbol.” I say Joyce the symptom – for the symptom abolishes the symbol, if I may pursue the same line of thought. It’s not merely Joyce who is the symptom, it’s Joyce as unsubscriber to the unconscious, so to speak. [164]

All of that serves only to bring us close to this point: it is not the same thing to say Joyce the sinthome and Joyce the symbol. I say Joyce the symptom: the symptom abolishes the symbol, if I can continue in this vein. And not only Joyce the symptom: Joyce insofar as, if I may say so, he unsubscribed from the unconscious. [164]

The sole import of all this is that it brings us closer to the fact that saying Joyce the sinthome and saying Joyce the symbol are not the same thing. * I’m saying Joyce the Symptom because the symptom, with respect to the symbol, abol‐ishes it, if I may continue in this same vein. It is not simply Joyce the Symptom, it is Joyce in so far as he has, as it were, cancelled his subscription to the unconscious. [164]

Lisez Finnegans Wake. Vous vous apercevrez que c’est quelque chose qui joue, pas à chaque ligne, mais à chaque mot, sur le pun, un pun très, très particulier. Lisez‐le, il n’y a pas un seul mot qui ne soit fait comme les premiers dont j’ai essayé de vous donner le ton avec « pourspère », fait de trois ou quatre mots qui se

Have a look at Finnegans Wake. It won’t take you long to see that what is at play, neither at, nor in, every line, but rather within every word, is a pun, and a peculiar sort of pun at that. I recommend the book: every single word is made on the principle that I tired to convey above with the likes of “putrefaith,” every

Read Finnegans Wake. You will realize something plays, not with each line, but with each word: a very peculiar pun. Read it, there is not a word that does not do what ‐ I tried to give you a taste of it with ‘pourspère’ : made of three or four words that are, by their use, made to sparkle. It is astonishing, even though, in truth, in

Read Finnegans Wake. You will notice that this is something that is played out not at the level of each line but at the level of every single word. It plays on the pun, a highly particular punning. Read it. Every single word is put together like the first words by which I tried to set the tone, with protsper, made up of

Page | 16



trouvent, par leur usage, faire étincelle, paillette. C’est sans doute fascinant, quoiqu’à la vérité, le sens, au sens que nous lui donnons d’habitude, y perd.

one of them is made up of three or four words which, used together, spark off. This must be fascinating. Although, to tell you the truth, meaning, in the sense we usually understand it, loses something in the process.

the sense we typically give it, something is lost.

three or four words that, through the way they are used, flake apart in sparks. This is doubtless fascinating, though truth be told the thrust of it, in the sense we usually give it, gets lost.

M. Clive Hart, dansStructure and Motif inFinnegans Wake, parle deje ne sais quoi de décevantdans l’usage que Joyce faitde ce type de pun. M.Atherton, dans son livreThe Books at the Wake,réfère ça à the unforseen,l’imprévu. Ce pun, c’estplutôt le porte‐manteauau sens de Lewis Caroll, enquoi celui‐ci est unprécurseur – et pourl’avoir sans douterencontré assez tard,Joyce a dû, résumeAtherton, s’en trouverquelque peu importuné.

In Structure and Motif in Finnegans Wake, Clive Hart suggests that there is something disappointing in the use Joyce makes of this type of pun. In The Books at the Wake, Atherton attributes this to the unforeseen. The pun is in fact a portmanteau in the sense Lewis Carroll, who is thus its precursor, uses the word. Joyce discovered this a bit late, then as Atherton concludes, he must have been rather annoyed.

Clive Hart, in Structure and Motif of Finnegans Wake, speaks of his disappointment in the use Joyce made of this type of pun. Atherton, in his Books at the Wake, refers it to ‘the unforeseen’. This pun, it’s really a portmanteau in the sense of Lewis Caroll, who was his precursor ‐ and having found Caroll rather late, Joyce must have been, says Atherton, somewhat bothered.

