MarkTwain,theTalking Cure,andLiteraryForm
MaxCavitch*
TherearemanyreasonswhyMarkTwain’slifelongstruggles withpsychictrauma,seriousmooddisorders,andsuicidalityhave onlyrecentlybeenaccordedmuchcriticalattention—reasonsincludingresistancetobiographicalinterpretation,the(apparent)incongruityofhumorandmelancholy,andthecontinuingstigmatization ofmentalillness.1 Moreover,thecompletetextofTwain’sfrankand voluminousautobiographyremainedunpublished(athisinsistence) forafullcenturyafterhisdeath.Therecentpublicationofthethreevolume AutobiographyofMarkTwain (2010–15)hasbroughta freshabundanceofinformationtolightwhilealso,crucially,making possibleafullerandmoreaccurateassessmentofthestructureand methodologyofthe Autobiography itself.Indeed,hisautobiography’ssignificanceforthestoryofmentalhealthinAmericahasas muchtodowithitsformaswithitscontent—aninnovativeautobiographicalformthatTwaincraftednotonlyoutofpersonalupheavals butalsowithacuteinsightintothedepthpsychologyofhistime.
1.SuffertheReminiscences
WhilescholarshavebeguntoappreciatetheextentofTwain’s earlytraumatizationanditslifelongconsequences,itstillgoesvirtuallyunknownamonghiscasualreadersandfans,eventhoughhis mostwidelyreadandcherished(anddenselyautobiographical) booksarefullofhorrificviolence,deepmelancholy,andperhaps thehighestbodycountinAmericanliterature.Bythetimehewas 15yearsold,hehadwitnessedtwoenslavedchildrenregularly beatenandfloggedbyhisownfather;anadultenslavedmanbeing
*MaxCavitchisAssociateProfessorofEnglishattheUniversityofPennsylvania whereheco-directsthePsychoanalyticStudiesprogram.Hisbooks include AmericanElegy:ThePoetryofMourningfromthePuritanstoWhitman (U ofMinnesotaP,2007)andaneweditionofWaltWhitman’s SpecimenDays (OxfordUP,forthcominginFall2023).
AmericanLiteraryHistory,vol.35,no.3,pp.1183–1205 https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajad096
V C TheAuthor(s)2023.PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress.Allrightsreserved. Forpermissions,pleasee-mail:journals.permissions@oup.com
[The]significanceof [MarkTwain’s Autobiography]for thestoryofmental healthinAmerica hasasmuchtodo withitsformaswith itscontent—an innovative autobiographical formthatTwain craftednotonlyout ofpersonal upheavalsbutalso withacuteinsight intothedepth psychologyofhis time.
bludgeonedtodeathbyalocaloverseer;atrampburningtodeathin thevillagejail;alocalmangettingfatallyshotonthetown’smain street;atravelerfromCaliforniabeingguttedwithaBowieknife; anotherCalifornianbeingperforatedwithmusketslugsbyawoman whosehousehewastryingtorob;theattemptbytwobrothersto murdertheirageduncle;thehangingofanenslavedmanaccusedof rapingagirlandmurderingherbrother;twoyoungfriendsdrowning inalocalcreek;andthedeathsofhissisterMargaret,hisbrother Benjamin,hisfatherJohn,andhisauntMartha(“Patsy”).
AgreatdealofthemiseryofTwain’slife—themanydeaths, actsofviolence,illnesses,defeats,andupheavals—iswoveninvariouswaysintothefabricofhispopularnovelsandtales.Ofcourse, Twain’sexperiencesoflove,happiness,andsheercuriosityabout theworldarealsoamplyreflectedinthesewritings.Takingthe goodalongwiththebad,TwainisundoubtedlyoneofthemostautobiographicalfictionwritersinUSliteraryhistory.
Twainisalsooneofthenation’sgreatestautobiographers.Yet his Autobiography itselfisnotwidelyknown.Andwhereitis known,ithasbeenlargelymisapprehended,despitethefactthatitis “arguably,”asJoshuaGalatputsit,“themostmultifacetedpieceof lifewritingeverproducedbyanAmericanauthor”(33).When Twaindiedin1910,heleftbehindwhatMichaelKiskisdescribesas “achaoticcollectionofmanuscriptsthatheidentifiedratherloosely as‘myautobiography’”(xxi).Amongthesepaperswastheseriesof short“ChaptersfromMyAutobiography”thatTwainhadpublished inthe NorthAmericanReview between1906and1907andthatconstituteKiskis’s1990editionof MarkTwain’sOwnAutobiography. Thevastremainingbulkofmanuscriptsanddictations,however, wasenjoinedfromfullpublicationbyTwainhimselffor100years followinghisdeath.Inthemeantime,severaleditors—alllessscrupulousthanKiskis—tookituponthemselvestoarrangeandpublish various portions ofTwain’sautobiographicalwritings,accordingto theirownrespectivewhims.Noneoftheresultingvolumes(Albert BigelowPaine’s MarkTwain:ABiography [1912],Bernard DeVoto’s MarkTwaininEruption [1940],andCharlesNieder’s The AutobiographyofMarkTwain [1959])areevenremotelycomplete, andnoneaccordwithTwain’sowndesignsforthework.
