Invention of Hysteria : Charcot and the Photographic Iconography of the Salpêtrière / Georges Didi-Huberman ; Translated by Alisa Hartz
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Invention of Hysteria This page intentionally left blank Invention of Hysteria Charcot and the Photographic Iconography of the Salpêtrière Georges Didi-Huberman Translated by Alisa Hartz The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England Originally published in 1982 by Éditions Macula, Paris. ©1982 Éditions Macula, Paris. This translation ©2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or infor- mation storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. This book was set in Bembo by Graphic Composition, Inc. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Cet ouvrage, publié dans le cadre d’un programme d’aide à la publication, béné- ficie du soutien du Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Service Culturel de l’Ambassade de France aux Etats-Unis. This work, published as part of a program of aid for publication, received sup- port from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Cultural Services of the French Embassy in the United States. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Didi-Huberman, Georges. [Invention de l’hysterie, English] Invention of hysteria : Charcot and the photographic iconography of the Salpêtrière / Georges Didi-Huberman ; translated by Alisa Hartz. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-04215-0 (hc. : alk. paper) 1. Salpêtrière (Hospital). 2. Hysteria—History. 3. Mental illness—Pictorial works. 4. Facial expression—History. I. Charcot, J. M. ( Jean Martin), 1825– 1893. II. Title. RC532 .D5313 2003 616.85′24′009—dc21 2002029382 Contents Acknowledgments vii Principal Works Cited ix Argument xi I Spectacular Evidence 1 1 Outbreaks 3 2 Clinical Knowledge 13 3 Legends of Photography 29 4 A Thousand Forms, In None 67 II Charming Augustine 83 5 Auras 85 6 Attacks and Exposures 115 7 Repetitions, Rehearsals, Staging 175 8 Show-Stopper 259 Appendixes 1 The “Living Pathological Museum” 281 2 Charcot’s Clinical Lectures 281 3 Consultation 282 4 Preface to the Photographic Journal of the Hospitals of Paris 283 5 Preface to the Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière (vol. I) 283 6 Preface to the Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière (vol. II) 284 7 The Photographic Platform, Headrest, and Gallows 285 8 The “Observation” and the Photograph at the Salpêtrière 286 9 The “Photographic Card” at the Salpêtrière 287 10 Technique of Forensic Photography 287 v Contents 11 The Portrait’s Veil, the Aura 289 12 The “Auracular” Self-Portrait 290 13 The Aura Hysterica (Augustine) 291 14 Explanation of the Synoptic Table of the Great Hysterical Attack 291 15 The “Scintillating Scotoma” 292 16 Cure or Experimentation? 293 17 Gesture and Expression: Cerebral Automatism 293 18 A Tableau Vivant of Cataleptics 294 19 Provoked Deliria: Augustine’s Account 295 20 Theatrical Suggestion 297 21 Somnambular Writing 298 22 How Far Does Hypnotic Suggestion Go? 299 Notes 303 Bibliography 349 Index 369 vi Acknowledgments Pierre Bérenger, Jérôme Cantérot, Jacqueline Carroy-Thirard, Paul Cas- taigne, Jean Clay, Hubert Damisch, Monique David-Ménard, Pianine Desroche, Michel Foucault, Marie-Georges Gervasoni, Claude Imbert, Brigitte Montet, Véronique Leroux-Hugon, Louis Marin, Jaqueline Ozanne, Sylvia Pollock, Daniel Ponsard, Jacqueline Sonolet, Harrie Te- unissen, and the Trésor de la langue française all had a part in this text, and I am grateful to each of them, quite specifically. G. D.-H. The translator gratefully acknowledges the generous assistance of Tania Roy, Enrico J. Cullen, Laura Chiesa, Dr. Arthur J. Hartz, Joshua Cody, and, in particular, Juliette Leary Adams. A. H. Editions Macula would like to thank the Bibliothèque Charcot of the Salpêtrière (Service of Professor Castaigne), as well as the Archivio storico delle arti contemporanee of Venice for their courteous cooperation. vii This page intentionally left blank Principal Works Cited IPS 1875 Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière. Bibliothèque Char- cot, Salpêtrière Hospital. IPS I Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière. By Bourneville and Régnard. Paris: Bureaux du Progrès médical/Delahaye and Lecrosnier, 1876–1877. 167 pp. Figures: 40 plates. IPS II Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière. By Bourneville and Régnard. Paris: Bureaux du Progrès médical/Delahaye and Lecrosnier, 1878. 232 pp. Figures: 39 plates. IPS III Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière. By Bourneville and Régnard. Paris: Bureaux du Progrès médical/Delahaye and Lecrosnier, 1879–1880. 261 pp. Figures: 40 plates. NIS Nouvelle Iconographie de la Salpêtrière. 