In Structure and Motif in Finnegans Wake, Mr Clive Hart speaks about goodness knows what sense of disappointment in Joyce’s use of this type of pun. Mr Atherton, in his book The Books at the Wake, relates this to the unforeseen. These puns are rather portmanteau‐words in the Lewis Carroll sense, which makes Carroll a precursor. Having come across Carroll rather late in the day, Joyce must surely have found himself – so reports Atherton – somewhat importuned.

Lisez des pages de Finnegans Wake, sans chercher à comprendre –

I suggest you read a few pages from Finnegans Wake without trying to

Read a few pages of Finnegans Wake, without trying to understand: it

Read a few pages of Finnegans Wake without striving to understand it.

Page | 17



ça se lit. Ça se lit, mais comme me le faisait remarquer quelqu’un de mon voisinage, c’est parce qu’on sent présente la jouissance de celui qui a écrit ça. Ce qu’on se demande – tout au moins ce que demandait la personne en question –, c’est pourquoi Joyce a publié. Pourquoi ce Work qui a été dix sept ans in progress, l’a‐ t‐il enfin sorti noir sur blanc ?

understand. It reads. It reads, but as someone I know was pointing it out to me the other day, that’s only because one can feel the jouissance of the one who wrote it. The question is, or rather, the person I’m referring to asked: “Why did Joyce have this published?” Why did this Work, which remained in progress for seventeen years, come out black on white?

reads itself. It reads itself, but as someone remarked, someone in my vicinity, it reads itself because one can sense the presence of the jouissance of he who wrote it. We may wonder ‐ or at least what the person in question wondered ‐ is this why Joyce published it? This Work that was for 17 years in Progress, why in the end did it come out black on white?

It’s quite readable. It’s quite readable, as someone from my circle remarked to me, because one can sense the presence of the jouissance of he that wrote it. One wonders, however – at least the person in question did – why Joyce published it? Why did he eventually bring out, in cold print, this Work that was in Progress for seventeen years?

C’est une chance qu’il y en ait une seule édition, ce qui permet de désigner, quand on le cite, la ligne à la bonne page, c’est‐à‐dire à la page qui ne portera jamais que le même numéro. S’il fallait que, comme les autres livres, ce soit édité sous des paginations diverses, où irait‐on pour s’y retrouver !

Just as well there is only one edition, which makes it possible to point to the right page when quoting, that is the page that will forever bear the same page number. Just imagine if it had to be edited with a different page numbering as is the case with other books!

It is lucky that there is only one edition, which permits us to designate, when we cite, the good page, that is, the page that will never carry but the same number. If it were necessary, as happens to other books, for it to have been edited with different paginations ‐ how would one find anything!

By good fortune there is just one edition, which means that when one cites it one can quote the right line on the right page, that is, the page that will forever bear the same number. If ever it had to be reprinted with a different pagination, as some other books are, where would one go to get one’s bearings?

Mais qu’il l’ait publié, c’est ce dont j’espérerais, s’il était là, le convaincre qu’il voulait être Joyce le

Anyhow, he had it published and were he here today I would gladly try to convince him that he

But that he published it ‐ I wish, were he here, that I could convince him that he wanted to be Joyce the

The fact that he did publish it is what I should hope, were he still here, would allow me to

Page | 18



symptôme, en tant que, le symtôme, il en donne l’appareil, l’essence, l’abstraction. Car si quelque chose rend compte du fait noté par Clive Hart, qu’à suivre ses pas, on s’en trouve à la fin, fatigué, c’est bien ceci qui prouve que vos symptômes à vous, c’est la seule chose qui chez chacun porte l’intérêt. Le symptôme chez Joyce est un symptôme qui ne vous concerne en rien. C’est le symptôme en tant qu’il n’y a aucune chance qu’il accroche quelque chose de votre inconscient à vous. Je crois que c’est là le sens de ce que me disait la personne qui m’interrogeait sur pourquoi il l’avait publié.

