A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible; its law and its rules can never be booked into anything that could rigorously be called a perception. The dissimulation of the woven texture can in any case take centuries to undo its web, undoing the web for centuries.
A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible; its law and its rules can never be booked into anything that could rigorously be called a perception. The dissimulation of the woven texture can in any case take centuries to undo its web, undoing the web for centuries.
A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible; its law and its rules can never be booked into anything that could rigorously be called a perception. The dissimulation of the woven texture can in any case take centuries to undo its web, undoing the web for centuries.
A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains, moreover, forever imperceptible; its law and its rules can never be booked into anything that could rigorously be called a perception. The dissimulation of the woven texture can in any case take centuries to undo its web, undoing the web for centuries.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 57
Jacques Derrida Derrida
Dissemination
Translated, with an Introduction and Additional Notes, by
Barbara Johnson
The University of Chicago PressPlato's Pharmacy
Firs version published ia Tel Quel, nos 32 and 33, 1968.Kap blow ro the cheek, koock, slap lee) Kola: 110
g0iato, penente, ap, side bids, ro peck... b,c sash open
veh he bene. ama sed of bars string tb groand wit is
sf. 2- by esoson, 0 notch, engrve: grape i apse [pope]
‘Anth. 9,341, oct phir (bark, Cal fe. 101, an insertion on
1 poplar or on the ack ofa ee (Klee. R Gla, ea halo
out, scratch)
Avexcis not a text unles it ides from the first comer, from the fist glance,
the law of its composition and the rules of its game. A text remains,
morcover, forever imperceptible. Its law and its rales are not, however,
harbored in ehe inaccessibility ofa secter; iis simply that they can never be
booked, in the pret, ineo anything that could rigorously be called a
Ppa hace, perpetaly and stencil, they run ehe ik of being
definitively lost. Who will ever know of such disappearances?
‘The dissimulation ofthe woven texture can in any case take centusies to
‘undo its web: a web that envelops a web, undoing the web for centuries;
reconstituting it £00 as an organism, indefinitely regenerating its own
tissue behind che cutting race, the decision ofeach reading. There is always
«a surpese in store forthe anatomy or physiology of eny criticism that might
think ie had mastered the game, surveyed all the threads ac once, deluding
itself, too, ia wanting to look at the text without touching it, without
laying a hand on the “object,” without rsking—which ithe only chance of
‘entering into the game, by getting 2 few fingers caught—the addition of
some new thread. Adding, here, is nothing other than giving to read. One
-must manage to think this out: that itis not a question of embroidering
‘upona texc, unless one considers that to know how to embroider still means
ohave the ability to follow the given thread. That is, ifyou follow me, the
hidden thread. If reading and writing are one, as is easily chought these
days, ifteading is writing, this oneness designates neither undifferentiated
1. TN. leshoud be noted that the Gres word koAagos, which here begint che ay
‘on Plato che Inve word pinta in Lite long definition ofthe Freach word ep, with
‘which ehe Heri has ese playflly lef of
6364 PLATO'S PHARMACY
(con)fusion nor identity at perfect rest; the is chat couples reading. with
‘writing muse rip spar.
‘One must then, in a single gesture, but doubled, read and write. And
that person would have understood nothing of the game who, at cis [dh
coup}, would feel himself authorized merely toadd on; that i, toadd any old
thing. He would add noching: the seam wouldn't hold. Reciprocally, be
‘who through “methodological prudence,” “aorms of objectivity,” oF “sefe-
guards of knowledge” would refrain from committing anything of himself,
‘would not read at all. The same foolishness, the same sterility, obtains in
the “not serious” as in the “serious.” The reading of writing supplement
must be rigorously prescribed, bur by the necessities ofa game, by che logic
of play, signs to which the system of ll eextual powers must be accorded and
aveuned
To a considerable degree, we have already said all we meant to say. Our
lexicon at any sate isnot far from being exhausted, With the exception of
this or that supplement, our questions will have nothing more to name but
the cexture of the text, reading and writing, mastery end play, the paci-
ddoxes of supplementarity, and the graphic relations between the living and
the dead: withia the textual, the cexcile, and che histological. We will keep
within the limits ofthis ise: beween the metaphor of ee bizar? and the
question of the histor of metaphor.
Since we have already seid everything, the reader must bear with ws if we
continue on awhile, Ifwe extend ourselves by force ofplay. IF we then writea
bir: on Plato, who aleeady said in che Phaadra chat writing can only repeat
Girsef), thac ic “always signifies maine) che same” and tha eis 2 "game"
aida)
1. Pharmacia
Lec us begin again, Therefore the dissimulation ofthe woven texture can in
any case take centuries to undo its web. The example we shall propose of
this will not, sesing thac we are dealing with Plato, be che Stauntan, which
will have come to mind first, no doubt because of the paradigm of the
weaver, and especially because of the paradigm of the paradigm, the
‘example of the example—writing—which immediately precedes it.) We
will come back to that only after a long derour.
2 "His aything pig ac: mal. bm lo, which x08 via
‘ona of ying hoists in oar looms except inthe wesvng methods wed by the
‘Gatics and inf o which he endo the warp ae sachet Hees
sar fd mb lm, hence, ie, lye of ana By ap ot
Iam fb reds end, sith 1V. by ana inde,”
3. Sangria, my der Soca ro demenstete sayhiag ofr mportance
wrth the use of examples. Every on oo i ike a man who stings ia dea sa
6s66 PLATO'S PHARMACY
We will cake offhere from the Phaedra Weare speaking of the Phacdras
ha was obliged to wait almost ewenty-five conturies before anyone geve up
the idea tacit was a badly composed dialogue. Ie was a ist believed that
Plato was too young to do the thing right, to construct a well-made object.
Diogenes Laertius records this “ehey say” logos [s. ei, egtad) according
cowhich the Pheedras was Plato's fist artempe and thus manifested a certain
juvenile quality (meirekibds 1), Schleiermacker thinks this legend can be
coeroborated by means of 2 Indicrous argument: en aging writer would not
have condemned writing as Plato does in the Phaadras. This argument is not
_metely suspect in itself: it lends credit co the Laertian legend by basing itself
‘Bias care knows hem precy andshen wakes, ai wef Sather ocching
Yee Soot: Wr do you rca by cs? Sragr have mae ea lo rye by
hooting thimoment dace or ngs hun ight whee the wining fowl
is concerned. Young Set: What do you ment Senge Brame, my good fend, hes
Been eoreque an cumple. Yong Suter What thi? Sey on endo mahestate oe
thy eke, Sanger william, sce you ae rend ro fllow, When young
Chen te ony ut ened celeste grommet np iit
(rte, es, Skemp). And the desion ofthe ietowening ampli) in wing
eines ro ie pang i rate erperece, and then roel
ied othe we of his poedae i ts “king” form st the ep 0 pein of
“LEN. The bic Englshngunge of Pa algae to which Lal ef he
ated Dietge of Pao. Bath Halon und Hsningon Car), Bollingen Ses
IXXI @rnceton, Jc Poco Univetey Pro, 1961) The alge hae ben
ttasated bythe flowing: Hugh Trlennck Ali, Cri, Phe) Beran Jowett
‘Comite, Lack, Meno, Lae iis, Cras, Fins, Grate ipa}. ine
tian, tne Gos pire, to), W'. Woenl agians WE. Geshe
(Prune Mow) W. Hi. Rouse (xthdonn), Re Hackoh Pad, Pia
Michal Joyce Gymru; Peal Sey Rubi Cosford (Thaton, Pari,
Suphiy} B.Skersp Sttaman) AB, Taplor Ci, Lay, pmo LA Ps ata
1 bare alo conled and sometimes petal edopeed the reitons given in te
flowing: Phat cts. W. C Halbolt and WG, dabinowtsUndaepai Bobb:
Merl Edenton Pllhag, The Lary of Ler Ars 1950) Gar, cus, W.
nsiton Balmer: Peaguln Boos, 1960; Apis, Cri, Phd, Spo, Repel
tte, Benji Jowett, in Dicliatof Pln New rk Washington Square res, 1951
Boab, ans, Fe Cnr Rew Yok caer; OnfordUniesiy Pet, 1940, The
{ue cams Tes J. Saunders Mew Yor Penguin Books, 1970)
Teadditon, hav ccasonaly modied the wording or word ore ofthe Panes
sn oner co sng thm ino line nth te peated Gee inser. Same minor
‘djatmets havea ota made when teem nceay ahi clove parle the
French econ th which Dede working
“The protec! numbers itn afer te quoi athe sade eeencs othe
Seeptanueiton of Paros ney edna reproduced nail tnlons
5. On theta nrespeatons of he Phe andthe probleme scorpion, +
sich dad econ can be nd nL Robin's La Tilton de Pana, 24
(Pac Pres Univer de Frc, 1980s in th re author orto he
Bude edion ofthe Plo.