1888–1918. Cited by article. All references to the work of Sigmund Freud are to the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Trans. and ed. James Strachey. London: Hogarth Press, 1953–1974. ix This page intentionally left blank Argument In the last few decades of the nineteenth century, the Salpêtrière was what it had always been: a kind of feminine inferno, a citta dolorosa confining four thousand incurable or mad women. It was a nightmare in the midst of Paris’s Belle Epoque. This is where Charcot rediscovered hysteria. I attempt to retrace how he did so, amidst all the various clinical and experimental proce- dures, through hypnosis and the spectacular presentations of patients hav- ing hysterical attacks in the amphitheater where he held his famous Tuesday Lectures. With Charcot we discover the capacity of the hysteri- cal body, which is, in fact, prodigious. It is prodigious; it surpasses the imagination, surpasses “all hopes,” as they say. Whose imagination? Whose hopes? There’s the rub. What the hys- terics of the Salpêtrière could exhibit with their bodies betokens an ex- traordinary complicity between patients and doctors, a relationship of desires, gazes, and knowledge. This relationship is interrogated here. What still remains with us is the series of images of the Iconographie photographique de la Salpêtrière. It contains everything: poses, attacks, cries, “attitudes passionnelles,” “crucifixions,” “ecstasy,” and all the postures of delirium. If everything seems to be in these images, it is because photog- raphy was in the ideal position to crystallize the link between the fantasy of hysteria and the fantasy of knowledge. A reciprocity of charm was in- stituted between physicians, with their insatiable desire for images of Hys- teria, and hysterics, who willingly participated and actually raised the stakes through their increasingly theatricalized bodies. In this way, hyste- ria in the clinic became the spectacle, the invention of hysteria. Indeed, hys- teria was covertly identified with something like an art, close to theater or painting. But the constant escalation of these charms produced a paradoxical situation: the more the hysteric delighted in reinventing and imaging herself to a greater extent, the more a kind of ill was exacerbated. At a xi Argument certain moment the charm was broken, and consent turned to hatred. This turning point is interrogated here. Freud was the disoriented witness of the immensity of hysteria in camera and the manufacturing of images. His disorientation was not with- out bearing on the beginnings of psychoanalysis. xii I Spectacular Evidence 1 Outbreaks Spectacle I am attempting, fundamentally, to reopen the question of what the word “spectacle” might have meant in the expression “the spectacle of pain.”It is an infernal question, I think, profoundly shrill and strident. How might a relationship to pain already be projected, as it were, in our approach to works and images? How does pain get to work, what might be its form, what is the temporality of its emergence, or its return? How does this occur before—and within—us and our gaze? This also raises the question of which oblique paths true pain employs to give us mute access, but access nonetheless, to the question of forms and signifiers. In the end pain was the only name I could find for the event of hys- teria, even in the very passage of its terrible attraction (and this is how the question was first opened up). I will interrogate this paradox of atrocity;at every moment of its his- tory, hysteria was a pain that was compelled to be invented, as spectacle and image. It went so far as to invent itself (for this compulsion was its essence) when the talents of hysteria’s established fabricators fell into de- cline. An invention is the event of signifiers. But what I want to speak of is the meaning of the extreme visibility of this event of pain, the all too ev- ident pain of hysteria. Invention Inventing can be understood in three different senses: Imagining;imagining to the point of “creating,”as they say.—Then, contriving [controuver], that is, exploiting in the imagination, overcreating; in short, lying with ingenuity, if not genius. The Littré dictionary says that controuver is incorrectly but nonetheless commonly used to mean contra- dicting.—Finally, inventing is finding or falling right on the shock of the thing, the “thing itself”; invenire, coming to it, and perhaps unveiling it. 3 Chapter 1 Inventing is a kind of miracle (the miracle by which Christ’s Cross was disinterred from the Temple of Venus surmounting the Holy Sepul- cher, and then “recognized” by Saint Helena among two other crosses. This miracle is celebrated as the liturgy of the so-called Invention and Exaltation of the True Cross. What will be attempted here, between the venereal body and crucifixions of pain, is precisely the opening of the writings concerning the belated reinvention of a “Christian body.”) This miracle is always infected, smoothly concealing the creation, imagination, and abuse of images, the lies and contradictions—and, finally, the shock. Infected, but from what? Nietzsche wrote:“Even in the midst of the strangest experiences we still do the same: we make up the major part of the experience and can scarcely be forced not to contemplate some event as its ‘inventors.’ All this means: basically and from time immemorial we are—accustomed to lying.