always wanted to be Joyce the symptom – as the ‐ , for he does provide us with all the apparatus, essence, and abstraction of the symptom. Clive Hart says that following in Joyce’s footsteps makes you tired, well, if this is true, it also proves that your own symptoms are the only thing worth bothering about. the symptom in Joyce’s writing is a symptom that has nothing to do with you. It is the symptom In so far as there is no chance of anything in your unconscious to ever be hooked by it. I think that this is what the person who asked me why Joyce had his text published meant.

symptom, insofar as he gives the symptom its apparatus, its essence, its abstraction. Because if, as Clive Hart notes – one finds that, if one follows in Joyce’s footsteps, one is, in the end, tired out – it only proves that your own symptoms are the only ones that carry interest for you. The symptom of Joyce is a symptom that does not concern you at all. It is the symptom insofar as there is no chance it will catch something of your unconscious. I believe that is the meaning of what that person said, who asked me about the reason for Joyce’s publication.

convince him that he wanted to be Joyce the Symptom, inasmuch as he offers the apparatus, the essence, and the abstraction of the symptom. If there is one thing that accounts for the fact noted by Clive Hart – that in following him step by step, by the end one finds oneself tired out by it – then it is precisely thatthis proves how your ownsymptom, for you likeeveryone else, is the onlything that holds anyinterest for you. Thesymptom in Joyce is asymptom that concernsyou in no respectwhatsoever. It is thesymptom inasmuch as itstands no chancewhatsoever of hookinganything of yourunconscious. I think this isthe meaning behind whatwas said by the personwho asked me about whyhe published it.

Page | 19



…bien que ne jouant que sur le langage*

…though only playing on language.

... though enjoying only the language

…although only playing on language*

Il faudrait continuer ce questionnement de l’œuvre majeure et terminale, de l’œuvre à quoi en somme Joyce a réservé la fonction d’être [165] son escabeau. Car dedépart, il a voulu êtrequelqu’un dont le nom,très précisément le nom,survivrait à jamais. Àjamais veut dire qu’ilmarque une date. On avaitjamais fait de littératurecomme ça. Et pour, ce motlittérature, en souligner lepoids, je dirai l’équivoquesur quoi souvent Joycejoue – letter, litter. Lalettre est déchet. Or, s’iln’y avait pas ce typed’orthographe si spécialequi est celui de la langueanglaise, les trois quartsdes effets de Finnegansseraient perdus.

It would be good for you to question further Joyce’s major and final work, the work Joyce nominated as [165] his ladder, so tospeak. Because from thestart, he wanted to besomeone whose name,indeed, whose name,would survive forever.Forever means that itmarks an anniversary.Never before had suchliterature been produced.And in order to highlightthe import of the wordliterature I’ll invoke theequivocality upon whichJoyce often plays – letter,litter. the letter is a refuse.Now, were spelling not sopeculiar in the Englishlanguage, most of theeffects in Finnegans Wakewould be lost.

We should continue questioning this great and final work, the work which, for Joyce, functioned as [165] a stepping‐stool. Because he was leaving, he wanted his name, very precisely his name, to survive forever. Forever means that it marks a date. No one ever made literature like this. And for this word ‘literature’ ‐ to underline its weight ‐ I would say the equivocation on which Joyce often puns ‐ letter, litter. The letter is a bit of waste. However, were it not for this special sort of orthography of the English language, three quarters of the effect of Finnegans would be lost.

This questioning on the major and ultimate work needs to be continued. It is the work for which Joyce set aside the function of being [165] his escabeau6, because from the very start he wanted to be someone whose name – very precisely the name – would endure forever. Forever means that it marks a date. No one had ever made literature like that. And to underscore the weightiness of the word literature, I shall utter the equivocation that Joyce often plays on – letter, litter. The letter is litter. Now, were it not for this very special kind of spelling that is specific to the English language, a good three quarters of the effects of Finnegans Wake would be lost. 6 TN An escabeau is a low stepladder or footstool used as an individual platform or to facilitate individual access

Page | 20



to a higher place. In the written version of Joyce le Symptôme, Lacan plays on escabeau and ‘S.K. beau’, thus foregrounding the letter and the notion of the beautiful. See ‘A note threaded stitch by stitch. § 5.