PHARMACIA 6
‘onasecond legend. Only blind or grossly insensitive reading could indeed
Ihave spread the romor that Plato was simply condemning, che writer's
activity. Nothing here is of single piece and the Phzedrus als, in its own
writing, plays at saving writing—which also means causing it co be
Jost—as the bes, che noblest game. As fr the seunning hand Plato has thus
dealt himself, we will be able to follow its incidence and its payoff later on
In 1905, the tradition of Diogenes Laercius was reversed, not inorder to
bring about « recognition ofthe excellent composition ofthe Phaedras but
in order to attribute its faults this time to the senile impotence of the
author: “The Phaedras is badly composed. This defect is all the more
surprising since itis precisely there that Socrates defines the work of art as &
living being. Bue the inability to accomplish what has been well conceived
is precisely a proof of old age.”*
‘We are no longer ar thar poine. The hypothesis ofa rigorous, sure, end
subd form is naturally more fertile. It discovers new chords, new concor-
ances; it surprises them in minutely fashioned counterpoint, within a
_more secret organization of themes, of names, of words, It unties a whole
samploké patiently interlacing the arguments. What is magisterial about the
lemonstration afirms itself and effaces iself at once, with suppleness,
irony, and discretion,
This is, in particular, the case—and this will be our supplementary
theead—with the whole last section (2740 f.), devored, as everyone knows,
to the origin, history, and value of writing. That entire hearing ofthe ial
af writing should some day cease to appear #8 an extraneous mythological
fantasy, an appendix the organism could easily, with no loss, have done
‘without, In eruth, itis igorously called for from one end of the Phaedra to
the other.
“Always with irony. But what can be said of irony here? What is its majoc
sign? The dialogue contains che only “rigorously original Platonic myths:
te fable of ee cicadas in the Phasdras, and che story of Theuth inthe same
dialogue.”” Interestingly, Socrates’ fist words, in che opening lines of the
conversation, had concerned “not bothering about” mythologemes (29>
2304). Not in order to reject them absolutely, but, on the one hand, not
bothering them, leaving them alone, making room for them, in order to
fire them from the heavy serious naiveré ofthe scientific “rationalists,” and
(6, H, Racder, Platon palais Enavicllag(eipag, 1905). A crcqueof hisview,
“Sue compotvion da Phin,” by B. Bourguer, appeazed ia tho Rene de Mphsign ede
Morale, 1919, p. 333.
"7. B. Brtige, Ler Moshe de Plater (Pais: Akan, 1930).|
68 PLATO'S PHARMACY
‘on the other, not bothering with them, in onder to free onef forthe relation
swith oneself and the pursue of self-knowledge.
To give myths a send-off: a salute, a vacation, a dismissal; this ine
resolution of the bairein, which means all that at once, will be ewice
interrupted in order to welcome these “ewo Platonic myths,” s0 “igorously
original.” Both of these myths arse, moreover, in che opening of a question
about the status of writing. This is undoubtedly less obvious—has anyone
ever picked up on it?—in the case of the cicada story. Bue it is no less
certain. Both myths follow upon the same question, and chey are only
separated by a short space, just time enough for e detour. The first, of
course, does not answer che question; on the contrary it leaves it hanging,
smatks time fore rest, and makes us wait forthe reprise chat will lead us 0
the second.
Let us read this more closely. At the precisely calculated center of the
dilogue—che reader ean count che lines—the question of Jagography is
raised (2579. Phaedrus reminds Socrates that the citizens of greatest
influence and dignity, the men who are the most feee, feel eshamed
iskbunoniai)ac “speechwricing” and at leaving sungranmata behind them.
‘They fear che judamene of posterity, which mighe consider them “sophists"”
(257d). The logogcapher, in the strict sense, is ghast writer who composes
speeches for use by litigants, speeches which he himself does noe pro-
rnounce, which he does not attend, 0 t0 speak, in person, and which
produce their effecesin his absence. In writing what he does not speck, what
he would never say snd, in eruth, would probably never even think, the
author of che written speech is already entrenched in the posture of the
sophist: the man of non-presence and of non-trath. Writing i thus already
om the scene, The incompatibility beeween the written and the trae is clearly
announced at che moment Socrates starts to recount the way in which mea
se carried out of themselves by pleasure, become absent from themselves,
forge themselves and die in the thrill of song (2590.
‘But che issue is delayed. Socrates still has a neucral attitude: weiting is
not in itself a shameful, indecent, infamous (eiskben) activity. One is
dishonored only if one writes in a dishonorable manner. Bue whae does it
‘meen to write ina dishonorable manner? and, Phacdras also wants 9 know,
‘whet does ie mean eo write beausfilly (Aas)? This question skecches out
the central nervure, the great fold that divides the dialogue. Between chis
‘question and the answer that takes up its terms in ee last section ("But
there remains the question of propriety and impropriety in writing, thacis
to say the conditions which make i proper or improper, Isn't that $0?
PHARMACIA 69,
2740), che thread remains soli, if not easily visible, all through the fable of
the cicades and the themes of psychegogy, rhetoric, and dialectics.
Thus Socrates begins by sending myths off; and then, ewice stopped
before che question of writing, he invents two of chem-—not, as we shall
see, entirely from scratch, but more feeely and spontaneously than any-
where else in his work. Now, the Ahairein, in the Phaedras’ opening pages,
tahes place in th name of truth, We will reflece upon the face thae the mychs
come back from vacation at the time and in the name of writing.
‘The thaircn cakes place in the mame of ruth: chat is, in the name of
Knowledge of truth and, more precisely, of truth in the knowledge of the
self. This is whac Socrates explains (2302). But this imperative of seif
Knowledge is noe frse fele or dictated by any transparent immediacy of
self-presence. It is not pesceived. Only interpreted, read, deciphered. A
hermeneutics assigns intuition. An inscription, the Delpbiton granma,
which is anything but an oracle, prescribes through its silent cipher; it
signifies as one signifies an order—eutoseopy and aurognosis. The very
activities that Socrates thinlss can be contrasted to the hermeneutic adven-
ture of myths, which he leaves to the sophists (2294),
‘And che kbaiein takes plaein the name of teuth. The spi of the dialogue
are never indifferent. The themes, the topics, the (common-)places, in a
shecorical sense, are strictly inscribed, comprehended each rime within a
significant site. They are dramatically staged, and in this theatrical geogen-
phy, unity of place corresponds to an infallible calculation or necessity. For
‘example, the fable ofthe cicadas would not have taken place, would not
have been recounted, Soerates would not have bees incited to tell it, ifche
hea, which weighs over che whole dialogue, had nor driven the ewo fiends
‘out of the city, into the countryside, along the river Ilisus, Well before
decsiling che genealogy of che genus cicada, Socrates hed exclaimed, “How
‘welcome and sweet the fresh airs, resounding with the summer chirping of
the cicada chorus” (2306). But this is nor che only councerpoint-cffect
required by the space of che dialogue. The myth that serves as a pretext for
the bhairein end for the retreat into autoscopy can iccelf only arise, during
the ise steps of this excursion, atthe sightof the Ilissus. Isn't this the spot,
asks Phasdrus, where Boreas, ccording to tradition, cattied off Orichyia?
‘This riverbank, the diaphanous purity of chese waters, must have welcomed
the young virgins, or even drewn chem like a spell, inciting them to play
here. Socrates chen mockingly proposes@ learned explanation of the myth in
the eationalistic, physicalise style ofthe ophai it was while she was playing
swith Pharmacia (un Pharmaksiai paizousen) that the boreal wind (pnevaa70 PLATO'S PHARMACY
Boreou) caught Oriehyia up and blew her into the abyss, “down from the
socks hard by,” “and having thus met her death was said to have been seized
by Boress... For my part, Phaedeus, I regard such theories as attractive no
oubs, buts che iavention ofclever, industrious people who are not exactly
to be envied” (2294)
‘This brief evocation of Pharmacia a the beginning ofthe Phaedras—is it
an aceidene? An horsd'cewvre? A fountain, “perhaps with curative powers,”
notes Robi, was dedicated to Pharmacia nea the Ilissus. Let us in any case
seca this: chav alittle spor, a litle stitch or mesh (macula) woven ico the
bck of the canvas, marks out for the entire dialogue the scene where that
tirgin was cast into the abyss, surprised by death while playing with Pharma
cla, Pharmacia Pharmakeia)is also common noun signifying the adminis-
tration of the pharmakon, che drug: the medicine and/or poison, “Poison-
ing” was not the leas usual meaning of “pharmacia.” Anciphon has left u
the logogram of an “accusation of poisoning aginst « mother-in-lew
(Pharmabeias hata 1 nitryias). Through her games, Pharmacia has dragged
down to death a virginal purity and an unpenetrated interior.
