Unclaimed Experience: Trauma and the Possibility of History

Author(s): Cathy Caruth

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Yale French Studies, No. 79, Literature and the Ethical Question (1991), pp. 181-192
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930251 .
Accessed: 15/12/2011 02:43

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 support@jstor.org.

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 CATHY CARUTH

Unclaimed Experience:
Trauma and the PossibilityofHistory
... it took the war to teach it, that you were as responsible for
yousaw as youwereforeverything
everything youdid.The problem
was thatyoudidn'talwaysknowwhatyouwereseeinguntillater,
maybeyearslater,thata lot ofit nevermadeit in at all, it juststayed
storedtherein youreyes.
-Michael Herr,Dispatches

Recent literarycriticismhas shown an increasingconcernthat the epis-

temological problemsraised by poststructuralist criticism,in particular
deconstruction, necessarilylead to politicaland ethicalparalysis.The pos-
sibilitythat referenceis indirect,and that consequentlywe may not have
direct access to others',or even our own, histories,seems to imply the
impossibilityof any access to othercultures,and hence of any means of
makingpoliticalorethicaljudgments.1To such an argumentI would like to
contrasta phenomenonarisingnot onlyin the readingofliteraryor philo-
sophical texts,but emergingmost prominently withinthewiderhistorical
and political realms, that is, the peculiar and paradoxical experienceof
trauma.In its most generaldefinition,traumadescribesan overwhelming
experienceof sudden,or catastrophicevents,in which the responseto the
eventoccursin theoftendelayed,and uncontrolledrepetitiveoccurrenceof
hallucinationsand otherintrusivephenomena.2The experienceofthe sol-
dier facedwith sudden and massive death aroundhim, forexample,who
suffersthis sightin a numbed state, only to reliveit later on in repeated
nightmares,is a centraland recurring image oftraumain our century.As a
consequence of the increasingoccurrenceof such perplexingwar experi-
ences and othercatastrophicresponsesduringthelast twentyyears,physi-

1. Fora recentexpressionofthisopinion,see S. P. Mohanty,"Us andThem,"in The

YaleJournal ofCriticism2/2(Spring1989).
fortrauma,whichhasbeengivenvariousdescriptions
2. Thereis no firmdefinition at
varioustimesandunderdifferent names.Fora gooddiscussionofthehistoryofthenotion
andforrecentattempts todefineit,see TraumaandIts Wake,Volumes1 and2,ed.Charles
R. Figley(New York:Brunner-Mazel, 1985and 1986).

and theEthicalQuestion,ed. ClaireNouvet,X 1991byYale

YFS 79, Literature
University.
181
182 Yale French Studies
cians and psychiatrists have begunto reshapetheirthinkingaboutphysical
and mental experience,includingmost recentlythe responsesto a wide
varietyof experiences(includingrape,child abuse, auto and industrialac-
cidents,and so on) whicharenow oftenunderstoodin termsoftheeffects of
"post-traumaticstress disorder."I would propose that it is here, in the
equally widespreadand bewilderingencounterwith trauma-both in its
occurrence,and in theattemptto understandit-that we can begintorecog-
nize thepossibilityofa historywhichis no longerstraightforwardly referen-
tial (thatis, no longerbased on simple models ofexperienceand reference).
Throughthe notion of trauma,I will argue,we can understandthat a re-
thinkingofreference is notaimedat eliminatinghistory, butat resituatingit
in ourunderstanding, thatis, ofpreciselypermittinghistoryto arisewhere
immediate understandingmaynot.
The questionofhistoryis raisedmosturgentlyin one ofthefirstworksof
traumain this century,SigmundFreud'shistoryoftheJewsentitledMoses
and Monotheism.Because ofits seemingfictionalizationoftheJewishpast,
this work has raised ongoingquestions about its historicaland political
status; yetits confrontation with traumaseems,nonetheless,to be deeply
tied to our own historicalrealities.I have chosen this text as a focus of
analysis, therefore,because I believe it can help us understandour own
catastrophicera,as well as the difficulties ofwritinga historyfromwithin
it. I will suggestthatit is in thenotionofhistorywhichFreudoffers in this
work,as well as in thewayhis writingitselfconfronts historicalevents,that
we mayneed to rethinkthepossibilityofhistory,as well as our ethicaland
political relationto it.