Le plus extrême, je peux vous le dire – le devant d’ailleurs à Jacques Aubert – Who ails, après çatongue, écrit commelangue en anglais, tongue,un mot ensuite,énigmatique, coddeau –[3] « Who ails tonguecoddeau a space ofdumbillsilly ? » Si j’avaisrencontré cet écrit, aurais‐je ou non perçu – « Où estton cadeau, espèced’imbécile ? »

The most extreme example – I own it to Jacques Aubert, by the way, is perhaps Who ails, after tongue – as language, tongue, followed by the enigmatic word coddeau – “Who ails tongue coddeau aspace of dumbillsilly?” Had I encountered this ecrit, I wonder if I would have perceived “Où est ton cadeau, espèce d’imbécile?” (Where is your present, you silly you?)

The most extreme one, I can tell you, care of Jacques Aubert: ‘Who ails tongue coddeau a space of dumbillsilly?’. If I had encountered this text in writing, would I or not perceive: ‘Où est ton cadeau, espèce d'imbécile?’ [where is your gift, you imbecile?]

The most extreme case, I can tell you, and I owe this to Jacques Aubert, is – Who ails tongue coddeau, aspace of dumbillsilly? If I had come across this piece of writing, would I have perceived or not – Où est ton cadeau, espèce d’imbecile? Where’s your present, you imbecile?

L’inouï, c’est que cette homophonie en l’occasion translinguistique ne se supporte que d’une lettre conforme à l’orthographe de la langue anglaise. Vous ne sauriez pas que Who

What is amazing is that the translinguistic homophony is based on one single letter consonant with English spelling. You wouldn’t know that Who can

The amazing thing is that this trans‐linguistic homophony is supported by only one letter in conformity with the English language. You would not know that who

What is unprecedented in this is that the homophony, trans‐linguistic homophony on this occasion, is sustained only by letters that conform to English‐

Page | 21



peut se transformer en où si vous ne saviez que Who au sens interrogatif se prononce ainsi. Il y a je ne sais quoi d’ambigu dans cet usage phonétique, que j’écrirais aussi bien f.a.u.n.e. Le faunesque dela chose repose tout entiersur la lettre, à savoir surquelque chose qui n’estpas essentiel à la langue,qui est quelque chose detressé par les accidents del’histoire. Que quelqu’unen fasse un usageprodigieux, interroge ensoi ce qu’il en est dulangage.

become où if you didn’t know that such is the pronunciation of Who in a question. There is something ambiguous in this phonetic usage that I feel like writing f.a.u.n.e. The faun‐like aspect of the thing relies entirely on the letter, that is on something which is not essential to language, something which is woven by the accidents of history. That someone should use this prodigiously, is an examination of what language is about from within.

can change into où if you did not know that who in the interrogative sense is pronounced that way. There is a sort of ambiguity in this phonetic usage, which I would write f.a.u.n.e [‘phon’‐etic]. Thefaunesque of the thingrests entirely on the letter,that is, on something thatis inessential to language,something woven by theaccidents of history. Thatsomebody makes anextraordinary use of theletter questions how muchit has to do with language.

language spelling. You wouldn’t know that who can transform into où if you didn’t know that who is pronounced that way in the interrogative. There is some kind of ambiguity in this phonetic usage, which I would also spell f.a.u.n. The faunesque aspect of the thing leans squarely upon the letter, namely upon something that is not essential to a tongue, a tongue being something woven by the accidents of history. That someone should make such prodigious use of this enquires, in and of itself, into the very nature of language.

