Maddening the Subjectile
Author(s): Jacques Derrida and Mary Ann Caws
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Yale French Studies, No. 84, Boundaries: Writing & Drawing (1994), pp. 154-171
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930185 .
Accessed: 19/07/2012 21:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
JACQUES DERRIDA
Maddeningthe Subjectile*
I wouldcall thisa scene,thescene ofthesubjectile,iftherewerenot
alreadya forceat worktherealreadyto makelittleofwhatalwayssets
the presthe elementof representation,
up the scene: the visibility,
ence ofa subject,evenan object.
Subjectile,thewordorthethingcan taketheplaceofthesubjector
oftheobject-being neitherone or theother.
Three times at least, to my knowledge,AntoninArtaudnames
"whatis called thesubjectile."He saysexactlythat:"whatis called
. . ." Indirectnomination,invisiblequotationmarks,allusionto the
discourseoftheother.He uses thewordoftheothersbutperhapshe
willhaveit saysomethingelse,perhapshe will tellit to do something
else.
All threetimes,it is to speak ofhis own drawings,in 1932,1946,
and 1947.
is it likelythathe reallyspoke about his drawings?
Nevertheless,
Andaboveall thatwe can or areallowedto?Wewon'ttellthestoryof
detailsof its coming-to-be.
the subjectile,rathersome remembered
The firsttime (later,we will be attentiveto what onlyhappened
onceforArtaud),on 23 September1932,he concludesa lettertoAndre
Rollandde Renevillelikethis:"Herewitha baddrawinginwhichwhat
is called thesubjectilebetrayedme."
Waita minute:a subjectilecan betrayyou?
And let's watch out, when Artaudevaluateshis paintingor his
*Thisis an excerptfromJacquesDerridaand Paule Thevenin,Artaud: Portraits,
ofJacquesDerridaand the
Dessins (Paris:Gallimard,1988).Withthekindpermission
translator,
MaryAnnCaws.
YFS 84, Boundaries: Writing& Drawing, ed.M. Reid,? 1994byYaleUniversity.
154
I
*
Jr
it
AI
l-Xe/L~irt-a
:;S.
'4 -#
\s
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PI
.I;
o
a
'e
.
-
Ai
AwIt
1. AntoninArtaud,La Machinede 1itre.
155
156
Yale FrenchStudies
drawings,when he speaksbadlyof them("a bad drawing"),a whole
it.Alreadyin 1932,it is notsimple
ofthebadreinforces
interpretation
to figureout what he is indictinghere: it is not only a questionof
is alreadyleveledat God.
technique,ofart,orofskill.The indictment
He is denouncingsome treason.Whatmusta subjectiledo to commit
treason?
In 1932,the wordcould seem to have been createdrecently.
The
currentdictionarieshad notyetadmittedit in thespokentongue.So
ofa "subjectile"remainsin doubt.PauleThevenin(who
thelegitimacy
has said everything
thathas to be knownaboutArtaud'sdrawingsand
whoseworkI am presuming
everyone
knows)Ijudgesitnecessarytobe
moreprecisein a note: "It's perhapsin theparttornfromthisletter
thatthedrawingwas to be found.AntoninArtaud,havingdefinitely
foundit too revealing,is said to have takenit away,tearingoffthe
bottomofthe page. He certainlywrote"subjectile,"(Artaud,vol. 5,
274).
Thisnotetellsus at leasttwothings.Firsta drawingcan be a partof
fromaccompanying
it.It joinswithit
a letter,it'scompletelydifferent
physicallybecause he is onlyseparateas the expression"partripped
off."And thento betraycan be understoodin a veryparticularsense,
to fail in one's promise,to belittlethe project,take one out of its
controlbutbydoingthis,to controlwhileat thesame timerevealing
it anddragging
itoutinto
theprojectas itis thusbetrayed.
Translating
thesubjectilewouldhavemadethedrawing
broaddaylight.
Betraying
"too revelatory,"
and ofa truthsufficiently
unbearableso thatArtaud
judgeditnecessaryto destroy
itssupport.This latterwas stronger
than
him,and because he had not masteredthe rebelliousone, Artaudis
said to havesnatchedit away.
"He reallywrotesubjectile." Paul Theveninwarnsthosewho,because theydo notknowthisrareword,mightbe temptedto confuseit
withanother.
Withwhatotherwordcouldwe haveconfusedthedrawingitself,in
sum, the graphicformsummingup the 'subjectile'?With "subjec1. I am thinking
in particular
ofPauleTh6venin,
Recherche
d'unmondeperduand
aboveall ofEntendre/voir/lire
in Tel Quel 39 (Fall 1969)40
(Hearing/Seeing/Reading)
(Winter1970).See also Notesde travailsurles motsforges
parAntoninArtauddansce
texte(uncommentaire
surla maladressesexuellede dieu)in Peinture/Cahiers
theori1971:Lettrea Henry-ClaudeCousseausurles dessinsdAnques,no. 1,2ndtrimester
toninArtaud,Cahiersde l'AbbayeSainte-Croix
37,(1980);Dessin a regarder
de traviole
in Cafe3, (Fall 1983);catalogueoftheexhibitEcrituresdans la peinture,April-June
1984.Centrenationaldes artsplastiques,Villa Arson,Nice.