The entanglementof Freud'sMoses and Monotheismwith its own urgent

historicalcontextis evidentin a letterwrittento ArnoldZweig in 1934,
while Freudis workingon thebook,andwhile Nazi persecutionsoftheJews
are progressingat rapidspeed. Freudsays:
Facedwiththenew persecutions, one asks oneselfagainhow the Jews
havecometo be whattheyareandwhytheyhaveattracted thisundying
hatred.I soon discoveredtheformula:Moses createdtheJews.3
The projectofMoses and Monotheismis clearlylinked,in theselines,to the
attemptto explaintheNazi persecutionoftheJews.Butthiscan apparently
be done,accordingto Freud,onlythroughreference to a past,and in particu-
lar to thepast representedbyMoses. Byplacingtheweightofhis historyon
thenamingofMoses, moreover,theliberatoroftheHebrewswho led them

3. Letterof30 May 1934. QuotedfromThe LettersofSigmundFreudand Arnold

Zweig,ed. ErnstL. Freud(New York:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,
1970).
 CATHY CARUTH 183
out ofEgypt,Freudimplicitlyand paradoxicallyconnectstheexplanationof
the Jews'persecutionto theirveryliberation,the returnfromcaptivityto
freedom.In the centralityofMoses thus lies the centralityofa return:the
returnoftheHebrewsto Canaan, wheretheyhad livedpriorto theirsettle-
ment,and bondage,in Egypt.Moses and Monotheism'smost directrefer-
ence to, and explanationof,its presenthistoricalcontextwill consist in
Freud'snew understandingof the storyof captivity,or exile, and return.4
The notion of Jewishhistory,as a historyof return,mightseem un-
surprisingin the perspectiveof a psychoanalyst,whose worksrepeatedly
focuson thenecessityofvariouskindsofreturn-on thereturnto originsin
memory,and on the "returnofthe repressed."But in the descriptionofhis
discovery,in the concise littleformulajotteddownforZweig, "Moses cre-
ated the Jews,"Freud suggeststhat the historyof the Jewssurpasses any
simplenotionofreturn.ForifMoses indeed"created"theJews,5 in his act of
liberation-if the exodus fromEgypt,thatis, transforms the historyofthe
Hebrews,who had previouslylivedin Canaan, into thehistoryoftheJews,
who become a truenation only in theiract ofleavingcaptivity-then the
momentofbeginning,the exodusfromEgypt,is no longersimplya return,
butis rather,moretruly,a departure.The questionwithwhichFreudframes
his text,and which will explainboth the Jews'historicalsituationand his
own participation,as a Jewishwriter,withinit,is thus: in what wayis the
historyofa culture,and its relationto a politics,inextricably
boundup with
the notion of departure?6
Freud'ssurprisingaccount ofJewishhistorycan be understood,indeed,
as a reinterpretation of the nature, as well as the significance,of the
Hebrews'returnfromcaptivity. In thebiblicalaccount,Moses was one ofthe
captiveHebrewswho eventuallyarose as theirleader and led them out of
Egyptback to Canaan. Freud,on theotherhand,announcesat thebeginning
ofhis accountthatMoses, thoughliberatoroftheHebrewpeople,was notin
facthimselfa Hebrew,but an Egyptian,a ferventfollowerof an Egyptian