J’ai dit que l’inconscient est structuré comme un langage. Il est étrange que je puisse dire aussi désabonné de l’inconscient quelqu’un qui ne joue strictement que sur le langage – quoiqu’il se serve de la langue entre autres qui est, non pas la

I said that the unconscious is structured like a language. It is odd that I should say “unsubscriber to the unconscious” of someone who plays strictly upon language – although he uses a language which is not his own – for his own

I said that the unconscious is structured like a language. It is strange that I can also say ‘unsubscribed from the unconscious’ of someone who plays only with language – even if he uses a language which is not his own – precisely because

I have said that the unconscious is structured like a language. It is odd that I am also able to speak in terms of a cancellation of subscription to the unconscious for someone who plays strictly on language, though he did

Page | 22



sienne – car la sienne est justement une langue effacée de la carte, à savoir le gaélique, dont il savait quelques petits bouts, assez pour s’orienter, mais pas beaucoup plus – non pas la sienne donc, mais celle des envahisseurs, des oppresseurs. Joyce a dit qu’en Irlande on avait un maître et une maîtresse, le maître étant l’Empire britannique, et la maîtresse la Sainte Église catholique, apostolique et romaine, les deux étant du même genre de fléau. C’est bien ce qui se constate dans ce qui fait de Joyce le symptôme, le symptôme pur de ce qu’il en est du rapport au langage, en tant qu’on le réduit au symptôme – à savoir, à ce qu’il a pour effet, quand cet effet on ne l’analyse pas – je dirai plus, qu’on s’interdit de jouer d’aucune des équivoques qui émouvrait

language is in point of fact one that has been wiped off the map, i.e., gaelic, which he only knew tiny bits of, just enough to find his way around, but not a lot more, ‐ not his own, then, but the invader’s, the oppressor’s language. Joyce said somewhere that in Ireland one knows one master and one mistress, the master being the imperial British state, and the mistress the Holy Roman catholic and apostolic church; both derive from the same kind of scourge. This is exactly what is noticeable in what turns Joyce into the symptom, the pure symptom of what makes his relation with language when reduced to the symptom – that is to the effect it has when the effect isn’t being analyzed – I’d go as far as sayingthat one forbids oneself toplay on any equivocalitythat is likely to move

his is an effaced language, to wit Gaelic, of which he knew a few small bits, enough to orient himself, but not much more – a language that is not his own but that of the invaders, the oppressors. Joyce said that Ireland has a master and a mistress, the master being the British Empire and the mistress the Catholic Church – apostolic and Roman – both being the same sort of plague. That is what makes itself heard, in what makes Joyce the symptom, the pure symptom of the relation to language, insofar as one reduces it to a symptom – reduces it to that which it has for an effect, when one does not analyze that effect – I would say more, that one is forbidden from playing with any of the equivocations that would move one’s own unconscious. [166]

use one particular tongue among others, one that is not his own – for his own is precisely a tongue that had been wiped off the map, to wit, Gaelic, of which he had a smattering, enough to get by, but hardly much more – not his own, then, butthe tongue of theinvaders, the oppressors.Joyce said that in Irelandthey had one master andone mistress, the formerbeing the imperial Britishstate and the latter theholy Roman catholic andapostolic church, each asbaneful as the other. Thisis precisely what can beseen in what makes ofJoyce the Symptom, thepure symptom of what isinvolved in therelationship to language,in so far as this is reducedto the symptom – namely,to what it produces by wayof effect, when one doesnot analyse this effect – Ishall say, furthermore, in

Page | 23



l’inconscient chez quiconque. [166]

anyone’s unconscious. [166]

so far as one forbids oneself from playing on any of those equivocations that would stir anybody else’s unconscious. [166]

La jouissance, non l’inconscient

Jouissance, not the unconscious



Si le lecteur est fasciné, c’est de ceci que, conformément à ce nom qui fait écho à celui de Freud, après tout, Joyce a un rapport à (5)joy, la jouissance, s’il est écrit dans lalangue qui est l’anglaise – que cette jouasse, cette jouissance est la seule chose que de son texte nous puissions attraper. Là est le symptôme.

What fascinates the reader is that in accordance with the name that echoes Freud’s – after all Joyce has a certain affinity with joy, jouissance, when written in the English language – the joy at play, this jouissance, is the only thing in the text that can be caught. Here is the symptom..