Only a tele further on, Socrates compares the written texts Phaedrus has
brought along toa drug (pharmakon). This pharmakon, this"’medicine,” this
pphileer, which acts as both remedy and poison, already introduces itself into
the body of the discourse with all its ambivalence, This charm, this
spellbinding viewe, his power of fascinetion, can be—altetnately or
jltaneously—beneficent or maleficent. The pharmakon would be a.sub-
stance—with all that thae word can connote in terms of matter with occult
virtues, cryptic depths refusing to submit theit ambivalence to analysis,
already paving the way for alchemy —if we didn't have eventually to come
10 recognize it as antisubscance itself: chat which resists any philosopheme,
indefinitely exceeding its bounds as nonidentity, nonessence, nonstb-
seance; granting philosophy by that very fact the inexhaustible adversity of
‘what funds ic and che infinite absence of what founds ie.
‘Operating through seduction, che pharmakon makes one stray from one’s
‘general, natural, habitual paths and laws, Here, i takes Socrates out of his
proper place and off his customary track, The latter had always kept him
inside the city. The leaves of writing act os « pharmator to push or attract
‘out of the city che one who never wanced to get out, even at the end, 0
‘escape che hemlock. They take him out of himself and draw him ontoa path
thar is properly an exodes:
Phaedrus: Anyone would take you, 28 you say, for a foreigner being
shown the country by @ guide, and not a netive—you never leave
PHARMACIA ™
own to cross che frontier nor even, I believe, so much as set foot
oucside the walls.
Scorats: You must forgive me, dear friend; I'm alover of earning, and
‘trees and open country won't teach me anything, whereas men in
the towado, Yee you seem to have discovered a drug for getting me
owe (dabeis mai 1 emts exacen t0 pharmakon biarékenai). A tangy
animal can be deiven by dengling 2 cacrot ora bie of greenstuf in
front of i; similarly if you proffer me speeches bound in books (er
Jiblvis) 1 don'c doubt you cen cart me all roand Attica, and
anywhere else you please. Anyhow, now that we've gor here I
‘propose for the time being to lie down, and you can choose whatever
posture you think most convenient for reading, and proceed
(2304),
Icis ar this poine, when Socrates has finally stretched out on the ground
and Phaedrus has taken the most comfortable position for handling the text
ot, if you will, the pharmakon, tha che discussion actually gets off the
‘ground. A spoken speech—whether by Lysias or by Phaedrus in person—e
speech proffered inthe present, in te presence of Socrates, would not have had
the same effece. Only the loge’ on biblivis, only words that are deferred,
reserved, caveloped, rolled up, words thet force one to wait for therm in the
form end undercover ofa solid object, letting themselves be desired for the
space ofa walk, only hidden letcers can thus get Socrates moving. Ifa speech
could be purely present, unveiled, naked, offered up in person in its truth,
withour ce decours of signifce foreign to it, ifat the limit on undeferred
egos were possible, i¢ would not seduce anyone. It would not draw Socrates,
as if under the effects of « pharmakor, out of his way. Let us get ahead of
‘ourselves. Already: writing, the plarmakon, the going of leading astray.
In our discussion of this eexe we have been using an authoritative French
translation of Plato, the one published by Guillaume Budé. In the case of
the Phaedras, the translation s by Léon Robin. We will continue to refer to
it, inserting the Greek text in parentheses, however, whenever it seems
opportune or pertinent to ous point. Hence, for example, the word pharnia-
dan. In this way we hope todisplay in the most striking manner the regular,
ordered polysemy that has, through skewing, indetermination, ot overde-
termination, bue without mistranslation, permitted the rendering of the
same word by "remedy," “tecipe,” “poison,” “drug,” “philter,” etc. Iwill
also be seen to what extent the malleable unity ofthis concept, or rather its
rules and che strange logic chae links it with its signifier, has been dis-
8. TN. Hackiorh canslaes"cecipe";Helmbold & Rabinowie, “remedy.”p PLATO'S PHARMACY
persed, masked, oblicersted, and rendered almost unceadsble not only by
‘the imprudence or empiricism ofthe tanslators but frst and foremost by
the redoubtable, irreducible diffculey of cranslation. Tt is a difficulty
inherent in its vety principe, situated les in the passage ftom one language
toanother, from one philosophical language to another, than already, es we
shall se, in the cradition between Greek and Greek; a violent difficulty in
the transference of a nonphilosopheme into a philosopheme. Wich this
problem of translation we will chus be dealing with nothing les than the
problem of the very passage into philosophy.
‘The iblia that will draw Soceaces out of is eserve and out ofthe space in
which he is wont co learn, to teach, to speak, to dialogue—the sheltered
‘enclosure of the city—these Jiblia contain a text written by “the sblest
writer of our day” (deinotator on tin mun graphein). His name is Lysias
Phaedrus is keeping che text or, if you will, the phermaon, hidden uoder
his cloak. He needs it because he has not earned the speech by heart. This
point is important for whet follows, the problem of writing being closely
linked tothe problem of “knowing by heat.” Before Socrates had stretched
‘out on the ground and invited Phasdrus eo take che most comfortable
position, the later had offered to reconsticute, without the help ofthe text,
‘the reasoning, argument, end design of Lysias' speech, its dian, Socrates
stops him short: "Very well, my dear fellow, but you must fre show me
what ic is that you have in your lef hand under you clos, for I surmise that
it is the accual discourse (ion logon axton)” (228d). Between the invitation
and the start of the reading. while the phermaton is wandering about under
Phaedrus' cloak, there occuts che evocation of Pharmacia and the send-off oF
myths.
Is ic after all by chance or by hazmonies thet, even before the overt
presentation of writing asa pharmakon arises inthe middle of the myth of
Theuth, the connection between Siblia and pharmaba should already be
‘mentioned in a malevolent or suspicious vein? As opposed to the true
practice of medicine, founded on science, we find indeed, listed in a single
stcoke, empirical practice, creatmenes based on recipes learned by heart,
‘mete bookish knowledge, and the blind usage of drugs. All thet, we are
(old, springs out of mania: “I expece they would say, ‘the man is mad; he
thinks he has made himnselfa doctor by picking up someching out of book
(ek biblon), of coming across a couple of ordinary drugs (sharmabia:),
without any real knowledge of medicine’ " (2680,
‘This association beeween writing and the pharmuakon still seems external;
it could be judged artificial or purely coincidental. But she intention and
intonation are recognizably the same: one and the same suspicion envclops
PHARMACIA B
in. single embrace che book and the drug, writing and whatever works in
sn occult, ambiguous manner open to empiricism and chance, governed by
she ways of magic and not the laws of necessity. Books, the dead and rigid
knowledge shut up in bblic, piles of histories, nomenclatures, recipes and
formulas learned by heart, all this is as foreign co living knowledge and
dialectics asthe pharmakon isto medical science. And myth to teve knowl-
edge. In dealing with Plato, who knew so well on occasion how to treat
‘myth in its acheo-logical or paleo-logical capacity, one can glimpse the
immensity and difficulty of cis ast opposition. The extent ofthe difficulty
is marked out—this is, among # hundred others, the example that retains
us here—in that che truth—the original truth—about writing as 2 pharma-
on will at frst be left up toa myth. The myth of Theuth, to which we now
‘uso,
Up to chi point in the dialogue, one can say thae the pharma and the
sgrapheme have been beckoning to each other ftom afar, inditectly sending
back’ to each other, and, as if by chance, appearing and disappearing
together on the same line, for yet uncertain ceasons, with an efectivencss
that is quite discrete and perhaps aferall unincentional. Buc in order to lift
‘his doubt and on the supposition thac the categories of the voluntary and
the iavoluntary still have some absolute pertinence in a reading—which we
don't fora minuce believe, a least not on the textual level on which we are
now advanciag—let us proceed 0 the last phase of the dialogue, to the
poinc where Theuth appears on the scene.
‘This time itis without indirection, without hidden mediation, without
sectet argumentation, chat writing is proposed, presenced, and asserted as
pharmakon (2740),
In acertain sense, one can see how this section could have been set apert
san appendis, a superadded supplement. And despite all thar calls for icin
the preceding steps, it is eeue that Plato offers ie somewhat as an amuse-
‘ment, an hors d'oruvre or rather a desserc. All the subjects of the dialogue,
both themes and speakers, seem exhausted st the moment the supplement,
writing, or the phermackon, are introduced: “Then we may feel that we have
said enough both 2bout the are of speaking and about the lack ofa (20 men
sebbnis chai atekbmias legen)” (2748). And yeti isat this moment of general
‘exhaustion that the question of writing is set out.® And, as was foreshad-
9. Mere, mhen i is «question of lay, Robin eanslaces wba by “ae.” Lae in the
‘course of th inictmene, che same werd, chi ime pertain eo weiing, wil be rendered
by “echoical knowledge” fovenasen tbnigu.