4. Whiletheterm"exile,"usedin thecontextofJewishhistory,
refers,
strictly
speak-
ing,to theexilein Babylon,theEgyptiancaptivitywas considered
paradigmaticofthis
laterevent.Thus TheEncyclopediaofJudaismsays,undertheheading"exile,"that"itis
this 'prenatal'Egyptianservitudewhichbecomestheparadigmof Galut [exile]in the
rabbinicmind."See Geoffrey Wigoder,The EncyclopediaofJudaism(New York:Mac-
millan,1989).
5. "Created" is an accurate translationof the German text, which says
"hat . . . geschaffen."
6. Amongthemoreinteresting attemptsto grapplewiththepoliticaldimensionof
Moses and Monotheismare Jean-Joseph Goux, "Freudet la structurereligieusedu
nazisme,"in his Les Iconoclastes(Paris:Seuil, 1978); and PhilippeLacoue-Labarthe
et
Jean-LucNancy,"Le Peuplejuifne ravepas,"and Jean-Pierre Winter,"Psychanalyse
de
l'antisdmitisme,"bothin La Psychanalyseest-elleune histoirejuive?,ed. byAdelieet
Jean-Jacques
Rassiel(Paris:Seuil,1981).
184 Yale FrenchStudies
pharaoh and his sun-centeredmonotheism.Afterthe pharaoh's murder,
accordingto Freud,Moses became a leaderoftheHebrewsandbroughtthem
out of Egyptin orderto preservethe waningmonotheisticreligion.Freud
thus begins his storyby changingthe veryreason forthe return:it is no
longerprimarilythe preservationof Hebrew freedom,but of the mono-
theisticgod; thatis, it is notso muchthereturnto a freedomofthepast,as a
departureinto a newlyestablishedfuture-the futureofmonotheism.7In
thisrethinkingofJewishbeginnings,then,thefutureis no longercontinu-
ous with the past, but is unitedwith it througha profounddiscontinuity.
The exodus fromEgypt,which shapes the meaningofthe Jewishpast,is a
departurethat is both a radical break and the establishmentof a history.
The secondpartofFreud'saccountextends,and redoubles,thisrethink-
ing ofthereturn.Forafterthe EgyptianMoses led theHebrewsfromEgypt,
Freudclaims, theymurderedhim in a rebellion;repressedthe deed; and in
thepassingoftwo generations,assimilated-hisgod to a volcanogod named
Yahweh,and assimilatedthe liberatingacts ofMoses to the acts ofanother
man,thepriestofYahweh(also namedMoses),who was separatedfromthe
firstin time and place. The most significantmomentin Jewishhistoryis
thus,accordingto Freud,nottheliteralreturntofreedom, buttherepression
ofa murderand its effects:
The godJahveattainedundeserved honourwhen ... Moses' deedoflib-
erationwasputdowntohisaccount;buthehadtopayforthisusurpation.
The shadowofthegodwhoseplacehe had takenbecamestronger than
himself;at theendofthehistoricaldevelopment therearosebeyondhis
beingthatoftheforgotten Mosaic god.None can doubtthatit was only
theidea ofthisothergodthatenabledthepeopleofIsraelto surmountall
theirhardshipsand to surviveuntilourtime.[62; 50-5118
Ifthereturnto freedomis theliteralstartingpointofthehistoryoftheJews,
what constitutestheessence oftheirhistoryis therepression,andreturn,of
the deeds of Moses. The nature of literalreturnis thus displaced by the
natureof anotherkind ofreappearance:
To thewell-known history... we add twonewones:
dualityof[Jewish]
thefoundingoftwonewreligions,thefirstone oustedbythesecondand
7. Itis interesting
tonotethatthisfuture
can also be thoughtofin termsofthedivine
offerof a "promisedland,"and thuscan be understood in termsofthe future-oriented
temporality ofthepromise.
8. All quotationsofFreudare takenfromSigmundFreud,Moses and Monotheism,
translatedby KatherineJones(New York:VintageBooks, 1939).The firstset of page
numbersfollowing tothistext.The secondsetofnumbersrefers
quotationsrefer toJames
Strachey's ofMosesandMonotheism
translation in theStandardEditionoftheComplete
Psychological WorksofSigmundFreud,editedbyJamesStrachey, Volume23 (London:The
HogarthPress,1964).
 CATHY CARUTH 185
yetreappearing victorious,twofounders ofreligion,
who arebothcalled
bythesame name,Moses,and whosepersonalities we have to separate
fromeach other.And thesedualitiesarenecessaryconsequencesofthe
first:one sectionof the people passed throughwhat mayproperlybe
termeda traumaticexperiencewhichtheotherwas spared.[64-65; 52]
The captivityand return,while the beginningofthe historyofthe Jews,is
preciselyavailable to themonlythroughtheexperienceofa trauma.It is the
trauma,the forgetting (and return)of the deeds ofMoses, thatconstitutes
thelink unitingthe old withthenew god,thepeople thatleave Egypt,with
the people that ultimatelymake up the nation of the Jews.Centeringhis