JACQUES DERRIDA
157
tive,"perhaps,thetreasonclose up. Butso manyotherwords,a great
familyofbitsand snatchesofwords,andArtaud'swordsarehaunting
thisword,drawingit towardsthe dynamicpotentialofall its meanings.Justtobeginbysubjective,subtle,sublime,also pullingtheil into
theile, and finishingwithprojectile.This is Artaud'sthought.The
bodyof his thoughtworkingitselfout in the graphictreatmentof
oftena surgery
of
thesubjectileis a dramaturgy
throughand through,
theprojectile.Betweenthe beginningand the end of theword(sub!
evilswho emergefromthedepthsto haunt
tile),all thesepersecuting
thesupports,
thesubstrata,and thesubstances:Artaudneverstopped
naming,denouncing,exorcising,conjuring,oftenthroughthe operathefiends[supp6ts]andsuccubi,thatis thewomenor
tionofdrawing,
sorcererswho changetheirsex to get in bed withman,or thenthe
vampireswho come to suck yourverysubstance,to subjugateyouto
stealwhatis mosttrulyyours.
ofhis body,sucha word,itselfsubjecThroughthetwoextremities
tile,can, like the drawingofa chimera,standto minglewitheverythingthatitis not.Althoughit seemstooclose to them,it drawsthem
towardsthe lure of an entireresemblance:the subjectiveand the
projectile.
Whatis a subjectile?Let's go slowly,not rushingthings,learning
andmakeitprecise:whatis "called
thepatienceofwhatis developing,
the subjectile"?ForAntoninArtauddoesn'tspeak of the subjectile,
onlyofwhat "is called" bythisname.To takeaccountofthecalling,
and whatis called. A subjectileis firstofall somethingto be called.
That the subjectileis something,thatis not yeta given.Perhapsit
else:
comesacrossas beingsomeoneinstead,andpreferably
something
it can betray.But the othercan be called somethingwithoutbeing,
withoutbeinga being,and aboveall nota subjectnorthesubjectivity
ofa subject.Perhapswe don'tknowyetwhat"is called"like this"the
subjectile,"thesubjectilityofthesubjectile,bothbecauseit does not
constitutean object of any knowingand because it can betray,not
come when it is called, or call beforeevenbeingcalled,beforeeven
itsname.At theverymomentwhenit is born,whenit is not
receiving
yet,and thedrawingofArtaudsituatesthiscoup de force,a subjectile
calls and somethingbetrays.That's what I can say aboutit to begin
with.
At leastin thislanguage.In French,we thinkwe haveknownfora
sense.We
shorttimewhattheword"subjectile"means,in its current
withArtaud.Contemporary
dictiobelieveit to be contemporaneous
158
Yale FrenchStudies
But theyare
nariesdate it fromthe middleofthe twentiethcentury.
an old word,FrenchorItalian.2The
wrong,theyarereallyreactivating
notionbelongsto thecode ofpaintingand designateswhatis in some
waylyingbelow(sub=jectum)as a substance,a subjectora succubus.
Betweenthe beneathand the above,thatis at once a supportand a
sometimesalso thematterofa paintingora sculpture,everysurface,
thingdistinctfromform,as well as fromthesenseandrepresentation,
Its presumeddepthor thicknesscan only
whichis notrepresentable.
thatofthewall orofwood,butalreadyalso thatof
be seenas a surface,
paper,oftextilesand ofthepanel.A sortofskinwithholes forpores.
Wecan distinguishtwoclasses ofsubjectile,and accordingto a critein the surgeryof Artaud:in this
rionwhich will decide everything
howdoesthesubjectile
manualoperationthatis a drawing,
apparently
thosesubjectilesthat
For
traversed?
we
just
oppose
permititselfto be
letthemselvesbe traversed(wecall themporous,likeplasters,mortar,
textiles,paper)andtheothers(metalsortheiralloys)
wood,cardboard,
whichpermitno passage.
About the subjectilewe would have to-yes-write what is unbutdiscreetly,
for
To writeaccordingto thenewphrasing,
translatable.
we
resistanceto translationwhen it is organized,noisy,spectacular,
2. 1amaddingthreedetails,whichall dependon textsI havejustbecomeacquainted
has alreadygoneto theprinter's.
a. As forthe"Italian"
with,nowthatthismanuscript
totheLettersofPontormo
toVarchi,editedbyJean-Claude
source,I refer
Lebensztejn
in
Avant-guerre
and
(1981,2, 52-55). Here we read: ". . . Sculptureis such a dignified
eternalthing,butthiseternity
has moreto do withthemarblequarriesofCarrarathan
withthevalueoftheArtist,
becauseitis a bettersubjectforthat,andthissubject,which
is tosay,relief. . ." Lebensztejnnotesherethat"subject,soggetto,
thematedesignates
rial substanceof art,its substratum,
subjectum,hypokeimenon."
"Pontormo'sargumentaboutthesubject,he adds,wasalreadypresentin Leonardo(withouta subject).We
findit againin Bronzino'sletterto Varchi(witha subject).This timeit is 'in piiusaldo
subbietto."'b. The verybeautifulbook thatGeorgesDidi-Huberman
just published
withthe titlePaintingIncarnate(Paris:Minuit,1985) calls the subjectile"the old
notionof the subjectile"and refersto JeanClay to whom "we owe its theoretical
reestablishment."
discov(38).c. Paule Theveninhas justgivenme a textshe recently
ered,aboutwhicheverything
letsus supposethatArtaudhadreadit.The wordsubjectile appearsin it threetimes.It is an articlethatTristanKlingsordevotedto Pierre
Bonnardin 1921 (in lAmourde lart, secondyear,no. 8, August1921):"The use ofa
untilnow,thatis cardboard,
subjectile,so infrequent
facilitates
his research.The way
thecardboard
absorbsso readilyletshimgetridoftheoil colors.... In addition,Pierre
witha seemingnegligence,
lets thissubjectileshowthrough
Bonnard,
hereand there.
Sinceitis ratherwarmin nuance,generally
withthecoldtoneslaid
golden,it contrasts
downbythepainterandgivesthemthemostexquisitefinesse.Evenbetter,
itguarantees
a generalharmonyto thework.... Once thenuancesthatcardboard
giveshavebeen
themto his canvas,he keepshis orchestration
theartistwill transport
in
discovered,
thesubjectile."
changing
JACQUES
DERRIDA
159
In truthitssecretshouldonlybe
alreadyknowit has beenrepatriated.
sharedwiththetranslator.
thatis axiomaticand orgaA subjectilecan appearuntranslatable,
nizes the bodilystrugglewith Artaud.By which two thingscan be
meant.First,theword"subjectile"is notto be translated.