Thus,itwasnotuntilafterthestipulatedcenturyhadpassed thatthecompleteworkwaspublishedinsomethingliketheform Twainintended.Yetthe AutobiographyofMarkTwain isstillrelativelyunknown,notonlybecauseofthepublicationdelayandits multifacetedcomplexitybutalsobecausethethree-volumeset, meticulouslyeditedbyBenjaminGriffinandHarrietElinorSmith, isforbiddinglylong.Alltold,itrunstomorethan2,200pages.This is 15times thelengthofBenjaminFranklin’s Autobiography (1791),
tociteanexamplethat,muchtothepointofthisessay,Twainfound “pernicious”(“Late”138).Althoughheneverfullyaccountedfor thisantipathy,wecaninferfromthelambastingTwaingaveitthat, likemanyotherreadersofFranklin’s Autobiography,hefaultedits refusaltoattemptanythingapproachingfrankpsychologicalselfanalysis.
2.AutobiographyandSelf-Analysis:Twain,James,Freud
MarkTwainwasakeenstudentofhumanpsychology,witha paraprofessionalinterestinthescientificfielditself,attheforefront ofwhichwashisfriendWilliamJames,whosharedTwain’sfascinationwiththefluxofconsciousnessand“inwarddivision”(Horn 135).Twainalsostudied,andonoccasionevenparticipatedin,variousdevelopments—includingtechniquesofhypnosis,positive thinking,andhydropathy—inthe“mind-cure”movementsweeping EuropeandtheUSinthelatenineteenthcentury.Twain’slifelong interestindreaminterpretation,prophecy,andtelepathiccommunicationledhimin1884tojoinBritain’srecentlyfoundedSocietyfor PsychicalResearch,andhelaterpublishedtwoessaysontelepathic phenomena,“MentalTelegraphy”and“MentalTelegraphyAgain,” in Harper’sMonthlyMagazine.Atthecloseofthecentury,Twain’s 20-monthresidenceinVienna(from27September1897until30 May1899)puthim,wittinglyornot,atthecenterofthenascentpsychoanalyticmovement,withitsemphasisonthemeaningfulnessof dreamsandthecurativepowerofwhatoneofSigmundFreud’searliestpatientsdubbed(inEnglish)“thetalkingcure”(“Uber Psychoanalyse”7).
Infact,FreudwasakeenfanofTwain’swritingandmade surehehadatickettotheAmericanauthor’sfirstlectureinVienna. InalettertoWilhelmFliess,Freudwrotethathehad“treatedmyself tolisteningtoouroldfriendMarkTwaininperson,whichwasa sheerdelight”(Masson299).Althoughthere’snohardevidencethat thetwoeverconversed,FreudcitedTwainonnumerousoccasions, bothinhiscorrespondenceandinthreeofhismajorworks: Der WitzundseineBeziehungzumUnbewußten [JokesandTheir RelationtotheUnconscious](1905),“DasUnheimliche[The Uncanny]”(1919),and DasUnbehageninderKultur [Civilization andItsDiscontents](1930).2 ForrestG.RobinsoninsiststhatTwain andFreud“workedincompleteindependenceofeachother”(33), evenasheisquicktoconcedethat“theirsharedfascinationwiththe mysteriesofthehumanpsyche,andtheirunflinchingwitnesstothe predicamentofmodernhumanity,drewthemalongoftenparallel trackstoarangeofstrikinglysimilarconclusions”(33–34).
Indeed,in DieTraumdeutung (TheInterpretationofDreams) (1900),therevolutionarybook—itselfanewkindofautobiography —thatFreudwasfinishingduringTwain’ssojourninVienna, dreamsweresaidtobe“dieViaregiazurKenntnisdes Unbewussten[theroyalroadtoknowledgeoftheunconscious]” (613)—theroadtounderstandingone’sunrecognizedandunavowed wishesanddesires.3 ForTwain,autobiographywastheroadto muchthesamegoal,asheexplainedinalettertoWilliamDean Howellsin1904:
AnAutobiographyisthetruestofallbooks;forwhileitinevitablyconsistsmainlyofextinctionsofthetruth,shirkingsofthe truth,partialrevealmentsofthetruth,withhardlyaninstanceof plainstraighttruth,theremorselesstruth is there,betweenthe lines,wheretheauthor-catisrakingdustuponitwhichhides fromthedisinterestedspectatorneitheritnoritssmell...the resultbeingthatthereaderknowstheauthorinspiteofhiswily diligences.(TwainandHowells782)
Someofthese“wilydiligences”havetodowiththequestionof referentialityand,morespecifically,ofnaming.For,having embarkedonaself-historicizingproject,anyautobiographeris boundtowonder—perhapsforthefirsttime,perhapsinnewways— abouttheirownnatureandidentity:What is it,exactly,that’s indexedbymyuseofthefirst-personpronoun?Andwho is thepersontowhommy“proper”namerefers?Allautobiographersmust adjudicatetherelationbetweensenseandreferent,andthemost interestingusuallygivereaderssomesignofhowtheirlives inform thatprocessofadjudication.