If the reader is fascinated, in accordance with a name that echoes Freud’s own (Freude = joy), it is because Joyce has a relation to joy, to jouissance, if he is written in the English lalangue. This joy’ed, this jouissance is the only thing we can catch of his text. There is the symptom,

If the reader is fascinated, then it is on account of the fact that, in keeping with this name that echoes the name of Freud – after all, Joyce bears some relation to joy, jouissance when written in lalingua that is English – that this jouasse, this jouissance, is the sole thing in his text on which we can get a purchase. There lies the symptom.

Le symptôme en tant que rien ne le rattache à ce qui fait lalangue elle‐même dont il supporte cette trame, ces stries, ce tressage de terre et d’air dont il ouvre Chamber Music, son premier livre publié, livre de poèmes. Le symptôme est purement

The symptom as detached from anything in the weft of language which it actually supports, the ridges and ripples, the intervening of earth and air at the opening of Chamber Music, his first published book, a book of poems. The symptom is

the symptom insofar as nothing ties it to what makes lalangue, for which the symptom acts as this screen, these scratches, this braiding of ground and air with which Joyce opens Chamber Music, his first published book, a book of poems. The

The symptom, in so far as nothing ties it to what makes for lalingua itself, by which this weft is sustained, these stria, these strings in the earth and air with which he opens Chamber Music, his first published book, a chapbook of poems, the

Page | 24



ce que conditionne lalangue, mais d’une certaine façon, Joyce le porte à la puissance du langage, sans que pour autant rien n’en soit analyzable

purely what conditions language, but in a way, Joyce raises it to the status of language, which nonetheless precludes any analysis

symptom is, purely, that which conditions lalangue, but in a certain way, Joyce takes the symptom to the very power of language ‐ without making any of it analyzable.

symptom is purely what is conditioned by lalingua, but in a certain fashion Joyce lifts the symptom to the power of language, without for all that any of it being analysable.

C’est ce qui frappe, et littéralement interdit – au sens où l’on dit – je reste interdit.

of the symptom. This is what strikes and disconcerts the reader

It is what strikes and literally forbids [interdit],

This is what strikes you, and literally renders you interdit,

Qu’on emploie le mot interdire pour dire stupéfaire a toute sa portée. C’est là ce qui fait la substance de ce que Joyce apporte, et par quoi d’une certaine façon, la littérature ne peut plus être après lui ce qu’elle était avant.

The fact of using the word disconcert (interdire in French: literally “inter‐say”, though meaning either to prohibit or to amaze) in order to say amaze is of particular import. This is what gives substance to Joyce’s contribution whilst depriving literature of its former status thereafter.

in the sense that one says, I am dumbfounded [je reste interdit] ‐ one uses this word forbidden to say dumbfounded in all its range.‐ one uses this word forbidden to say dumbfounded in all its range. That is the substance of what Joyce does, and due to which, in some sense, literature can no longer be what it was before.

in the sense that means I was rendered speechless. *That one uses the wordinterdire to say stupefy issomething that holds greatimport. This is what makesfor the substance of whatJoyce brings along,whereby in a certain wayliterature after him can nolonger be what it wasbefore.

Ce n’est pas pour rien que Ulysse aspire, aspire un quelque chose d’homérique, bien qu’il n’y ait pas le moindre rapport, quoique Joyce ait lancé les commentateurs sur ce

Not for nothing has Ulysses something homeric about it, though there isn’t the least resemblance, despite the fact that Joyce put some commentators on the

It is not for nothing that Ulysses aspires, aspires to something Homeric, although there is not the least relation: Joyce led the commentators in this direction ‐ between what

It is no accident that Ulysses aspires, that it draws in a Homeric something or other, even though there isn’t the faintest relationship between what happens in