Withall its
semanticorformalkinship,fromthesubjectiveto thetactile,ofsupport,succubusorfiendswitha projectile,etc.,it will nevercrossthe
borderoftheFrenchlanguage.On theotherhand,a subjectile,thatis
to saythesupport,thesurfaceor thematerial,theuniquebodyofthe
workin its firstevent,at its momentof birth,whichcannotbe repeated,whichis as distinctfromtheformas fromthemeaningandthe
here again defiestranslation.It will neverbe transrepresentation,
portedin anotherlanguage.Unless it is takenoverbodilyand intact,
like a foreignsubstance.So we shall be able to conclude: 1) What
exceedstranslationreallybelongsto language.2) Whatso drastically
exceedslinguistictransfer
remainson thecontrary
tolanguage
foreign
as an elementof the discourse.3) The word"subjectile"is itselfa
subjectile.
How to measurethe consequencesofthisparadox?I will dareto
make the claim thatwe have to embroilourselvesin theparadoxin
orderto approachthe paintedor drawnworkofArtaud.This spatial
workwould be firstof all a corporealstrugglewith the questionof
language-and at thelimit,ofmusic.
No wayofpassingoverthisfact:whatI am writingherein French,
in a languagewhat was up to a certainpointand mostoftenthatof
You
Artaud,shouldfirstbe appearingin a languagesaid to be foreign.
arereadingin Germanhere3whatwas firstdestinedto offer
a subtle
resistanceto translation.But sinceyou are readingme in German,it
meansthatthistexthas nevertheless
been translated,
whereasat no
momentwould one have thoughtof translating
the drawingsor the
paintings,nor indeed the wordsor phrasescontainedin them-by
Artaud'sownhand.Incorporated,
thatis tosay,inscribedin thegraphic
corpusin theverysubstanceofthe subjectile.
To defytheforeigner,
notin ordertowritein goodoldFrench,
buton
thecontrary
to undertaketheexperiment,
to translatethecrossingof
theFrench,mynaturallanguage,
mylanguage,to thepointofforcing
theonlymothertongueable to serveas an ultimatesupportto whatI
3. Atthemomentwhenthesepageswerewritten
theyweresupposedtoappearfirst,
in factonly,in translation.
160
Yale FrenchStudies
am callingupon first.The Frenchlanguageis theone in whichI was
born,ifI maysay,andin whichI findmyselfevenas I debatewithit or
againstit.I am writingin thesubstanceoftheFrenchlanguage.(How
will theytranslatethat?)
Now at themomentofspeakingthelanguagesaidto be maternal,
I
remember
thelast arrivalofthesubjectile,theultimateoccurrenceof
thewordin thehand ofArtaud.Fatherandmotherarenotfaroff:"The
figureson the inertpage said nothingundermy hand. They offered
themselvesto me like millstoneswhichwouldnot inspiremydrawing,and thatI could probe,shape,scrape,plane down,dew,unsew,
withoutthesubjectileevercomplainshred,tearup,and sew together
ingthroughmyfatherand mother."(1947)
How can a subjectile,untranslatable,
we werewondering
betray,
justa momentago.Whatmustithavebecomenow,in thereturnofthe
wordfifteen
yearslater,in orderneverto complain"throughfatheror
at themomentwhenI am attacking
itsunresisting
mother,"
bodywith
in
so manycoups de forceand so manyways,delivering
myselfup to
himin orderto deliverhimso manyoperationswithmyhands,when
the surgeonthatI am demandsto probe,shape,scrape,plane down,
withoutthesubjectileever
dew,unsew,shred,tearup,andsewtogether
complainingthroughmyfatherand mother."(1947)
Whathad happenedin the interval(1932-1947) Something?An
event,once,on such and such a date?
Andsincea certain
dayinOctober1939I havenever
without
written
again
drawing.
NowwhatI draw
from. . .4
is nolonger
themesofArttransposed
No longertohaveto transpose,totranslate.Mustwe writeagainstour
mothertongue to do that? Preciselyin orderto renderwhat is
untranslatable?
But no one can say calmlythatFrenchwas Artaud'sonlymother
tongue,northatlanguageis justa support,as youmightsayofa paper
or a textile,of a wall or a panel. Unless you treatit in its turnas a
subjectile,thissortofsubjectwithouta subject,withthismanneror
all wholestoryin an instant,in factthestory
thismaneuverbetraying
of a betrayal.Beingand god would be implicatedin this trialof the
and malfeasance,subterfuge
or swindle.
subjectile:perversion
4. Dix ans que le langage est parti ...
1947, in Luna-Park no. 5, October 1979, 8.
JACQUES
DERRIDA
161
So it would be necessaryto writewhile drawingbyhand,against
thislanguage,andhaveit outwiththeso-calledmothertongueas with
any other,makingoneselfscarcelytranslatable,
startingfromit but
also withinit (I am speakingofAuseinandersetzung,
of Ubersetzung
in itwhereI am supposedtohavebeen
and,whynot,ofUntersetzung),
born:butwhereI was still,Artaudwouldsay,inthetwistitimposeson
the syntaxof this wordinnate. This supposednaturaltongue,this
tongueyou are bornwith,it will be necessaryto forceit,to renderit
completelymad, and in it again the subjectile,this wordwhich is
scarcelyevenFrench,in orderto describethesupportofthepictogram
whichis still resonatingwiththe traceleftin it bya projectile.This
came to perforate
its surfacefeelingbutsometimesresistant,
thesurfaceofa subjectivity
appeasedand reassured:theprecariousoutcome
ofthework.