storyin the nature of the leaving,and returning,constitutedby trauma,
Freudresituatesthe verypossibilityofhistoryin the natureofa traumatic
departure.We mightsay,then,that the centralquestion,by which Freud
finallyinquiresinto therelationbetweenhistoryand its politicaloutcome,
is: what does it mean, precisely,forhistoryto be the historyof a trauma?
Formanyreaders,thesignificanceofFreud'squestioningofhistory-his
displacementofthe storyofa liberatingreturn,by the storyofa trauma-
has seemed to be a tacitdenial ofhistory.By replacingfactualhistorywith
the curious dynamicsoftrauma,Freudwould seem to have doublydenied
the possibilityof historicalreference:first,by himselfactuallyreplacing
historicalfactwith his own speculations;and secondly,by suggestingthat
historicalmemory,or Jewishhistoricalmemoryat least, is alwaysa matter
of distortion,a filteringof the originaleventthroughthe fictionsof trau-
maticrepression,whichmakes theeventavailableat bestindirectly. Indeed,
when Freudgoes on, laterin his work,to comparethe Hebrews'traumatic
experienceto the traumasof the Oedipal boy,repressinghis desireforthe
motherthroughthe threatofcastration,thisleads manyreadersto assume
thatthe onlypossible referential truthcontainedin Freud'stextcan be its
referenceto his own unconscious life, a kind of self-referential history
whichmanyhave readas thestoryofFreud's"unresolvedfathercomplex."9
And this analysishas itselfreinterpreted thefigureofdepartureand return
in a verystraightforward fashion,as Freud'sdeparturefromhis father,orhis
departurefromJudaism.For many criticsthe cost of Freud's apparently
9. See EdwinR. Wallace,"The Psychodynamic Determinants ofMoses and Mono-
theism,Psychiatry 40:(1977).Thereis a longhistory ofpsychoanalytic of
interpretations
Freud'swritings on Moses.Amongthemoreinteresting includeMartheRobert, d'Oedipe
a Moise:Freudetla consciencejuive(Paris:Calmann-Levy, 1974),appearing
in Englishas
FromOedipus to Moses: Freud'sJewishIdentity, trans.RalphManheim(London:Rou-
tledgeandKeganPaul,1977);MarieBalmary, Psychoanalyzing Psychoanalysis,
trans.Ned
Luckacher(Baltimore:The JohnsHopkinsPress,1982).A reviewand critiqueoftheap-
pliedpsychoanalytic tradition inthiscontextis tobefoundinYerushalmi, Psychoanalysis
Terminable and Interminable: An Exploration ofMosesandMonotheism, Lecturesgiven
at Yale University(Fall 1989),forthcoming.
186 Yale FrenchStudies
makinghistoryunconscious,or ofdeprivinghistoryofits referential liter-
ality,is finallythe factthatthe textremainsat best a predictabledramaof
Freud'sunconscious,andmoreovera dramawhichtellsthestoryofpolitical
and culturaldisengagement.'0
When we attendcloselyhoweverto Freud'sown attemptto explainthe
trauma,we finda somewhatdifferent understandingof what it means to
leave and to return.While the analogywith the Oedipal individual con-
stitutesmuch ofhis explanation,Freudopens thisdiscussionwithanother
examplethatis strangelyunlikelyas a comparisonfora humanhistoryand
yet resonates curiouslywith the particularhistoryhe has told. It is the
example ofan accident:
It mayhappenthatsomeonegetsaway,apparently unharmed, fromthe
spotwherehe has suffered a shockingaccident,forinstancea traincolli-
sion.In thecourseofthefollowing weeks,however, he developsa seriesof
gravepsychicalandmotorsymptoms, whichcan be ascribedonlyto his
shock or whateverelse happenedat the time of the accident.He has
developeda "traumaticneurosis."This appearsquiteincomprehensible
and is thereforea novelfact.The timethatelapsedbetweentheaccident
and the firstappearanceof the symptomsis called the "incubation
period,"a transparent allusionto thepathology ofinfectiousdisease.As
an afterthought, it muststrikeus that,in spiteofthefundamental dif-
ferencein thetwocases,theproblemofthetraumaticneurosisandthat
ofJewishmonotheism, thereis a correspondence in one point.It is the
featurewhichone mighttermlatency Thereare thebest groundsfor
thinkingthatin thehistoryoftheJewishreligionthereis a longperiod,
afterthebreakingawayfromtheMosesreligion, duringwhichno traceis
tobe foundofthemonotheistic idea ... thusthesolutionofourproblem
is to be soughtin a specialpsychological situation.[84; 67-68]
In the term"latency,"theperiodduringwhich the effectsoftheexperience
are not apparent,Freud seems to comparethe accidentto the successive
movementin Jewishhistoryfromtheeventtoitsrepressiontoitsreturn.Yet
what is trulystrikingabout the accidentvictim'sexperienceof the event,