10, White Seussue, in is Conse Goma Lint, excludes oe sete the question
of writing ina sore of preliminary exurss ehorsd eure, the chapees Roaseandevoes to" PLATO'S PHARMACY
owed earlier by the use of the word aiskbron (or the adverb aishiné), che
‘question of writing opens asa question of morality. Ie is truly morality that
is at stake, both in the sense of the opposition between good and evil, or
‘good and bad, and in the sense of mores, public morals nd social conven-
tions. It is @ question of knowing what is done and what is not done. This
moral disquiet is ia no way +0 be distinguished from questions of eruth,
memory, and dialectics. This later question, which will quickly be en-
‘gaged as the question of writing, is closely associated with che morality
‘theme, and indeed develops icby afinicy of essence and not by superimposi-
tion. Bus within a debace rendered very eal by the political development of|
the city, the propagation of writing and the activity of the sophists and
speechwriters, che primary accent is naeurally placed upon political and
social proprieties. The type of arbitration proposed by Socrates plays within
the opposition between the values of seemliness and unseemliness (spree!
aprepeia). "But there remains the question of propriety and impropriety in
‘writing, that is to say the conditions which make ie proper or improper.
Ise ehac 50?” (2748).
Is writing seemly? Does the writer cuca respectable figure? Isic proper co
swrite? Is it done?
OF course not. Bue che answer is not so simple, and Socrates does nie
immediately off it on his own account in a rational discourse or logo. He
lees ie be heard by delegating it to an aboi, to a well-known rumor, 0
hearsay evidence, to a fable transmited from ear to ear: “I can tell you what
ou forefathers have said about it, but the truth of i is only known by
tradition. However, if we could discover thac truch for ourselves, should we
still be concerned with the fancies of mankind?” (2740).
‘The cruth of writing, that is, as we shal se, (che) noneruch, cannot be
discovered in ourselves by ourselves. And ic is noc the object of science,
only of history that is recited, a feble that is repeated, The link between
‘writing and myth becomes clearer, as does its opposition to knowledge,
notably the knowledge one seeks in oneself, by oneself. And at the same
time, through writing or through mych, che genealogical break and the
estrangement from the origin are sounded. One should note most especially
chat what weiting will later be accused of repeating without knowing—
here defines the very approach that Jeeds co che statement and determina-
‘Witag nee Eta onthe Origin of Language is abso pesened, despite acral imporcance,
1 a sort of somewhat contingent supplement, a makeup citron, “another means of
comparing languages end of judging thie eaiveaniquity." The sare operzion is fund
a Hegels Enpeia, cf. "Le Puis ele pyramide,” (1-1968) in gl apodeme,
(aris Peses Univesizaes de France, 1970, cll. “Epimahée)
‘THE FATHER OF LOGOS 8
sion ofits status. One thus begins by repeating without kaowing—through
a myth—the definition of weiting, which is repeat without knowing.
‘This kinship of writing and myth, both of them distinguished from logs
and dialectics, will oly become more precise a the text concludes. Having
juse repeared without knowing chet writing consists of repeating without
knowing, Socrates goes on to base the demonstration of his indicement, of
his les, upon the premises of the akof, upon scractures that are readable
‘through a fabulous genealogy of writing. Assoon asthe myth has struck the
first blow, the loge of Socrates will demolish the accused.
2. The Father of Logos
‘The story begins like this:
Socrares: Very well. T heard, chen, that at Naucratis in Egypt there
lived one ofthe old gods ofthat country, the one whose sacred bird
{scaled the ibis; and the name of the divinity was Theuth, ie was he
who firs invented numbers and calculation, geometry and astron-
‘omy, not to speak of draughts and dice, and above all writing
(grammaia). Now the King, of all Egypt at that time was Thamus
who lived in the great city ofthe upper region which the Greeks call
the Egyptian Thebes; the god himself they call Ammon. Theuth
‘came to him and exhibited his arts and declared thet they ought to
be imparted tothe ocher Egyptians. And Thamus questioned him
about the usefulness of each one; and as Theuch enumerated, the
King blamed or praised what he thought were the good or bad
‘points in the explanation. Now Thamus is seid to have hac a good
deal co remark on both sides ofthe question aboue every single ext
Ge would take too long to repeat it here}; but when it came to
writing, Theuth said, “This discipline (o mathina), my King, will
make the Egyptians wiser and will improve theit memories
“ophiterous kati mnémonikiteros): my invention is a recipe (pharm
on) for both memory and wisdom.” But the King said . . . ete
27402),
Let us cut the King off here. Hie is faced with the pharmakon. His reply
will be incisive
Tet us freeze the scene and che characters and cake a look at them.
Writing (or, if you will, che phermaton) is thus presented to the King.
Presented: like a kind of present offered up in homage by vassal to his lord76 PLATO'S PHARMACY
(Theuth is a demigod speaking to the king of the gods), but above all as 2
finished work submicced co his appreciation. And chis work isieselfan are, 2
capacity for work, power of operation. This artefactum is an art, But the
value of chis gift i still uncertain, The value of writing—or of che
‘Pharmakon—has of course been spelled out co the King,'but itis che King
‘who will give ie its value, who will set che price of what, in the act of
receiving, he constitutes or institutes, The king or god (Thamus
represents" Ammon, the king of ehe gods, the king of kings, ehe god of
gods. Theuth says to him: 0 Basile) s thus the other name for the origin of
value. The value of writing will not be itself, writing will have no value,
unless and to the extent chat god-che-king approves ofc. Bur god-the-king
nonetheless experiences the pharmakor asa product, en ergo, which is not
his ows, which comes to him from outside but also from below, and which
waits his condescending judgment in order to be consecrated in its being
and value. God the king does not know how to write, but thar igaorance or
incapacity only testifies to his sovereign independence. He bas no need to
‘write, He speaks, he says, he dictates, and his word suffices, Whether «
scribe from his secretarial staff chen adds the supplement of a transcription
fr not, that consigament is always in essence secondary.
FFeom this position, without rejecting the homage, che god-king will
depreciate it, pointing out not only its uselessness but its menace and its
sischief, Another way of not receiving the offering of writing. In so doing,
god-the-king-tha-speaks is acting like a father. The pharmakon is here
presented to the father and is by him rejected, belitted, sbandoned,
disparaged. The father is always suspicious and watchful roward writing.
Even if we did not want to give in here to the easy passage uniting the
figures of the king, the god, and the father, ie would suffice to pay
systematic attention—which to our knowledge has never been done—to
the permanence of a Platonic schema thet assigns the origia and power of
speech, precisely of gos, to the paternal position. Not that this happens
especially and exclusively in Plato. Everyone knows this or can easily
imagine it. Bue che fact chat “Platonism,” which sets up the whole of
‘Western metaphysics ia its conceptuality, should nor escape the generality
of this structural constraint, and even illustrates it with incomparable
subelety and force, stands out as all che more significant
11, Foe Pat, Thamusis doubles another ame for Aramon, whote gsc (tha of he
sun king and ofthe aero the gods) we sll sketch oat ater or i own sake, On this
‘question ad he debe vo which eas genres Prati Myla, p. 233, n- 2, and
tovably Fier, “Plato und ds dgypnce Alpha,” Archi ir Gabe der ipo,
1922; Pauly -Wisows, Real-Enoebhe de dasnhen Aletemsvisenchat (re. AMO):
Roscher, Lexikon de viciston and riches Myth. Thar).
‘THE FATHER OF LOGOS n
[Not that logos é the father, either. But the origin of logos is it fatber.
One could say anachronously that the “speaking subject” is the father of his
speecla. And one would quickly realize that this is no metaphor, a¢ least not
in che sense of any common, conventional effect of rhetoric, Logas isa son,
then, ason that would be destroyed in is very preence without che present
attendance of his father, His father who answers. His father who speaks for
hhim and enswers for him. Without his father, he would be nothing but, in
face, writing. At least chat is what is stid by the one who says: it is the
father’s thesis. The specificity of writing would thus be intimately bound to
the absence of che father. Such an absence can of couse exist along very
diverse modalices, distinctly or confusedly, successively or simultaneously:
to have lost one's father, through nacaral or violent death, through random
violence or pacricde; and then to solicc che aid and attendance, possible or
impossible, of the paternal presence, to solice it directly or to claim to be
getting along without ic, etc. The reader will have noted Socrats’ insis-
tence oa the misery, whether pitifel or arrogant, ofa fas committed t0
‘writing: "...Iealways needs is father to attend to t, being quite unable to
defend itself or attend to its own needs" (2756).
“This misery is ambiguous: itis the distress ofthe orphan, of course, who
needs not only an attending, presence but also a presence that will attend to
ies nceds; but in pitying the orphan, one also makes en accusation against
him, along with writing, for claiming to do eway with the father, for
achieving emancipation with complacent self-sufficiency. From the posi-
tion of the holder of the scepter, che desire of writing is indicated,
designated, and denounced as a desire for orphanhood and patricidal
subversion. 1sn' this phermabin then 2 criminal thing, a poisoned present?