The Germansdon'thave anywordsubjectile,althoughtheywere
thefirstto projectthisgreatcorpusofAntoninArtaud'spictograms,
and to publishit separately,
eventhoughit is inseparable.As certain
dictionariestell us, we didn'thave thiswordin Frencheithera short
while ago,but at least it suits our Latinity.The Germans-thinkof
Fichteor Heidegger-have alwaystriedto take back theirlanguage
againstRome.Artaudtoo, and thisisn't the onlythingtheyhave in
thisseemsto some.In otherconditions,
common,howeverhorrifying
withtime enoughand takingthe necessaryprecautions,I would be
temptedto insiston thepossibleencounterswhichdidn'ttakeplace
betweenHeideggerandArtaud.Amongmanyotherthemes,theone of
in Heidegger's
theinnateandthe Ungeborene
readingofTrakl,andthe
questionofbeing,quite simply,and ofthrowing[jeter]and ofgiving
[donner].
Artaud,then,againsta certainLatinity.Whathe sayson thissubject about the mise-en-sceneis also valid,as is alwaystrue,forthe
pictogramand forwhat doesn'tnecessarilyhappenor does so only
words:
through
In oppositionto thispointofview,whichstrikesme as altogether
Westernor ratherLatin,thatis, obstinate.I maintainthatinsofaras
thislanguagebeginswiththe stage,drawsits powerfromits spontaneouscreationon stage,and struggles
directlywiththestagewithout
resortingto words . . . it is mise en scene that is theater,much more
thanthe writtenand spokenplay.No doubtI shall be asked to state
whatis Latin about this pointofview opposedto my own. Whatis
Latinis theneed to use wordsin orderto expressideas thatare clear.
162
Yale FrenchStudies
else,areideas
Becauseforme clearideas,in thetheateras in everything
thatare dead and finished.5
The Germanshave no subjectile,but how would we know that
withoutArtaudwho neveronlyuses it butattacksit,quarrelswithit
putsit throughthe
openly,seducesit,undertakesto pierceit through,
andfirstofall,namesit?Not so muchin orderto dominateit
wringer,
todeliversomeoneorsomething
else
buttodeliverfroma domination,
thatisn'tyetborn.He attacksitlikea Latinword.Withouthavingany
of
fearoftheword:likea Latinthing,likethishistoricalsedimentation
a thingand a wordconsolidatedtogethernotfarfromthesubjectand
thesubstance,fromDescartes'"clearideas."6
French.To maddenthe
I don'tknowifI am writingin an intelligible
subjectile,is thatstill French?
subthiswordthatI wantedto decomposesurreptitiously,
Forcene&
jectilely,in for,fort,force,for,andne, lettingall thewordsin or,hors,
sortincubatein it,I thoughtit was limitedto its adjectivalusageas a
past participle.The infinitiveseemedto me excluded,foreclosedin
it fortheneedsofa cause requiring
fact,andI thoughtI was inventing
oflanguage.Butthatisn'titat all,forforcener
exists,even
someforcing
5. IV,39. AA, 234. AA refersto theWritings
ofAntoninArtaud,ed. SusanSontag
(New York:FarrarStrausGiroux,1976).The numbersreferto pagesin thisvolume.
6. Artauddoesto theFrenchlanguagewhathe doesto thesubjectile.He blamesit,
scoldsit,operateson it,mistreatsit in orderto seduceit,etc.Fromnowon,thereader
can translatein "French,"by "the Frenchlanguage"said to be the mothertongue
the "subjectile."But to writeagainst,absolutelyagainstone's
everything
concerning
mothertonguewhatyoucan do bestis toleave it,restin it,beton it,leaveit also forthe
necessarydepartureand separation:"We have to vanquishFrenchwithoutleaving
it, / Forfifty
yearsithas heldme in itstongue./ Now I haveanothertongueunder(sic)
withthefactthatI am French/ andin thewaythat
tree.""To managethat,/starting
bestexpressesmypresentforceofwill,actual,immediate,
human,authoritarian,
/ and
correct/ forno matterwhatis me, mywayofdoingit is notthatofa being./ It will
alwaysbe me speakinga foreign
languagewithan alwaysrecognizable
accent."As we
will see later,you have to repairthe sick body,put it back to new,really,to thevery
as an egg,haveitbornagain.Andthatwillbe trueforthesubjectileas muchas
beginning
forFrench:"As forFrench,it makes you sick,/ it is the sickest,/ witha sickness,
tiredness,
/ whichmakesyoubelievethatyouareFrench,/ thatis to say,finished,/ a
Andat themomentoftranslating,
whathe means("ittranspersonfinished."
precisely,
latesquiteexactlywhatI mean")speakingofwhat,we will see,inhabitsorhauntsthe
subjectile,thatis, thefiend.Artaudwrites:"It'sthebasisoftheRamayananotto know
whatthesoulis madeof,buttofindthatitis andalwayswas madeofsomething
which
wasbefore,
andI don'tknowifin Frenchtheword"remanence"exists,butit translates
nota deposit[dep6tJ
quiteexactlywhatI mean,thatthesoul is a fiend[supp6tJ,
buta
wantedto subsist,I
supp6t,whichalwayspicksitselfup andrisesfromwhatformerly
wouldliketo sayremains[remanerlto dwellin orderto remain,to emanatein keeping
everything
else,to be theelse whichis goingto comebackup." TextsquotedbyPaule
Tel Quel, 40, 72,and39, 55, 57, 58.