and whatin factconstitutesthecentralenigmarevealedbyFreud'sexample,
10. Thereareofcoursea numberofexceptions tothisstandardinterpretation.
Among
themaretheworksbyGoux,Lacoue-Labarthe andNancy,Winter, andYerushalmi, cited
above,as well as RitchieRobertson, "Freud'sTestament:Moses and Monotheism," in
Freudin Exile,editedbyEdwardTimmsandNaomi Segal(NewHaven:Yale University
Press,1988).UsefultreatmentsofFreudandJudaism includePhilipRieff,
TheMindofthe
Moralist(NewYork:Anchor,1961),andMartinS. Bergmann, "MosesandtheEvolutionof
Freud'sJewishIdentity,"
IsraelAnnalsofPsychiatry and RelatedDisciplines,14 (March
1976).A usefulbibliographycan be foundin PeterGay,Freud:A LifeforOur Time(New
York:Doubleday,1988).Gay'sowndiscussionin thisworkofFreud'sJewish identity and
generallyofthewritingofMoses and Monotheismis highlyilluminating.
 CATHY CARUTH 187
is not so much the periodof forgetting that occurs afterthe accident,but
ratherthefactthatthevictimofthe crashwas neverfullyconscious during
the accident itself: the person gets away, Freud says, "apparentlyun-
harmed."The experienceoftrauma,thefactoflatency,would thusseem to
consist, not in the forgetting of a realitythat can hence never be fully
known;butin an inherentlatencywithintheexperienceitself.11The histor-
ical powerofthe traumais not just thatthe experienceis repeatedafterits
forgetting, but thatit is onlyin and throughits inherentforgetting thatit is
firstexperiencedat all. And it is this inherentlatencyof the event that
paradoxicallyexplainsthe peculiar,temporalstructure,thebelatedness,of
the Jews'historicalexperience:since the murderis not experiencedas it
occurs, it is fullyevidentonly in connectionwith anotherplace, and in
anothertime.Ifreturnis displacedbytrauma,then,thisis significantin so
far as its leaving-the space of unconsciousness-is paradoxicallywhat
preciselypreservesthe eventin its literality.Forhistoryto be a historyof
traumameans thatit is referential preciselyto theextentthatit is notfully
perceivedas it occurs;orto putit somewhatdifferently, thata historycan be
graspedonlyin the veryinaccessibilityofits occurrence.
The indirectreferentiality ofhistoryis also, I would argue,at the coreof
Freud'sunderstanding ofthepoliticalshapeofJewishculture,in itsrepeated
confrontation withantisemitism.ForthemurderofMoses, as Freudargues,
is in facta repetitionof an earliermurderin the historyof mankind,the
murderof the primal fatherby his rebellious sons, which occurredin
primevalhistory;and it is theunconsciousrepetitionand acknowledgment
ofthisfactthatexplainsbothJudaismand its Christianantagonists.Indeed,
Freudsays,when Paul interprets thedeathofChristas theatonementforan
originalsin,he is belatedlyand unconsciouslyremembering themurderof
Moses which still, in the historyof the Jews,remains buriedin uncon-
sciousness.In belatedlyatoning,as sons,forthefather'smurder,Christians
feelOedipal rivalrywith theirJewisholderbrothers,a lingeringcastration
anxiety,broughtout by Jewishcircumcision,and finallya complaintthat
the Jewswill not admittheguiltwhichthe Christians,in theirrecognition
of Christ's death, have admitted.By appearingonly belatedly,then, the
historicaleffectoftrauma,in Freud'stext,is ultimatelyitsinscriptionofthe
Jews in a historyalways bound to the historyof the Christians. The
11. Itis also interesting
thatthetwovehicles,comingtogether, seemtoresemblethe
twomennamed"Moses"andthetwopeoplescomingtogether, in a missingmeeting,at
Qades. Freuddescribesthiseventalso as a kindofgap: "I thinkwe arejustified
in separat-
ingthetwopersonsfromeachotherandinassumingthattheEgyptian Mosesneverwasin
Qades andhadneverheardthenameofJahve, whereastheMidianiteMosesneversetfoot
in EgyptandknewnothingofAton.In ordertomakethetwopeopleintoone,tradition or
legendhad to bringtheEgyptian Moses to Midian;andwe haveseenthatmorethanone
explanationwas givenforit" (49; 41).
188 Yale FrenchStudies
Hebrews' departure,that is, or theirarrivalas a Jewishnation,is also an
arrivalwithina historyno longersimplytheirown. It is therefore, I would
like to suggest,preciselyin the veryconstitutivefunctionof latency,in
history,thatFreuddiscoverstheindissoluble,politicalbond to otherhisto-
nes. To put it somewhatdifferently,we could saythatthe traumaticnature
of historymeans that events are only historicalto the extentthat they
implicateothers.And it is thusthatJewishhistoryhas also been the suffer-
ing of others'trauma.12