Page | 25



terrain, entre ce qui se passe dans Ulysse et ce qu’il en est de L’Odyssée. Assimiler Stephen Dedalus à Télémaque… On se casse la tête à porter le faisceau du commentaire sur L’Odyssée. Et comment dire que Bloom soit en quoi que ce soit, pour Stephen, qui n’a rien à faire avec lui, sauf de le croiser de temps en temps dans Dublin, son père ? – Si ce n’est que déjà Joyce pointe, et se trouve dénoter que toute la réalité psychique, c’est‐à‐dire le symptôme, dépende, au dernier terme, d’une structure où le Nom‐du‐Père est un élément inconditionné.

homeric track, between what happens in Ulysses on the one hand and The Odyssey on the other. Just imagine identifying Stephen Dedalus with Telemachus. . . One racks one’s brains with commentaries about The Odyssey. And how does one reach the conclusion that Bloom, who has nothing to do with Stephen whatsoever apart from bumping into him from time to time in Dublin, is in fact his father? If not by taking Joyce’s hint that all psychical reality, i.e., the symptom, ultimately depends on a structure where the Name‐of‐the‐Father is an unconditional constituent.

happens in Ulysses and what happens in the Odyssey. To compare Dedalus to Telemachus, one would break one’s back carrying the stack of commentaries on the Odyssey. And how to say that Bloom would be for Stephen, who does not have anything to do with him, except to cross him from time to time in Dublin, his father? It is only that Joyce already points out, and so indicates, that all psychic reality – that is, the symptom itself – depends in the end on a structure in which the Name‐ofthe‐Father is an unconditional element.

Ulysses and what is involved in The Odyssey. Joyce did send some commentators down that path, though, assimilating Telemachus into Stephen Dedalus. People fret over carrying the torch of the commentary on The Odyssey. Moreover, how can it be said that Bloom is in any respect a father for Stephen, who has nothing to do with him save bumping into him now and then in Dublin? Except that Joyce is indicating, and finds himself denoting, how psychic reality as a whole, which means the symptom, depends in the final analysis on a structure in which the Name‐of‐the‐Father is a non‐conditioned element.

Le Père borroméen* The borromean Father The borromean father The borromean father* Le père comme nom et comme celui qui nomme, ce n’est pas pareil. Le père est cet élément quart –

The father as name or as the one who names are two different things. The father is this fourth

The father – as a name and he who names – is not the same thing. The father is that fourth element – I

The father as a name is not the same thing as the father as he who names. The father is this fourth

Page | 26



j’évoque là quelque chose dont seulement une partie de mes auditeurs peuvent avoir le délibéré – cet élément quart sans lequel rien n’est possible dans le nœud du symbolique, de l’imaginaire et du réel.

element. (element quart) – I’m referring tosomething quite specificwhich I expect only a fewof you to be aware of –the quarter componentwithout which nothing ispossible in the knot ofsymbolic, imaginary andreal.

evoke something which only some of my audience can have considered – that fourth element without which nothing is possible in the knot of the symbolic, imaginary and real.

element – here I’m evoking something whose deliberation only a part of my audience may have access to – without which nothing is possible in the knot of the symbolic, the imaginary and the real.

Mais il y a une autre façon de l’appeler, et c’est là que je coiffe aujourd’hui ce qu’il en est du Nom‐du‐Père au degré où Joyce en témoigne – de ce qu’il convient d’appeler le sinthome. [167]

But there is aother name for it. I therefore redefine the Name‐of‐the‐Father at the level of the evidence found in Joyce, notably, what should be called the sinthom. [167]

But there is another way to name it, and that is where I will stop today, in order to show you what all this has to do with the Name‐of‐the‐Father to which Joyce testifies, what we can call the sinthome. [167]

There is, however, another term for this. This is where today I’m going to crown what is involved in the Name‐of‐the‐Father, at the very degree to which Joyce bears it out, with what it would be most suitable to call the sinthome. [167]

C’est en tant que l’inconscient se noue au sinthome, qui est ce qu’il y a de singulier chez chaque individu, qu’on peut dire que Joyce, comme il est écrit quelque part, s’identifie à l’individual. Il est celui qui se privilégie d’avoir été au point extrême pour incarner en