Theveninin Entendre/voir/lire,
JACQUES
DERRIDA
163
ifits use is rareand outmoded.But onlyin an intransitiveform.You
un subjectilein Frenchwithoutforcing
thegrammar
can'tforcener
of
orle forcenement,
theact or
thewordat thesame time.La forcenerie
inforcener
thestateoftheforceneconsistsimply,andintransitively,
or
in se forcener,
thatis to say,losingyourreason,moreexactly,your
horssens,withoutsense (forsand sen.) Litsense,in findingyourself
tre'setymology
seemsreliablein thiscase: "Provencal:for~enat;Italian, forsennato;fromthe Latin foris,hors,and the GermanSinn or
sens,sense: outsideof yoursenses. The spellingforcenewitha c is
to the etymologyand incorrect;it isn't even borneout by
contrary
traditionaluse, and onlycomes froman unfortunate
confusionwith
thewordforce,and it wouldbe farbetterto writeforsene."The word
wouldthencorrespond
withthisGermanWahnsinnige
aboutwhich
remindsus thatitdoesn'tinitiallyindicatethestateofa madHeidegger
ofsomeonementallysick,butthatoriginally,
man(Geisteskrank),
what
is without(ohne)anysense,withoutwhatis senseforothers:"Wahn
belongsto Old HighGermanandmeansohne:without.The demented
whichwe could translatein Frenchas forperson[derWahnsinnige,
sene] dreams[sinnt]and he dreamsas no one else could.... He is
giftedwithanothersense [withanothermeaning,anderSinnes].Sinmeans:to travel,to stretchtowards.. . , to takea direcnan originally
rootsentand set meanpath."7
tion.The Indo-European
I am surethatwhatI am writingwill notbe translatable
intoGerman.NorintoArtaud'slanguage.ShouldI be writinglikeArtaud?I am
incapableofit and besides,anyonewho wouldtryto writelike him,
underthepretextofwritingtowardshim,wouldbe evensurerofmissinghim,would lose the slightestchanceeverofmeetinghim in the
Butwe shouldn'tgivein
ridiculousattemptofthismimeticdistortion.
Artaud
whichwill not be, any
kind
of
about
eitherto the
judgment
morethanhisname,thesubjectortheobject,stillless thesubjectileof
somelearneddiagnosis.All themorein thatitis a questionofwhatare
calledhis drawingsand his paintings,notonlyofhis speech.Himself
and we can verifythis,neverwritesabout his drawings
furthermore,
andpaintings,
ratherin them.The relationis different,
oneofimprecationandargument,
andfirstofall one thatrelatestoa subjectile,thatis
availablefora support.
We cannotand should not writelike Artaudabout Artaudwho
7. MartinHeidegger,Unterwegs
zur Sprache,53, Frenchtranslation:
Acheminementverslaparole(Paris:Gallimard,1976),56.The trajectory
(aswellas thespurtorthe
Inotherwordsthepath(sent,set-)oftheforcenementis whatwewill
jectofa projectile).
tryto followherebetweena numberoflanguages.
164
Yale FrenchStudies
himselfneverwroteabout his drawingsand paintings.So who could
thenclaim to writelike Artaudabout his drawingsorpaintings?
Wehave to inventa wayofspeaking,and signit differently.
Yes or no, we mustfinishwiththe subjectile,a mimemightsay.
Andhe wouldn'tbe wrong,forwe are spectatorsofthescene: in this
matterofthe subjectile,it is certainlya judgmentof God. And it is
certainlya matterofhavingdone withit, interminably.
Let'sgiveup on it forthemoment.
Eventhougha subjectilesignsin advance,forAntoninArtaud,in
in the verymoment
even of perforation,
thisplace of precipitation,
we havetolearnnottorush
whensucha projectiletouchesthesurface,
we shouldtakethetimeneededto absorbthe
to seize,to understand,
ink of so manywordsthatshoulddepositthemselvesslowlyin the
thicknessofthebody:exactlythe one ofthe subjectilewhosenature
Does it evenhave an essence?
we stilldo notunderstand.
So let'snotrushto thequestion:whatis a subjectile?Whatis being
as a subjectile?
whenit is determined
The wordshouldbe translatablein German,sinceit has to go outsideofFrenchto comeback,crossingtheborderseveraltimes.Unless
it institutesitselfthe borderthatit itselfis, betweenbeneathand
beforeand behind,hereandoverthere,on
above(supportand surface),
theborderofa textile,paper,veil
thisside andon that,back andforth,
Forcanwe enter,byperforation
and
what?
orcanvas,butbetweenwhat
intowhathas no otherconsistencyapartfromthatof
or deflowering,
thebetween,at least unlesswe lendit anotherone?
No doubtthe Germanswill insertthe Latin wordlike a foreign
bodyin theirown language:intact,untouchable,impassive.Perhaps
withthesubjecthatis justas well.The meaningofthisbodilystruggle
body?What
tilewillprobablyhavebeen:howdo youaddressa foreign
aboutskill [adresse]and awkwardness[maladresse]in relationto the
body?whataboutprosthesis?whatabout "artificialfecundaforeign
tion"againstwhichArtaudprotests"tohave donewiththejudgment
ofGod"?
A subjectileis not a subject,still less the subjective,noris it the
objecteither,butthenexactlywhat,and does thequestionof"what"
have any meaningforwhat is betweenthis or that,whateverit is?
ofa subjectile,in thismatterofdrawingby
Perhapstheinterposition
hand,in this maneuveror meddling[manigances]is what matters.
facetofacewiththe
tobe everinfront,
Let'sgiveup firstofall trying
or
never
be
whichwill
objects subjectspresentforus. We
pictograms
JACQUES
DERRIDA
165
won'tbe describing
anypaintings.The paradigmofthesubjectile:the
tableitself!We won't everspeak of it if to speak of means to speak
aboutobjectsor subjects.
Butif,evensometimesoccupyingtheirplaceandbeingin theplace
ofit,a subjectileis neveridentified
withthesubjectortheobject,is it
to be confusedwithwhatArtaudso oftenlikes to call a motif?No, it
of
woulddecideon themotif,butitis truethatin theverycounterforce
thisdecisionwe see the hintofa place ofextremetension.Whatexactlyis a motif?"Forthemotifitself,whatis it?" Artaudasks in Van
Gogh,theMan Suicided by Society,implyingby the questionthata
motifis nothing,but so singularly
nothingthatit neverlets itselfbe
constitutedin the stasis of a being.This wordmotif(howwill they
translatethat?)certainlyhas the advantageof substitutingthe dymobility,
emotion)for
namicsandtheenergyofa motion(movement,
thestability
ofa -ject[jet]whichwouldcomeinstallitselfintheinertia
in one ofVanGogh's
ofa subjectorobject.Whathe givesup describing
canvasses,Artaudinscribesin thecenterthemotif,in thecenterofthe
"strokes,""commas,"
"forces"andthewritingforces("apostrophes,"
"thecanvas,"
"bars,"etc.)withtheseactsof"blocking,""repression,"
Herewe haveto quote: "How easyit seems
and so on as protagonists.
to writelike this,"thewholepageofresponse"forwhatexactlyis the
motifitself?"