‘The status of this orphan, whose welfare cannot be assured by any
sctendance of assistance, coincides with chat of a graphein which, being
nobody's son at ee instant ie reaches inscription, scarcely remains a son at
all and no longer recognize its origins, whether legally or morally. In
contrat :o writing, living /ogeris alive in chac ic has living father (whereas
the orphan is already half desd), a father that is present, sending neee it,
behind it, within ie, sustaining it wich his recrirude, attending it in person
in his own name. Living lags, for its part, recognizes its debt, lives off that
recognition, and forbids itself, thinks it cen forbid itself patricide. But
prohibition and patricide, like che relations between speech and writing,
are seructures surprising enough to require us later on to articulate Plato's
text between a patricide prohibited and a patricide proclaimed. The de-
ferred murder of the father and rector.
“The Phaedrus would slecady be sufficient co prove thae the responsibil
icy8 PLATO'S PHARMACY
for logos, for ies meaning and effects, goes co those who ettend it, co those
‘who are present with the presence of «father. These “metaphors” must be
tirelessly questioned. Witness Socrates, addressing Eros: “If in our former
speech Phaedrus of I said anything harsh against you, blame Lysias, the
father ofthe subject (rn iu logon pasera)” (2756). Logor—"discoursc’—has
the meaning here of argument, line of reasoning, guiding thread animating
the spoken discussion (the Logos), To translate it by “subject” [aye], as
Robin does, is not merely anachronistic. The whole intention and the
organic unity of signification is destroyed. For only ehe “living discousse,
only a spoken word (and nota speech’s theme, object, or subject) can have @
father; and, according to a necessity that will oe cease to become clearer to
us from now on, the /agoi are the children. Alive enough to protest on
‘occasion and to lee themselves be questioned; capable, 200, in contrast t0
‘written ehings, of responding when their father is there. They are their
father’s responsible presence.
Some of them, for example, descend from Phaedeus, who is sometimes
called upon to sustain chem. Let us efer again to Robin, who translates /gos
this cime not by “subject” but by “argument,” and dissuptsin aspaceof cen
lines the play on the sebbné 16 logén, (What is in question is the febbné the
sophists and thecors had or pretended to have at their disposal, which wasat
fonce an are and an instrument, a recipe, an occult but transmissible
“eeeatse,” etc. Socrates considers che then clssical problem in terms ofthe
‘opposition between persuasion (peithi] and ruth (alétheia} {260 a).)
Socrates: agree—if, chats, the arguments (logo) that come forward to
speak for oratory should give testimony that it is an art (ebm.
‘Now I seem, as it were, o hear some arguments advancing to give
their evidence that i¢ tlls lies, that it is not en art at all, but en
arcless routine. “Without grip on truth," says the Spartan, “here
can be no genuine art of speaking (ior de legen) either now or in the
fueure.”
Phaedra: Socrates, we need these arguments (Tautbn de sin logén, 6
Sékrat). Bring ehe witnesses here and let's find out what they have
co say and how they'll say it (i Bai pat legousin)
Suerates: Come here, then, noble brood (genni), and convince Phee-
dus, father of such fine children (Eallipaide te Phaidron), chat if he
doesn’t give enough attention to philosophy, he will never become
competent speaker on any subject. Now let Phaedrus answer
(2606-2614).
‘THE FATHER OF LOGOS 9
I isagaia Phacdros, but chis time in che Sympasim, who must speak fst
because he is both “head of the cable” and “father of our subject” (baiér tra
degen) (ATTA).
‘What we are provisionally and for the sake of convenience continuing to
call ¢ metaphor thus in eny event belongs co a whole system, If ogo has a
facher, if is a logar only when attended by its facher, this is because itis
always a being (on) and even a certain species of being (the Sephist, 2602),
more precisely ving being. Logis axa. An animal that is bora, grows,
belongs to the phuss. Linguistics, logic, dielectics, and zoology ere all in
the same camp.
In describing dagar as a 2éon, Plato is following certain rhetors and
sophists before him who, asa contrast to the cadaverous rigidity of writing,
hhad held up the living spoken word, which infallibly conforms to the
necessities ofthe situation at hand, to the expectations and demands ofthe
ineerlocutors present, and which snifls out the spots where ic ought to
produce itself, feigning co bend and adapt at the moment it is actually
achieving maximum persuasiveness and control.”
Logos, a living, animace creature, is thus also an organism that has been
engendered. An organism: a differentiated body proper, with a center ancl
extremities, joints, « head, and feet. In order to be “ptoper,” a written
discourse ought to submie ro the laws of life just asa living discourse does.
Logographical necessity (anaugld logegrapbik®) ought co be analogous «0
biological, or racher zoological, necessity. Otherwise, obviously, it would
have neither head nor tail, Boch sractre and constitution are in question
the risk run by /ogusof losing through writing both its tail and its head:
Socrates: And what sbout the rest? Don't you think the different parts
ofthe speech tata lgoe are tossed inhi or miss? Oris cher really
f cogent reason for starting his second point in the second place?
‘And is cht che case withthe ees of che speech? As for myself, in my
ignorance, 1 thoughe that the writer boldly set down whatever
Iheppened to come into his head. Can you explain his arrangement
of the topics in the order he has adopted as the result of some
principle of composition, some logographic necessity?
12, Theassociation lgu-aion appears inthe discourse of Locraes Again the Spb and
in hac of Alicars On te Sophias CE. also W iss, wo compares these eo discourse line
byline withthe Pedra, i Ee: Studi aar aren princes Rburib Leipzig, 1910),
pp. 34 Mand A, Dit, “Philosophie e sfsorque,” in Autor de Paton (Pais: Garbriel
Beaucbesne, 1927) 1,103,80. PLATO'S PHARMACY
Phacdras: e's very kind of you to think me capable of such an sceurate
insight into his methods.
Sorater: Bue this you will surely agree: every discourse (ogo), like a
living creacure per 2m), sbould be so pur together (sunstana)
that ithas its own body and lacks neither head nor foot, middle not
cexcrerities, all composed in such a way thas they suit both each,
other and the whole 2646-0).
‘The orgenism thus engendered must be well botn, of noble blood:
“gennaia'," we recall, is what Socrates called the loge, those “noble crea~
tutes.” This implies that the organism, having been engendeed, must have
1 beginning and an end. Here, Socrates’ standards become precise and
insiseent: a speech must have a beginning and an end, it must begin with
the beginning and end with the end: “It certainly seemsas though Lysias, at
lease, was fer from setisfying our demands: i's from the end, not the
beginning, that he tries to swim (on his back!) upstream through the
current of his discourse. He sears out with what the lover ough ro say at
the very end to his beloved!” (2642). The implications and consequences of
such a norm are immense, but they are obvious enough for us not to have to
belabor them. Ie follows that the spoken discourse behaves like someone
aceended in origin and present in person. Logos "Sermo tanqusms persona ise
nguens," 2 one Platonic Lexicon puts it.® Like any person, the loges-afon has
a father,
Bt what is a father?
Should we cousider this known, and with this term—che kaown—
classify the other term within what one would hasten to classify as
metaphor? One would then say that che origin ar cause of Joga is being
compared to what we know to be the couse of living son, his father. One
‘would understand of imagine che beth and development of lage from the
standpoint of a domain foreign to it, the transmission of life or the
generative relation. Bue the father i aot the generator or procreator in any
“eal” sense prior £0 oF outside all relation co language. In what way,
indeed, is the father/son relation distinguishable from a mere ceuscleffet or
_generatorlengendered relation, ifnoe by che inscance of logos? Only a power
‘of speech can have a father. ‘The father is always fether toa speaking/living
being. In other words, itis precisely Jus that enables us co perceive and
investigate something like paternity. Ifthere were a simple metaphor in the
13, Fe, Asc, Lege plain, Cf lo B. Pacin, Esta tal lags platen Pais:
Gallenard, 1942), p. 211; and P. Lois, Lr Miaplos de Paton (Pais Les Belles Letes,
194, pp. 43-44,
‘THE FATHER OF Locos ar
expression “father of logos,” the fist word, which seemed che more
familiar, would nevertheless receive more meaning from the second than it
‘would transmits it. The first familiarity is always involved in a relation of
cohabitation with logs. Living-beings, father and son, ate announced to us
snd related to each other within the household of gt. From which one does
rot escape, in spite of appearances, when one is transported, by
“metaphor,” co a foreiga cerritory where one meets fathers, sons, living
creatures, all sore of beings that come in handy for explaining co anyone
that doesn'e know, by comparison, what /agss, chat strange thing, is all
about. Even though chis hearth isthe heare ofall metaphoriciey, “father of
Jogos" is nota simple metaphor. To have simple metaphoricity, one would
shave ro make the statement thee some living creature incapable of language,
ifanyone still wished to believe in such a thing, has a father. One rouse thus
proceed ro undertake a general reversal of all metephorical directions, no
longer asking whether Jogs can have a father but understanding that what
the father claims co be the father of cannot go without che essential
possibilty of ger
'A loos indebied to a father, what does that mean? At Jeast how can ie be
read within che strarum of the Platonic text that interests us here?