The fullimpactofthisnotionofhistorycan onlybe grasped,however,when

we turnto the question ofwhat it would mean,in thiscontext,to consider
Freud's own writingas a historicalact. In the various prefaceswhich he
appendsto his work,Freudhimselfimposes thisquestionupon us bydraw-
ing our attentionto the historyof the text'sown writingand publication.
The processofthe actual writingofthe book took place between1934 and
1938, duringthe periodofFreud'slast yearsin Vienna,and his firstyearin
London,to which he movedin Juneof 1938 because ofNazi persecutionof
his familyand ofpsychoanalysis.The firsttwopartsofthebook,containing
the historyofMoses, werepublishedbeforehe leftAustria,in 1937,while
the thirdpart,containingthemoreextensiveanalysisofreligionin general,
was withheldfrompublicationuntil 1938, afterFreudhad moved to Lon-
don.In themiddleofthisthirdpart,Freudinsertswhathe calls a "Summary
and Recapitulation"(or Wiederholung,literally"repetition"),in which he
tells the storyofhis book in his own way:
The following partofthisessay[thesecondsectionofPartThreelcannot
be sentforthintotheworldwithoutlengthy explanationsandapologies.
For it is no otherthan a faithful,oftenliteralrepetitionof the first
part.... Why have I not avoided it? The answer to this question
12. It is importantto notethatFreuddoesnotimplythenecessityforanyparticular
kindofpersecution; thatis,whilehe insistsonwhatappearstobe a kindofuniversality of
trauma,he doesnotsuggestthattheresponsetotraumamustnecessarily be themistreat-
mentoftheother.Infact,he distinguishes ChristianhatredoftheJewsfromNazi persecu-
tion,describing theformer as determinedbyan Oedipalstructure, whileofthelatterhe
says: "We mustnot forgetthatall the peopleswho now excel in the practiceof anti-
SemitismbecameChristiansonlyin relatively recenttimes,sometimesforcedto it by
bloodycompulsion.One mightsay thattheyall are "badlychristened"; underthethin
veneerofChristianity theyhaveremainedwhattheirancestorswere,barbarically poly-
theistic.Theyhave not yetovercometheirgrudgeagainstthenew religionwhichwas
forcedon them,andtheyhaveprojected iton tothesourcefromwhichChristianity came
to them.... The hatredforJudaismis at bottomhatredforChristianity, and it is not
surprising thatin theGermanNationalSocialistrevolution thisclose connectionofthe
twomonotheistic religionsfindssuchclearexpression in thehostiletreatment ofboth"
(117; 91-92). A brilliantexplorationoftherelationbetweenJudaism andChristianity in
fiveauthors,whichtakesofffromthequestionofreturnin thestoryofAbraham,can be
foundin JillRobbins,ProdigalSon and ElderBrother: Augustine, Petrarch,Kierkegaard,
Kafka, Levinas (Universityof Chicago Press, 1991).
 CATHY CARUTH 189
is ... ratherhardto admit.I havenotbeenable to effacethetracesofthe
unusualwayin whichthisbookcameto be written. In truthit has been
writtentwiceover.The firsttimewas a fewyearsago in ViennawhereI
didnotbelievethepossibility it.I decidedtoputitaway,but
ofpublishing
ithauntedme likean unlaidghost,andI compromised bypublishing two
parts ofthe book.... Then in March 1938 came the unexpected German
Invasion.Itforcedme toleavemyhome,butalso freedme ofthefearlest
mypublishingthebookmightcause psychoanalysis to be forbidden
in a
countrywhereits practicewas stillallowed.No soonerhad I arrivedin
EnglandthanI foundthetemptation ofmakingmywithheldknowledge
accessible to the world irresistible.... I could not make up my mind to
relinquishthetwoformer contributions and thatis how the
altogether,
compromise came about of addingunaltereda whole piece ofthefirst
versionto the second, a devicewhich has thedisadvantageofextensive
repetition.... [131-32; 103-041
Readingthis storyFreudtells of his own work-of a historywhose traces
cannotbe effaced,which haunts Freudlike a ghost,and finallyemergesin
several publications involvingextensiverepetition-it is difficultnot to
recognizethe storyofthe Hebrews-of Moses' murder,its effacement, and
its unconscious repetition.The book itself,Freudseems to be tellingus, is
the site of a trauma; a traumawhich in this case moreoverappearsto be
historicallymarkedby the eventswhich,Freudsays,dividethe book into
two halves: first,the infiltrationofNazism into Austria,causing Freudto
withhold or repressthe thirdpart,and then the invasion of Austria by
Germany,causing Freudto leave, and ultimatelyto bringthe thirdpartto
light.The structureand historyofthebook,in its traumaticformofrepres-
sion and repetitivereappearance,thusmarkit as theverybearerofa histor-
ical truththat is itselfinvolvedin the political entanglementof Jewsand
theirpersecutors.
But significantly,in spite ofthe temptationto lend an immediaterefer-
entialmeaningto Freud'straumain theGermaninvasionandNazi persecu-
tion,it is not,in fact,preciselythe directreferenceto the Germaninvasion
that can be said to locate the actual trauma in Freud'spassage. For the
invasion is characterized,not in termsof its attendantpersecutionsand
threats,ofwhichtheFreudfamilydidin facthavetheirshare,butin termsof
the somewhatdifferent emphasisofa simplephrase: "it forcedme to leave
my home, but it also freed me . . ." [(sie) zwang mich, die Heimat zu ver-
lassen, befreitemich aber ... ].13 The traumain Freud'stext,is firstofall a
trauma of leaving,the traumaof verlassen.Indeed,it is this wordwhich
actually ties this "Summaryand Recapitulation"itselfto the traumatic