So I shallnotdescribea paintingofvan Goghaftervan Gogh,butI
shall say thatvan Gogh is a painterbecause he recollectednature,
it andmadeit sweat,becausehe squeezedonto
becausehe reperspired
his canvasesin clusters,in monumentalsheavesofcolor,thegrinding
ofelementsthatoccursonce in a hundredyears,the awfulelementarypressureof apostrophes,scratches,commas,and dasheswhich,
afterhim,one can no longerbelievethatnaturalappearancesarenot
madeof.
And what an onslaughtof repressedjostlings,occular collisions
takenfromlife,blinkingstakenfromnature,have theluminouscurrentsoftheforceswhichworkon realityhad to reversebeforebeing
finallydriventogetherand, as it were,hoistedonto the canvas,and
accepted?
Thereare no ghostsin the paintingsofvan Gogh,no visions,no
hallucinations.
oftheprenatalis there(Artaud,XIII,42-43; AA,
Butthesuffering
499).
166
Yale FrenchStudies
The factthatlateron Van Goghis creditedwithhavinghad "the
audacityto attack a subject . . .", that doesn't mean that therewas any
subjectforhim,no matterhow simple,evenifit happenedto be "of
In theflowofthiswayofspeaking,it can
suchdisarmingsimplicity."
be understoodthatthesubjectpreciselyattackedwerenotgoingto be
or shouldnot be anylongerone. And thisis thefollowingparagraph:
"No, thereareno ghostsin van Gogh'spainting,no drama,no subject,
andI wouldevensayno object,forwhatis themotif?/ Ifno something
like theironshadowofthe motetofan ancientindescribablemusic,
theleitmotivofa themethathas despairedofits own subject./ It is
nature,nakedand pure,seen . . ." (Artaud,42-43; AA, 497).
This motif,we don't knowwhat it is-neither thisnor that-it
doubtlessno longerevenbelongstobeing,nortobeingas a subject.Ifit
is "ofnature"we shall haveto thinkofnaturecompletelydifferently,
andthehistoryofnature,thegenealogyofitsconcept,inotherwordsof
its birthand conception:up to the innee,thisneologismofArtaud
what is not bornin what
wherenaturecollides with its contrary,
ofthepre-natal"whichappearsas a
seemsto be inne,the "suffering
monstrosity.
Underthesurfaceoftheword,and underthesense,horssens,the
of
passagefrommotiftomotetdoesn'tobeyonlytheformalattraction
thewords,themots,motifs,and motets,althoughwhenyou let the
attraction
playunderthemeaning,youdraworsingratherthanspeaking,youwritetheunwritable.No, thispassagealso convokesthemultiplicityof the voices in a motelin painting.It promisessomething
essentialin what Artaudstill understandsby painting:an affairof
oftone,ofintonation,ofthunderand detonation,
ofrhythm,
sonority,
ofvibration,theextremetensionofa polyphony.
This shouldbe readlike a book aboutmusic,accordingto Artaud.
The "untellableantiquemusic"tearsaparttheveilofa birth,
revealing
"nakednature,"the originwhose access has been forbidden
by this
The leit"nature,"concealingeven the source of this interdiction.
motiv,thisreallymusical motifofpainting,its guidingforceand its
majorestheticpassion,we mustnotmixitup witha theme,themeaningofan objectora subject,suchas it couldbeposed there.A themeis
forhis partdoesn'talways
alwaysposed or supposed.The leitmtotif
answerin itselflike a stablesupport:no moresubjectile,thislast is
ofa themeis whatan expropricarriedawaybythemotif.The property
ationhas deprivedus, and it is as ifwe had been deprivedofourown
distancedfromour own birth.Acrossthe "prenatalsuffermemory,
JACQUES
DERRIDA
167
ing",we cannotmeet back up with innatenature(in-ne)exceptby
itmad frombirth.Youhavetomakeit
thesubjectile,rendering
forcing
desire this birth,and to maddenit fromthe outset in
frenetically
makingit come out of itselfto announcethisnextproximity:"It is
nature,naked and pure,seen as she revealsherselfwhen one knows
howto approachhercloselyenough"(AA,500).Music,nature,seeing:
confinesyou to madness,but
thesame: seen (vue).Such a proximity
the one thatsnatchesyou fromthe othermadness,the madnessof
ofstabilizationin theinertwhensensebecomesa subjecstagnation,
or objectivized,and thesubjectile,a tomb.
tivizedtheme,introjected
Butyoucanforcethetomb.You can maddenthesubjectileuntil-mad
frombirth-it giveswayto theinnate(inne),whichwas assassinated
thereone day.A violentobstetricsgivespassageto thewordsthrough
whichhoweverit passes. Withall the music,painting,drawing,it is
operatingwitha forceps.
Of course,Artaudwas speakingof Van Gogh here.But without
givingin to thecliche("speakingin frontofVanGoghhe is speakingof
himself,
etc.)" we havetorecognizethatAntoninArtaudcouldn'thave
enteredintothatrelationship,
intotherealmoftherelationwithVan
Gogh exceptin givinghimselfover to the experimentthathe was
renouncing
exactlythat,describingthestabilityofa painting.
Andthisexperiment
is thetraversalofthisjetee,thistrajectory.