“The figure of the fachez, of course, is also thac of the good (agathon). Logos
represen what itis indebted to: the father who is also chief, capital, and
‘g00d(s). Or rather be chief, she capital, tbe goods). Pasir in Greek means all
that at once. Neither eranslators nor commentators of Placo seem to have
accounted for the play of these schemas. Ie is extremely difficult, we must
recognize, co respect this play in a translation, and the face can at least be
explained in thac no one has ever raised che question. Thus, st che point in
the Republic where Socrates backs away from speaking of the good in itself
(WI, 5060), be immediately suggests replacing it with its ehgone, its son, its
offspring:
«Jet us dismiss forthe time being the nature of che good in itself, for
‘oattain to my present surmise of chat seemsa pitch above the impulse
thar wings my flight today. Bue whet seems ro be the offspring
(ctgona) ofthe good and most nearly evade in its likeness Tam willing
to speak if you too wish i, and otherwise to let the matter drop.
‘Well, speak on, he ssid, for you will daly pay me the cle ofthe
parent another time.
1 could wish, I suid, that T were able ro make and you to receive the
peyment, and not merely as now che interest vou), But ac any rare
receive this incerest and the offspring of the good (tkin ai ebgonon
scuton tou agatha).8 PLATO'S PHARMACY
Tokar, which is here associated with ebgonsr, signifies production and the
product, birth and the child, tc. This word functions with chis meaning in
the domains ofagriculture, ofkinship lations and of fiduciary operations
None of these domains, as we shall see, lies ouside the investment and
possibility of «Jogos.
‘As product, the fos is the child, the human oe animal brood, as well as
the fruits of the seed sown in the field, and ehe interest on a capital
investment: ic is areera or evene. The distribution ofall these meanings
can be followed in Plato's text. The meaning of pati is sometimes even
inflected in che exclusive sense of financial capital, In che Republicieself, and
not far from the passage we have just quoted. One of the drawbacks of
‘democracy lies in the role that capital is often allowed to play in it: “Bue
these money-makers with down-bent heads, pretending not even to see the
oor, but inserting the sting oftheir money into any ofthe cemainder who
do not resist, and harvesting from them in incerest as it were a manifold
progeny of the parent sum (ow patrsebgonons roknespllaplariu), foster the
drone and pauper element in the state” (5550).
Now, about this father, this capital, this good, this origin ofvalueand of
appearing beings, it is aot possible co speak simply or dicectly. First ofall
because itis no more possible co look chem in che face thaa eo state ae che
sun, On the subject of this bedazalement before the face of the sun, a
rereading of the famous passage of the Republic (VIL, 515¢ 8) is serongly
recommended here.
‘Thus will Socrates evoke only the visible sua, the son that resembles the
father, the analogen of the intelligible sun: “Ie was che sun, then, hat I
-meent when T spoke of that offspring of the Good (2m tow agathuu ekgonon),
‘which the Good has created in its own image (box tagazhoncgenienanalegon
‘anti, and which stands in the visible world in the seme relation to vision
and visible things as thac which che good itself bears in the ineelligible
‘world to intelligence and to intelligible objects” (5089).
How does Logos intercede in this analogy between the father and the son,
the neoumena and the horimena?
‘The Good, inthe visible-invisible gure ofthe father, the sun, or capital,
is the origin of all once, responsible for cheie appearing and thei coming,
into “oga, which both assembles and distinguishes chem: “We predicate to
be’ of many beautiful things and many good things, saying of them
severally chat they ar, and so define chem in ovr speech (einai phamen te ai
Aiorizomen $6 lei” (507 8.
‘The good (fcher, sun, capital is thus che hidden illuminating, blinding
source of gas. And since one cannot speak of thae which enables one to
‘THE FATHER OF LOGOS 83
speak (being forbidden to speal: of tor to speak to it face to face), one will
speak only ofthat which speaks and of things that, witha single exception,
one is constantly speaking of. And since an account or reason cannot be
sven of wha gs (acount or reason: rata) is accountable orowing f, since
the capital cannot be counted nor the chief looked in the eye, i¢ will be
necessary, by means of discriminative, diacticical operation, to count up
the pluclity ofiacerests, reeurns, products, and offspring: "Well, speak on
(lege, he said, for you will duly pay me the tale of the parent another
time—I could wish, I sid, that I were able eo make and you to receive the
payment, and not metely as now the interest, But at any rate receive this
incerest end the offopring ofthe good. Have a caze, however, lest I deceive
you unintentionally with false reckoning (or logon) of tne interest (nu
satan)" (507).
Trom the foregoing passage we should also retain the fact chet, along
with the account (gu) of the supplements (to the father-good-capical-
origin, ec.), along with what comes above and beyond the One in the very
movement chrough which ie absents itself and becomes invisible, thus
requiting that its place be supplied, slong with difference and diaccticty,
Socrates introduces or discovers the ever open possiblity of the Aibdlon,
thac which is falsified, adulterated, mendecious, deceptive, equivocal
Hevea cate, he says, lest I deceive you with false reckoning of the interest
(Giblton apedido ton logon tau thet). Kibdeleaa is fracient merchandise.
‘The corresponding verb (kibdélew) signifies “to temper with money ot
merchandise, and, by extension, to be of bad faith.”
“This recourse to lop, from fear of being blinded by any direct intuition
of the face of che father, of good, of capital, ofthe origin of being in ise, of
‘the form of forms, et., his recourse to logos as that which pots frm the
sm, protects us under it and from it, is proposed by Socrates elsewhere, ia
the snalogens order ofthe sensible or the visible. We shall quoce at length
fiom char cox In addition to its inceinsic interes, the text, i its official
Robin translation, manifests a series of sidings, asi were, that are highly
signiicane." The passage in question is che critique, in che Phaad, of
“ physicals"
Socrates proceeded:—I thought that as I had failed inthe contempla-
tion of tue existence (ta onr4), Loughe to be careful thac I did not lose
the eye of my soul as people may injure their bodily eye by observing
14, 1am indebeod tothe friendship and alertness of Feancine Markoves for Saving
brought chi 0 my aetention, This tex ould ofcourse be place alongside those of books
Vinod Vil of the Repu.84 PLATO'S PHARMACY
‘and gazing on the sun duting an eclipse, unless they take the precau-
tion of only looking at the image (ifona) reflected in the water, 0
some analogous medium. So in my own case, Iwas afraid ehat my soul
‘ight be blinded altogether if looked at chings wich my eyes or tried
‘o apprehend them with the help ofthe senses. And I thought that 1
hnad better have recourse to the world of idse er logos) and seek there
the truth of things. . . . So, basing myself in each case on the ides
logon) that I judged to be the strongest . . .” (994-1004).
Loges is thus source. One must urs 9, and noe merely whea the solar
source is present and risks burning the eyes if stared at; one has aso to ura
away coward gor when che sun seems to withdeaw during its eclipse. Dead,
‘extinguished, or hidéen, ehar star is more dangerous than ever
‘We will et chese yarns of suns and sons spi on for awhile, Up to now we
shave only followed this line soos to move fom lgo tothe father, soas 0 tie
speech roche duriay, the master, the lord, another name given in the Republic
tothe good-128 PLATO'S PHARMACY
fundlity nor ultimace localey. We will watch it infinitely promise itself and
endlessly vanish through concealed doocways that shine like mirrors and
‘pen onto a labyrinth. It is also this store of deep background that we are
calling che pharmacy.
6. The Pharmakos
Icis pare ofthe rules ofthis game that the game should sem rsp. Then the
Pharmakon, which is older chan either of the opposites, is “caught” by
philosophy, by "Platonism” which is constituted by this apprehension, as a
‘mixture of two pure, heterogeneous terms. And one could follow the word
pharmakon asa guiding thread within the whole Platonic problematic ofthe
mixcure. Apprehended as a blend and an impurity, the pharmalon also acts
like an aggressor or a housebreaker, chreatening some internal purity and
security. This definition is absolutely general and can be verified even in
‘cases where such forced entries are valorized: the good remedy, Socratic
irony, comes to disturb the intestinal organization of self-complacency.