13. GermanquotationsofMoses and Monotheismare takenfromSigmundFreud,

StudienausgabeBand9, Frankfort
on Main: (1982).
190 Yale French Studies
structuringof the book, in its implicitreferralto two earlierprefaces,ap-
pended to the beginningof PartIII. These two prefaces,subtitled"Before
March 1938" (while Freudwas still in Vienna),and "In June1938" (after
Freudhad resettledin London),describe,respectively, his reasons fornot
publishingthe book, and his decision finallyto let it come to light,an-
nounced as followingin the second preface:
The exceptionallygreatdifficulties
whichhaveweighedonmeduringthe
compositionofthisessaydealingwithMoses ... arethereasonwhythis
thirdand finalpartcomes to havetwo differentprefaceswhichcontra-
dict-even cancel-each other.Forin theshortintervalbetweenthetwo
prefacestheouterconditionsoftheauthorhaveradicallychanged.For-
merlyI livedundertheprotection oftheCatholicchurchandfearedthat
bypublishingtheessayI shouldlose thatprotection.... Then,suddenly,
the German invasion.... In the certaintyof persecution... I left
[verliessich],withmanyfriends, the citywhichfromearlychildhood,
throughseventy-eightyears,had beena hometo me. [69-70; 571
The "intervalbetween the prefaces"which Freud explicitlynotes, and
which is also the literalspace between "BeforeMarch 1938" and "In June
1938," also marks,implicitly,the space of a trauma,a traumanot simply
denoted by the words "German Invasion,"but ratherborneby the words
"verliessIch," "I left."Freud'swritingpreserveshistorypreciselywithin
thisgap in his text;and withinthewordsofhis leaving,wordswhichdo not
simplyrefer, butwhich,throughtheirrepetitionin thelater"Summaryand
Recapitulation,"conveytheimpactofa historypreciselyas whatcannot be
graspedabout leaving.
Indeed,in Freud'sown theoreticalexplanationoftrauma,in theexample
ofthe accident,it is, finally,theact ofleavingwhichconstitutesits central
and enigmaticcore:

It mayhappenthatsomeonegetsaway[literally, "leavesthesite,""die
Stddteverlisstl,apparently
unharmed, fromthespotwherehe has suf-
fereda shockingaccident,forinstancea traincollision.