I
am callingbythename ofspurtingorjetee themovementthat,without everbeingitselfat theorigin,is modalized and dispersesitselfin
thetrajectories
ofthe objective,the subjective,theprojectile,introjection,objection,dejection,and abjection,and so on. The subjectile
remainsbetweenthesedifferent
jetees,whetherit constitutesits underlyingelement,the place and the contextof birth,or interposes
itself,like a canvas,a veil,a paper"support,"thehymenbetweenthe
insideand the outside,the upperand the lower,the overhereor the
overthere,orthenfinallybecomingin itsturnthejetee,notthistime
like the movementitselfofsomethingwhichis thrownbut like the
hardenedfallofa mass ofinertstonein theport,thelimitofan "arrestedstorm,"the dam. Givingitselfoverentirely,
hurlingitselfinto
theexperienceofthisthrowing
Artaudcouldentertherealmof
[jeteJe,
relationshipwithVan Gogh.And all the questionswe will listento
fromnowonresound:whatis a port,a porte'e,
a rapportifthesubjectile
is announcedas the supportofthe drawingand painting?Whatdoes
portermeanin thiscase? Andthrowing,
hurling,sending?Is spurting
[la jeteJea modeofsendingorofgiving?Mightitbe rathertheinverse?
168
Yale FrenchStudies
Mustwe choose?Whatis it?Is itthesamething?Is it?Is itstillpossible
to submitthatto the questionwhatis it?The wayArtaudtreatsthe
questionofbeing[etre]and ofbeinginess[etrete'(hisword)8will occawiththejetee,not
sionallybe opento doubt.Beingshowsup starting
the inverse.We don't even have to speak of pulsion or compulsive
interestin thedirectionofthespurt[jet].The thoughtofthethrowing
is thethoughtofpulsionitself,ofthepulsionalforce,ofcompulsion
and expulsion.Forcebeforeform.And I shall tryto show thatit is
AntoninArtaud'sthoughtitself.Beforeanythematicsofthespurt,itis
his painting,his drawings.And
at workin thecorpusofhis writings,
indissociablefromcruelthought,
in otherwords,a
fromthebeginning,
is a spurtofblood.In 1922,Works
thoughtofblood. The firstcruelty,
and Men: "We have to wash literatureoffourselves.We wantto be
else. Thereareno formsoranyform.Thereis
humansbeforeanything
onlythegushingforthoflife.Lifelike a spurtofblood,as Claudelputs
it so well, speakingofRimbaud.The mode now is anti-Claudel,and
Claudel amongus is perhapstheonlyone who in his goodmoments
doesn'tmake literature"(Artaud,204).
The subjectile:itselfbetweentwoplaces.It has twosituations.As
it's the subjectwhichhas becomea
the supportof a representation,
Butifit doesn't
out,inert,neutral(ci-git).
gisant,spreadout,stretched
fallout like this,ifit is not abandonedto thisdownfallor thisdejecforitselfandnotforitsrepresentation,
for
tion,itcanstillbe ofinterest
it bears.It is thentreated
orfortherepresentation
whatit represents
otherwise:as thatwhichparticipatesin theforceful
orcastthrowing
ing,but also, and forjust that,as what has to be traversed,
pierced,
penetratedin orderto have done with the screen,thatis, the inert
The subjectile,forexamplethepaperorthe
supportofrepresentation.
a
then
becomes
canvas,
membrane;and the trajectoryof what is
thrownuponit shoulddynamizethisskinin perforating
it,traversing
to theotherside: "afterhavingexplodedthewall of
it,passingthrough
theproblem,"as he saysin Fiendsand Tortures[Suppotset suppliciations].I hastento quote thesewordsand thisworkso as to insistthat
we will neverhearanythingabout the subjectilewithouthavingthe
fiendandthetorture
resoundin it.Andwithoutreadingthepagesthat
bearthistitle.
8. "Theyhavedippedme threetimesin thewatersoftheCocytus/ andprotecting
all alone,alonein myobstinatebeingness,/ andprotecting
mymotherAmalycytus
all
thismotherofan obstinateAnteros?"(Quotedby
alone,/ and whynow Amalycytus
PauleThevenin,Tel Quel 39:32. My emphasis.)
JACQUES
DERRIDA
169
The subjectileresists.It has to resist.Sometimesit resiststoo
much,sometimesnot enough.It must resistin orderto be treated
finallyas itselfand not as the supportor thefiendofsomethingelse,
the surfaceor the subservientsubstratumof a representation.
This
latterhas to be traversed
in the directionofthe subjectile.Butinversely,the subjectile,a screenor supportforrepresentation,
must be
traversed
bytheprojectile.Wehave to pass beneaththeone whichis
alreadybeneath.Its inertbodymustnotresisttoo much.Ifit does,it
has tobemistreated,
violentlyattacked.Wewillcometoblowswithit.
The neither/nor
of the subjectile(neithersubservient,
nor dominating) situatesthe place of a double constraint:this way it becomes
unrepresentable.
Neitherobjectorsubject,neitherscreennorprojectile,thesubjectile can becomeall that,stabilizingitselfin a certainformormoving
aboutin another.Butthedramaofits ownbecomingalwaysoscillates
ofjacere and the transitivity
betweenthe intransitivity
ofjacere,in
whatI will call the conjectureofboth.In the firstcase, jaceo, I am
stretchedout,lyingdown,gisant,in mybed,broughtdown,brought
low,withoutlife,I am whereI havebeenthrown.This is thesituation
ofthesubjectorthesubjectile:theyarethrownbeneath.In thesecond
case, jacio, I throwsomething,a projectile,thus,stones,a firebrand,
seed (ejaculated),or dice-or I cast a line. At the same time,and beI can haveraisedit orfoundedit.Jacio
cause I havethrownsomething,
I institutebythrowcan also havethissense:I castdownfoundations,
ingout something.The subjectiledoes notthrowanything,
butit has
been cast down,evenfounded.A foundationin its turn,it can thus
serveas a support.
found,sustaina construction,
ofbeing-thrown
Betweenthetwoverbs,theintransitivity
and the
of throwing,
the difference
seems fromthenon to be as
transitivity
thatis to say,transitory.