‘The purity ofthe inside can then only be restored if che charges are brought
ome against exteriority as a supplement, inessential yet harmful to the
essence, a surplus that ought never to have come to be added to the
‘untouched plenitude of the inside. The restoration of internal purity must
hus reconstitute, ricite—and this is myth a such, che mytboley for example
‘of 1 logor recounting its origin, going back to the eve of the phatma-
kographic aggression—that to which the pharmaton should not have had to
be added and atcached like a Uiteral parasite: a letter installing ise inside a
living organism to rob it of its nawrishment and to ditert (like static, =
“drat parasite") the pute audibility of a voice, Such ate che relations
between the writing supplement and che Jagor-zim. In order to cure the
lateer of the pharmalon and tid it ofthe parasite, itis thus necessary co put
the outside back in ts place. To keep che oueside out. This is che inaugural
‘gesture of “logic” itself, of good “sense” insofar as it accords with the
selfidentity of shat whichis: being is what i is, ehe outside is outside ancl
the inside inside, Writing must thus retuen to being what it sheald never
ave eased to be: an accessory, an accident, an excess.
‘The cure by foes, exorcism, and catharsis will hus eliminate he excess.
Buc this elimination, being therapeutic in natuze, must call upon the very
thing ic is expelling, the very surplus i is putting out, The pharmaceutical
‘operation mast therefore exclude itself from iself.
‘What does this mean about whae (ie is) to write?
‘THE PHARMAKOS 129
Piao doesnot make «show ofthe chai of vgiictons we arty
sively 0 dig up. Ifthese were any sense in asking such a question,
eine dent elit, fe wal be onl os to what exten be
Inanipolates i voluntarily or consciously, and at what point he is subject 0
constraints weighing upon his discourse from “Ienguage.” The word “Ian
fruage,” chrough all that binds i co everything we ae putting in question
here, is noe of any pertinent assistance, and ro follow the constraints of a
language would not exclude the possibilty ha lao playing wih hem,
even if his game is neither representative aor voluntary Ic is inthe bach
room, in the shadows of the pharmacy, prior to the oppositions between
‘Conscious and unconscious, freedom and constraint, voluntary and involun-
tary, speech and language, that these textual “operations” occur,
“inc ple emp ce wd pura
writings effecs swerve from positive to negetive, when poison,
Tree dee efthe kings apps ar he ath of he remedy et aed
that the pharmakon is the locus, the support, and the executor of this
mutation, Latet—we wil come othis—while expel comparing wt
ing to painting, Plato will no explicitly put cis judgment together wit
Fe ea
pharmakon also means paint, aot a natural color but an artificial tint, «
‘chemical dye thac imieates che chromatic scale given in nacure,
‘Yee all chee significations nonetheless appesr, and, more precisely, all
these words appear inthe text of “Plato.” Only the chain is concealed, and,
oan inappreciable exten, concealed from the author himself, if any such
thing exits, One ean say in any even that all che “pharmaceutical” words
ive have been pointing out do actualy make an “act of presence,” $0 ¢0
Speak, inthe text ofthe dialogues. Cariously, however, there i snocher of
these words that, co our knowledge, is never used by Plato, If we line i up
swith che aeties pharmabeiapharmakon-pharmaeas, we will no longes be able
qoconter ourselves with recoosticucing a chin thar, forall its hiddennes,
for all it might escape Plato's aotce, is nevertheless something thet passes
‘hough certain discoverable punts of sen that can be seen in the text
‘The word 0 which we are now going fo er, which is prtensin oe
tnd which points co an expetience that was presenc in Gree
age 8 Tl ay, ves singly absent fom the “Pete
oe 2 ct, the text of
oc wat does abn oc pct can het? Like any ce
psa” cot ae be involved a Tes ina vital dynamic, late
asc, wih athe words tint composed dhe system of the Greck
ret Cen free of stoition sive diverse dite, with130 PLATO'S PHARMACY
different strengths and according to disparate paths—the words “actually
present” in a discourse with all the other words in the lexical system,
whether of not they appear as “words,” thac is, as relative verbal units in
such discourse. They communicate with the torality ofthe lexicon through
their syntactic play and at lease chrough the subunits that compose what we
call 1 word. For example, “phatmakon" is already in communication with
all ehe words from the same family, with all the signiications constructed
fut of the same root, and these communications do not stop there. The
textual chaia we must set back in place is thus no longer simply “internal”
£0 Plato's lexicon. But in going beyond the bounds of that lexicon, we are
less interested in breaking through certain limits, with or without cause,
thaa in putting in doube the right co posit such limes in the fist place. Ina
‘word, we do not believe thar there exist, in all rigor, a Placonic text, closed
‘upon itself, complete with its inside and its outside. Not that one must
‘hen consider that it is leaking on al sides and can be drowned confusedly in
she undifferentiated generality ofits element. Rather, provided che artic-
ulations are rigorously and prudently recognized, one should simply beable
‘0 untangle che hidden forces of eteraction linking a present word with an
absent word in the cext of Plato, Some such force, given the sytem of the
language, cannot nor have acted upon the writing ead the ceading of this
‘ext, With respect to the weight of sucha force, the so-called “
4 quite relative verbal unit—the word—while noe being a contingent
accident worthy of no attention, nevertheless does not constitute the
ulcimate criterion and the uemost pertinence
‘The circuit we are proposing is, moreover, ll che more legitimate and
‘easy since it leads co a word that cen, on one ofits faces, be considered the
synonym, almost the homonym, ofa word Plato “acrually" used. The word
in question is pharmakas (wizard, magician, poisones), a synonym of phar=
makins (which Plato uses), but with the unique feature of having been
coverdetermined, overlaid by Greek culture with another function. Another
role, and a formidsble one.
‘The character of the pharmakes has been compared toa scapegoat, The ei!
and the outside, the expulsion of the evil, its exclusion out of the body (and
‘out) ofthe city—these are the two major senses of the character and ofthe
ricual.
Harpoctation, commenting on the word phermatos, describes them thus:
"At Athens they led out two men to be pusifications forthe city; it was at
the Thargelia, one was for the men and the other for che women." In
56. The principal sources that enable ut co dscibe the scl ofthe pharma ace
collected in W. Mannhand’s Msgs Forbange (1884). These sources ae themlvet
refered to in parccuae by J. G, Fez in The Galen Bagh (New York: 8. G. Ph
‘THE PHARMAKOS 1B
jn en Ys
193 py) Hann Pee So ra Reig
NODE Soap. ain Thon Sul Ong GR 912,
Mn ee nck iin Sp Tey M Sea
Le fmt ele ee 290 shai Gna ibyp Oech)
re wahianhie nc OO>
aa en Pye Rebcer f nns fot def dlls
Sea ola oi (20 BS.
7 De te pen te ee of
ae te ul orc, ta, ope Spe
cage grt es pas neem ronan
a ae arte dang un tee ra oe OF IS,
Se re ehh tole) apne eb vb
‘never ceased co refer. It is precisely these stores, this fund, ee ee
re one, iy 1 ae eh soe
7 yehoanalytical discourse which might evolve naively within an ingufficiently deciphered
axel re ae aap ee, ge
Se adr nla Raa re OSE.
i pn ae pe eee a 7).
ee ee a aut tngomge SOstpe Rt i
cer etn tone oo Chad LnSrans the Hague: Mew 970)
aa et diay and Reon On te Baga So
Se sayy m3 OFA, Smo ta
Lo ni eager soe) "ow eal
im one ho ke Odi hss iB nord ee oe nd
ce tes Sc ee nao woe le
a ee cat Tng atepenoncn
Seen i a ckmal nacre ehh
rae ote ejemc eee en
TRE wien yc wnc entre: be pes
rite tie ndtae ono
es) any cncepain
a Ta waist rtone” Re de Bde gre, amare
Se i jeer fen
1367s a at rela wh pene 93-Oneos
elon meme dbl Intend Boop nous he
a ead amour accion he
Sa se mms Egy
osoa or "maried” iin other Germanic languages.—Trans.}. One can also read wit
Fo ae aan ence Gre perce
see cn rounded, he Lt Corda de Sain wif which Cs ts
a a el eee li an me). Te
fone a ety cele pnb Te ro
ae oe cr wed, eter and che pocon endo love i oly dangers
Soseeeet is
autism Hane cute
a a oe leaned aon
i aetna se nan ied Betta
{EOD cg iin nels a
ne etch po Feat
Ce ngs fi 2 Chr dep ai B,
ee ey ite Mi, 1953)332 PLATO'S PHARMACY
‘general, the pharmatoi were pur to death, Bur that, ic seems,” was not th
tsseata end ofthe operation. Death ocurred mote often a a secondary
phere eof fom the sac of he iy he Bows were
designed ro chs any or da ot th ev om he bod. Did hey
en them, e00, in order o achieve purfcaion? In his Thasend Histories,
seems
- ea
oe
sxym ogy Of gift as coming from the Lacin desis, Greek Baus, a dove (of oe).