The traumaofthe accident,its veryunconsciousness,is bornebyan act of

departure.It is a departurewhich,in thefullforceofitshistoricity, remains
at the same time in some sense absolutelyopaque, both to the one who
leaves, and also to the theoretician,linkedto the sufferer
in his attemptto
bringthe experienceto light.Yet at the same time,thisveryopacitygener-
ates the surprisingforceof a knowledge,forit is the accident,in German,
Unfall,which reverberates in Freud'sown theoreticalinsightdrawnfrom
the example,which is laced in the Germanwith otherformsoffallen,"to
fall":
 CATHY CARUTH 191
As an afterthought,itmuststrikeus [esmussunsauffallen], thatin spite
ofthefundamental difference betweenthetwocases [Fille],betweenthe
problemoftraumaticneurosisandthatofJudaicmonotheism, thereis a
correspondence in onepoint,namely,in thecharacter onemightdescribe
as latency.Therearethebestgroundsforthinking thatin thehistoryof
theJewish religionthereis a longperiod,afterthebreakingaway[AbfallI
fromthe Moses religion,duringwhichno traceis to be foundof the
monotheistic idea.... 14
Between the Unfall, the accident,and the "striking"of the insight,its
auffallen,is theforceofa fall,a fallingwhichis transmitted
preciselyin the
unconsciousactofleaving.It is thisunconsciousnessofleavingwhichbears
theimpactofhistory.And it is likewisefirstofall in theunconsciousnessof
Freud'sreferenceto his departurein his own textthat,I would suggest,we
firsthave access to its historicaltruth.
The full impact of this historyoccurs forus, however,in yet another
aspectoftheact ofleaving,in whatFreudcalls "freedom."In the "Summary
and Recapitulation"Freudsays:
It forcedme to leave myhome,but it also freedme ofthefearlest my
publishingthe book mightcause psychoanalysis to be forbidden
in a
countrywhereits practiceis stillallowed.
Leavinghome,forFreud,is also a kindoffreedom,thefreedomto bringforth
his book in England,thefreedom,thatis, to bringhis voice to anotherplace.
The meaningofthis act is suggestedin a letterwhich resonateswith these
lines fromthe "Summary,"a letterwrittenbyFreudto his son Ernstin May
1938, while Freudwas waitingforfinalarrangements to leave Vienna:
Twoprospectskeepme goingin thesegrimtimes:torejoinyouall and-
to die in freedom.
Freud'sfreedomto leave is paradoxicallythefreedom,notto live,butto die:
to bringforthhis voice to othersin dying.Freud'svoice emerges,thatis, as a
departure.'5And it is this departurewhich,moreover,addressesus. In the

14. It is also worthnotingthatwhatis translatedhereas "As an afterthought" is

nachtraglich in German,thewordFreuduses elsewheretodescribethe"deferred action"
or retroactive meaningoftraumaticeventsin psychiclife;herewhatis nachtraglich is
Freud'stheoreticalinsight,whichthusalso participatesin thetraumaticstructure. An
excellentdiscussionofthestructureandtemporalityoftraumainearlyFreudcanbefound
in CynthiaChase,"OedipalTextuality," in DecomposingFigures:RhetoricalReadingsin
theRomanticTradition(Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsPress,1986),andJeanLaplanche,
"Sexualityand the Vital Order,in Life and Death in Psychoanalysis, trans.Jeffrey
Mehlman(Baltimore: The JohnsHopkinsPress,1976).
15. The resonanceoftheletterto ErnstwithMosesandMonotheism is also apparent
in thelineswhichfollowthosequotedabove:"I sometimescomparemyselfwiththeold
192 Yale FrenchStudies
line he writesto his son,thelast fourwords- "to die in freedom"-are not,
like therestofthe sentence,writtenin German,butratherin English.The
announcementofhis freedom,and ofhis dying,is givenin a languagethat
can be heardby those in the new place to whichhe bringshis voice, to us,
upon whom thelegacyofpsychoanalysisis bestowed.It is significant more-
overthatthismessageis conveyednotmerelyin thenew language,English,
but preciselyin the movementbetweenGermanand English,betweenthe
languagesofthereadersofhis homelandand ofhis departure.I would like to
suggestthat it is here,in the movementfromGerman to English,in the
rewritingof the departurewithin the languages of Freud's text,that we
participatemostfullyin Freud'scentralinsight,in Moses and Monotheism,
that history,like the trauma,is never simply one's own, that historyis
preciselythe way we are implicated in each other's traumas. For we-
whetheras German-or as English-speaking readers-cannot read thissen-
tencewithout,ourselves,departing.In thisdeparture, in theleave-takingof
ourhearing,we are firstfullyaddressedbyFreud'stext,in wayswe perhaps
cannotyetfullyunderstand.And,I would proposetoday,as we considerthe
possibilitiesof culturaland political analysis,thatthe impactof this,not
fullyconscious address,may be not only a valid, but indeed a necessary
point of departure.16

Jacobwho,whena veryoldman,wastakenbyhischildren toEgypt,as ThomasMannis to

describein his nextnovel.Let us hopethatit won'talso be followedbyan exodusfrom
Egypt.It is hightimethatAhasueruscameto restsomewhere."
16. RobertJayLifton'smarveloustreatment oftraumain Freud,in "SurvivorExperi-
ence andTraumaticSyndrome," pointsto therelationbetweenthelaterdevelopment of
thenotionoftraumaandtheoccurrence ofWorldWarI. Itwouldbe interestingtoexplore
thewayin whichthenotionoftraumainscribestheimpactofwarin Freud'stheoretical
work.