The being-thrown
or
decisiveas temporary,
foundsin its turn.And I cannotthrow[jeter]or
the being-founded
ifI havenot been thrownmyself,at birth.
project[projeter]
will playitselfout fromnow on in thecriticalbutpreEverything
instableand reversible
betweenthesetwo.Such at
cariousdifference,
Butwhatwe will surelyverify,
leastwouldbe ourworkinghypothesis.
the subjectilealwayshas the functionof a
is that,hypothetically,
itexasperatesandkeepsyouin suspense,itmakesyougive
hypothesis,
out ofbreathbyalwaysbeingposed beneath.The hypothesishas the
formhere of a conjecture,with two contradictory
motifsin one.
the subjectileis nothinghowever,nothingbut a
Thrownthrowing,
170
YaleFrenchStudies
solidifiedintervalbetweenaboveand below,visibleand invisible,beforeand behind,thisside and that.
the subjectileis a figureofthe
Betweenlyingdownand throwing,
at all.
othertowardswhichwe shouldgiveup projectinganything
The otheror a figureoftheother?
Whatdoes Artaud'sdrawingor paintinghave to do with such a
oftheother?
figuration
Will this figuration
acceptlimits?paintingand drawingonly,in
Yesandno,yesin
oppositiontothediscursivetext,evenin thetheater?
naturecoversoverprefactand up to a certainpoint,whose arbitrary
ciselya whole storyofa dissociationthatArtaudwantsto traverse,
and thisis whyI
like a limitor a wall. Not byrightsand rigorously,
shallproposeto giveanothersense to thewordpictogramin orderto
designatethis workin which painting-the color,even when it is
black-drawing,and writingdon't toleratethe wall of any division,
artsnorthatofgenres,northatofsupportsor
neitherthatofdifferent
substances.The choice ofthiswordpictogrammayseemodd.It does
ofsomeimmediately
notlead to anysupposedprimitivity
representativewriting.Certainly,
pointsto
throughthemagicalforcesomething
we projectall themythsoforigin,through
a proto-wnridng
upon-which
ofspells cast or exorcized,theincantatory
or conjuring
theefficacity
would have some
virtues,alchemy,magnetism,such a pictography
affinity
withArtaud'sdrawings,paintings,and writings.But I shall
ofwhatis literallyunderstood
takeitto meanespeciallythetrajectory
theborderbetweenpaintingand drawing,
to traverse
drawingandvertheartsofspaceand theothers,
bal writing,and,stillmoregenerally,
thesubjectile,themotionofthe
betweenspaceandtime.Andthrough
motifassuresthe synergyof the visible and the invisible,in other
wordstheatricalpainting,literature,
poetryand music.Withoutany
totalizationand takingdue accountof the subjectilianwall, of this
dissociationin the bodyof which therewill alwaysbe markedthe
oftheeventmade work.
singularity
workbyinsertionand
Wecan onlyspeakofthiswholepictographic
projectionand the
precipitation,
by the accelerationofa rhythmical
ofa projectile,beyondwhatwe calmlycall wordsand iminscription
ages. We can thensay this: theseare writtendrawings,withphrases
them.I thinkI have
thatareinsertedin theformsin ordertoprecipitate
gottento somethingspecial this way,as in my books or in the theater . . ." This was at Rodez in 1945, and we will have to take account
in factthatofthesubjectile.Butas ifwe wereat theend
ofa trajectory,
JACQUES
DERRIDA
171
ofthistrajectory,
and in thepast (I think... I havearrived,")
a sortof
destinationseemstoprevailafterthefact.Thereis "thisside,"on this
side, thatis drawing,thatwill be distinguishedon one hand from
literature,
fromthetheater(thatis, sentences.)Buton theotherhand
thesedrawingsarewrittendrawingsthatcannotjustbeputonone side
anylongerandwhich-here is "somethingspecial"-contain phrases
and evenbetter,sentencesthatarenotonlytakenin,stuck,inserted,
theforms.Fromthenon,the
butwheretheinsertionitselfprecipitates
analogycarriesoffthelimits.WhatI havearrivedatis certainly
special,
unique,irreplaceable,
inimitable,butsingularlike whatI "arrivedat"
"in mybooksor theater."Justas in theinteriorofthe "writtendrawing,"thelimithas beencrossed,thebreakingdownofthebarrier
in the
other"arts"abolishestheborderbetweenall these"arts."Everything
is singulareach time and each time analogical:a figurationof the
other.
Ifin thepictogramtherelationship
betweentheverbalwriting,
the
muteline and coloris analogousto whatit will havebeen
phonogram
inliterature
orin thetheateraccordingtoArtaud,no body,no corpusis
entirelyseparable.The phraseinsertedremainsat once inscribedand
theframe-lock
Itworksthecharter,
ofa stubbornspatiality.
quivering.
The phraseis notsoftened,it no moreletsitselfbe domesticatedthan
it mastersthemap.It does notlaydownthelaw,it doesnotenunciate
Butitsprotestation
thecharterofa constitution.
acceleratesa rhythm,
imprintsintonations,pulls the formalong in a musical or choreothefigures
wouldbecomeonce
graphicmotion.Withoutthismobility,
more,likethe"clearideas" oftheLatinworld,"deadandterminated."
Even if we recognizesome of the workingsof words,the inserted
ofsoundandwriting
phrasesriseup like enticingthemes,trajectories
andnotonlylike propositions.Once theyareputforth,
theydestabilize the proposition,thatis a certainhistoricalrelationbetweenthe
ofrepresentation.
subject,theobjectandthesubjectile.A relationship
Fromnow on, "pictogram"will indicatethisdestabilizationbecome
work.
-Translated byMaryAnn Caws