Thus it can only be said, as is written somewhere, that Joyce identifies with the individual in so far as the unconscious becomes entwined with the sinthome, which is inherently specific to each individual. He is the privileged one who experienced the point of

It is insofar as the unconscious knots itself into a sinthome, which is what there is singularly in each individual, that one can say that Joyce, as it is written somewhere, identifies with the individual. He has made himself privileged enough to have, at the extreme

It is in so far as the unconscious is knotted to the sinthome, which is that which is singular to each individual, that we may say that Joyce, as has been written somewhere, identifies with the individual. He is one who has earned the privilege of having reached the

Page | 27



lui le symptôme, ce par quoi il échappe à toute mort possible, de s’être réduit à une structure qui est celle même de lom, si vous me permettez de l’écrire tout simplement d’un l.o.m.

no return and who incarnated the symptom that made him immune to death, for he thereby reduced himself to the very structure of theman (lom), which I’d rather write m.a.n (l.o.m.)

point, incarnated in himself the symptom, that by which he escapes any possible death, by reducing himself to a structure that is precisely that of LOM [l’homme, man], if you will permit me to write it quite simply as l.o.m.

extreme point of embodying the symptom in himself, by which he eludes any possible death, on account of being reduced to a structure that is the very structure of LOM, if you will allow me to spell it quite simply L.O.M.7 7 TN LOM is homophonic withl’homme (‘the man’ or‘mankind’).

C’est ainsi qu’il se véhicule, comme quelque chose qui met un point final à un certain nombre d’exercices. Il met un terme. Mais comment entendre le sens de ce « terme » ?

And so Joyce circulates as something that puts a period after a series of exercises with a period. He puts a period. But how should this “period” be heard and understood?

Thus he carries himself, like something that puts a final point to a certain number of exercises. He puts a limit. But how should one hear the meaning of this limit?

This is how he conveys himself, as something that puts a full stop to a certain number of exercises. He sets down an end point, but how are we to understand the meaning of this end point?

Il est frappant que Clive Hart mette l’accent sur le cyclique et sur la croix comme étant substantiellement ce à quoi Joyce se rattache. Certains d’entre vous savent qu’avec ce cercle et cette croix, je dessine le nœud borroméen. Interroger Joyce sur ceci,

It is striking that Clive Hart should put so much emphasis on the cyclical and the cross as fundamental to an understanding of Joyce. Some might recall that my own borromean knot is made up of a circle and a cross too. Just imagine asking Joyce what the

It is striking that Clive Hart emphasizes the cyclic and the cross as that to which Joyce substantially attaches himself. Some among you know that with this circle and cross, I draw the borromean knot. To interrograte Joyce on this, what this knot produces, namely the ambiguity of

It is striking that Clive Hart should lay the emphasis on the cyclical aspect and on the cross as being what Joyce substantially attaches himself to. Some of you know that with this circle and this cross I have been tracing out the Borromean knot. Examining Joyce at the

Page | 28



que ce nœud produit, à savoir l’ambiguïté du 3 et du 4, à savoir ce à quoi il restait collé, attaché, à l’interrogation de Vico, à des choses pires, à la conversation avec les esprits, qu’Atherton range d’ailleurs sous le titre général de spiritualism, ce qui m’étonne, car j’avais appelé ça jusqu’à présent spiritisme. Il est assurément surprenant de voir qu’à l’occasion, cela contribue dans Finnegans au titre du symptom.

borromean knot produces, that is, the ambiguity of 3 and 4, that is that which he was stuck to: Vico’s questioning, and worse, the habit of chatting with spirits – what Atherton roughly labels spiritualism, which I find surprising, as I would have said spiritism. It is utterly amazing that this should occasionally contribute to what amoun

joyce le symptôme i-5col´me-1--5-col.pdfj.a. miller’s consent in joyce avec lacan, paris:...

Documents