‘wou! sors tht High snd Low Geonan td raion wile wor! bpnste
Sap ‘this is contrary to normal semantic cules. Moreover, one wot sve vo cepa
Sse cal ap iy tele ancpe cata
Sania ica aio
=
eieuide dante
acces Seat no ee eng
ssc ea nk
ip
eee lalla
wk RT eee sting een ae is 8
nlice wetter aan ae
Cal pcre ecto“
ee
Me snare
On er er eh
Ege nese ar go Sey
es enn Pn 0 7 ene neg
pth ete eat
Serta areata teeta
rc Spite eae meas aes
cers pope ble a ile ned by he dogs of i and cued in ch
Soeloprnie Li aemieromaa cig ee
SE si eg men noo eee
Seales NS FEO nmin pan
cee ee i cpm nr op et ey
iangiabaresewsst en
ee ee Stn, at
sets w Peas marr coe ae ee
‘cel fm As iso Sukipn cing Syc el la, ae
Sele get catiee suas ee’
sparen aioe ant oe ke at
ee td Nm won ante ge mas Sms a
gels soley" (p. dls ef also pp. 45-48, p. 148-49). meer
‘THE PHARMAKOS 133
‘Tastes gives the following account, based on certain fragments by che
sovrial poet Hlippona, ofthe ceremony: "The rite ofthe) parmaka was a
purieacon ofthis sor of. Ifa calamity overcook te city by the wach of
sro, wherhes i were famine ot pestilence of any other mischief, they led
far os though ta sacrifice the most unsightly ofthem all purification
rads semedy to the suffering city. They set the seciice in ee appoincee
lace ad pave hie cheese with hes hands and barey cake and figs and
rover tines they amore him with leeks and wild Sgs and other wild plants
Finally cy burn him wich fie withthe wood of wild trees and scacered
dhe ashes ino the sca and to the winds, for a purification, as sed, of the
suffecng city.”
“The ccy’s body proper chus reconstitutes its unity, closes around ehe
security oft inner court, gives back t0iesel he word that links ic wie,
ese within che condnes of the agora, by violently excluding from ies
territory the representative ofan external threat or aggression. That rspre-
serreive represents the otherness of che evi hae comes to affect or infecs
he nsde by unpredicably breaking into i, Yet ce represencaive of che
creside is eonetheless constituted, regularly granted its place by the com=
munity, chosen, kept, fe etc, in che very hear of the inside, ‘hese
pursies were as a matter of coutee domesticated by the living organise
Proud them at its expense. “The Athenians regularly maintained =
srnmaber of degraded end useless beings at che public expense; and when any
vumiey suchas plague, drought, of famine, befell thecity, they sericed
two of these outcasts as scapepoats."*
Sie ceremony of the pharmate is thus played out on the boundary line
bereen inside and outside, which ic has a8 ts function ceaseesty ro ere
cea retrace. Ina muaslesina mars. The origin of difference and divisions
whe pharma! repeesents cv both iacojected and projected. Beneficial
ae ine cores and fr thac, venerated snd cared for—harmful insofar
arate [peunotes the powers of evil—end for that, feared and created with
aoe nci laming and calming, Sacred and accursed. The conjunction, the
ae rei ui) cx poly with ere more sereu purpse tral
plain we ean el, Bu oe ting nce. hes fee ay 000.07,
sede moe mo Py wah wee worked they are opposed co one notes at palo
2 ate dcr oppo ein, ad terns don
ith opp me vous our arrest lays Yl 9.0 0 PS
ie on tac, br pull guna he ber seringr—rst ed Hh
cenit ee allowed crewing of judgments man eis Kract bl Heo)
Ch Be are Pie oft cy. Thode ear andl,
TAREE eld, whereas they rverble wry vaio subsets
baie a Month ap bold of this sci called Aira tly8 PLATO'S PHARMACY
ence i is peace in which each of us should spend most of hi
spend ihr, Wh then our fit ewan? We tld rare
lives in the playing of games—~crtain games, that is, sacifce, song,
and dance—with theres of liy fo ain hesve’s grace, al 0
repel and vanquish an enemy when we have wo fight him. ... (8035-1)
Bey talon ene ss satan ing. Wel ind
shin tee spear py pe
3 ona py sdf witag nn nen
Iways been considered so beffling:” why Plato, while subordinating or
Srding wenger winning
i fof ea thn um aie rie,
jing against it that complaint ‘whose reverberatic neue
have not ceased to resound. onto oe
: ve Taw governs this “contradiction, " this opposition to itself of what
stg wg os tt pan ue le
sin af yoink
ed csy tsp otapnrthsprn wn?
‘toni ” wh hig ohn ln al
ae ‘opposes itself to scription, as it chases itself (away) in hunting
orn pe 8 opts ota er og
order to convince ourselves of this, it would already suffice to -
one iol ce ior
image on Weer ere ih Pal
ti ite Ronen an enna Inte
in these chece “erus” uf the reperition of Platonism, whi re on
then wlolovenlonrbaoe ennai
the gpistém®, che exclusion and the devaluation of writing must somehow, ie
their very affirmation, come to terms with: i
Te gener oe figs ng wt i
2.2 cracion’twten pn oot
taneous affirmation of the being-outside of the outsic of injurious
intrusion into the inside; i ob ove of ios
3. cone "ey
: on of a “literary” work. Before Saussure’s Anagrams,
cher wre Rosa nd Pat's wok, oui an nnd of
sc "ony when ny nel be on
et read ee anagrammatical texture. :
cis a henge
ie cu 3 Pao, Rose, and
Ses mus beh po meting Ot he uns ese
17. Ch Of Granmantey.
78, The peincpal references a ol
hl ccd in Robin's La Thi plana de Paar,
PLAY: FROM THE PHARMAKON TO THE LETTER 159
borrow from i, for fundamental reasons, all its demonstrative and theoret-
jeal resources, As far as the Genevans are concerned, we have tried to show
this elsewhere, The case is at least equally clear for Plato.
Plato often uses che example of eters ofthe alphabet in order co come t0
gripe with a problem, They give him a becter grip on things thar, he can
cee chem to explain dialectics—but he never “comes co grips with’ the
“driting he uses. His intentions are always apparently didectic and analogi-
“al. But they conform to a constant necessity, which is never themasized as
Such: what always makes itself apparent is the law of difference,, the
jereducibility of structure and relation, of proportionality, withie analogy.
“We noved earlier that tupes can designate with equal pertinence the
“graphic unit and the eideric model. Ia che Republic, even before he uses the
‘ford rapa in the sense of model-form (ide) lato finds ie necesary so rurn
to the example of the leer, still for apparently pedagogical ends, as @
model that must be known before one can recognize its copies or icons
reflected in water or in a mirror:
eis, chen, suid I, as it was when we learned ou lecers and fele that we
cenew thera sufficiently only whea the separate leeers did not clude us,
appeating as few elemencs in all the combinations that convey ther,
and when we did not disregard them in small tings or great and chink
fe unnecessary co recognize them, bar were eager to distinguish them
ceveryeshere in che belief that we should never be lcerare and lerter~
perfect :llwe could do this... . And is it noc also true that ifehere are
Rhy ikencsses of letters (eihunar grammatin) reflected in water oF
vnitrors, we shall never know ehem until we know the originals, but
uch knowledge belongs to the same art and discipline? (402s)
We have no doube already been warned by che Timaeus: in all these
comparions with writing, we ate not suppesed to take the lexersHteraly.
‘The stoikbeia tou pants, the elements (or letters) of the whole are not
assembled like syllables (480) “They cannot reasonably be compared by #
tar of any sense even t0 syllables.” And yet, in the Timasus, nor only is
the eneire mathematical play of proportionalities based on a logos char can do
‘pithout voice, God's calculacion (lgismas sheat) (34a) being able so express
Teuelf in the silence of numbers; but, in addition, che introduction of the
tiffren: and the blend 5a), che problematic of the moving cause and the
place died irecivible class—the dualiy of paradigms (49), all chese
‘things “require” (49e) chat we define che origin of the world as frat, chat
39. Afr she use of lecexs, athe comer of comparison between the Tina and the
“of ine Mee see olen a a scence of “emai,” cf. nobly 1. Cobia,
de sioupbeilamgue, (Pac: Nouvelle Revoe Frags), ep. 204160 ‘i
PLATO'S PHARMACY
is a reepale, Ie is « mati, womb, ot i
nowhere offered up in the forr of} Ee een leat
melee cin the prs ir
tir en st nipton wince moter, Hein
as > 1 iat are somewhat awkwardly c: “Pla
Ie ead in tr iy mliaray
Boinc oa sign this awkwardness in a certain preface to the Timaeu: “In
onder conceive ofplac, ‘one must always, through a, proces ofabetrection
sins ure poctce, spteo ah on
‘place’ it occupies. This abstractior aes
te sraction, Rewer dif is er
Is gn th veo dane ie ‘ieee objec
not coexist in the same place, and since, without ct ius
shen cme ath, wed curler aero pce
ve sfangeants by metaphors. Plato used several quite ‘diferent ones,
fr ty snd rT Pa a
In gp pa yma ere ae
cle,’ the ‘matrix,’ che ‘mother,’ the ‘nurse’—al sions
‘nee, hhc ing Ba Fours ri