3.TheSubjectofAutobiography
UnlikeGriffinandSmith,Iwillhenceforthrefertotheauthor of TheAutobiographyofMarkTwain asSamuelClemens—not, however,todiscounttheimportanceofthename“MarkTwain”in literaryhistory,nortoignorethecomplexities(sothoroughly exploredbyscholarsincludingJustinKaplan[1966],SusanGillman [1989],andForrestG.Robinson[2007])ofClemens’spowerful,if ambivalent,identificationwithhismostfamouscreation.InsteadI wishtohelpkeepthequestionofthepropernameinmindandto addressthisquestioninlightofClemens’sownconsiderablepsychological,onecouldsayproto-psychoanalytic,insight.Forthe questionofthepropernameisalsothequestionofthesubject(the onewhospeaks)andofthesubject’sinitiation:itsoriginsaswellas
itsformativeparticipation in andsubjection to significantritesand rituals.
Suchritesandritualsareoftensecret.Consider,forexample, the“initiation”ritualthatTomSawyerinsistsuponin The AdventuresofTomSawyer (1876).InChapter35,Huck(initially) resiststhetermsofthisinitiationbecausetheyaresoextreme.They are,inreality,mattersoflifeanddeath,notonlyforhimselfbutfor othersaswell.Anditispreciselythecost—thelife-or-death stakes—ofthespeakingsubject’sinitiationassuchthatpreoccupied bothClemensandFreudthroughouttheirlives,especiallyasthey agedandastheirrespectiveviewsofhumanitygrewincreasingly grim.Thisheavypsychiccostwasthecentralpreoccupationof Freud’slatework, CivilizationandItsDiscontents,anditwastaken up,pertinently,severaldecadeslaterbyJacquesLacan,inhiscontroversial1967polemicconcerningthe“self-given”authorityofthe psychoanalyst(“Proposition”)—laterdubbed“auto-autorisation [self-authorization]”byLacan’seditorJacques-AlainMiller (“Statut”187–88).
Tomyknowledge,nopublisherhasevermarketedanautobiographyas“authorized”or“authoritative.”Theauthor’sown approvalofandcompetenceforthetaskofwritingsuchabookare stipulatedbythemetonymic“signature”onitscover,whichisthe signofwhatJacquesDerridareferstoastheauthor’s“having-been present”and,thus,ofboththework’s“originalite enigmatique [enigmaticoriginality]”anditstenebrousbutconsequentialrelation tothe(displaced)figureoftheauthor(Marges 391).Readersof autobiographies,includingreadersasdeeplyskepticaloforiginsas Derrida,stilltakeseriouslythe impression ofmonolithicsubstantialityconferredbyauthorialsignatures—evenif,onceopenedup, manysuchmonolithsseemmorelikecleftembankments,heavily striatedbyanxietiesaboutthenatureofauthorityitself.Thestakes ofautobiographyincludeknowing,asDerridaelsewhereputsit,“ce qu’estlaproprietede‘saproprevie’,quipeuten ^ etrele‘maıˆtre’ [whatisthepropertyof‘mylife,’andwhocouldbeits‘master’]” (Passage 310).
Thispunon“propriete/property”as possession, attribute,and propriety marksaconundrumthatallautobiographersfacewith varyingdegreesofconfidence,irony,anxiety,andeffort.It’shard worktomakeandtokeepalifethatseemsworthhaving,alifeone can“own,”notjustinthemodernsenseofpersonhoodtowhich C.B.Macphersongavethename“possessiveindividualism,”but alsoasalifetotelltoothers,topainstakinglydelineateinwhat wouldbeheardasthevoiceofwhatDerridaironicallycallsits “master.”EveSedgwickobservesinherautobiographythat “productionofthefirstpersonis...laborintensive”(207)—not
leastbecauseweeachhaveso many “firstpersons”toproduce.“The humanbeingisaswarmofbeings,”writesGastonBachelard(19)— countlessbusyworkersinafirst-personfactory.
Oftheoutputofhisownfirst-personfactory,G.W.F.Hegel states:“WhenIsay‘I,’Imeanmyselfasthissingular,quitedeterminateperson.ButwhenIsay‘I,’Idonotinfactexpressanythingparticularaboutmyself.Anyoneelseisalso‘I,’andalthoughincalling myself‘I,’Icertainlymeanme,thissingle[person],whatIsayis stillsomethingcompletelyuniversal”(57).HereHegelgivesusthe first-personsingularpronounasakindofearlyFordmotorcar:each oneisthesame,buteveryonedrivesitdifferently.Moreover,noone drivesexactlythesamewayeverytimetheygetbehindthewheel. Thus,whenIsay“I,”IoftenmeanmyselfasIknownot what sortof person.AtothertimesImeanmyselfaspreciselythesingular,determinatepersonI’mdetermined not tobe.OrthatIverymuchaspire tobe.OrthatIseemtohaveforgottenhowtobe.OrthatImight oncehaverecognizedbutnowwishtodisown.Orthatnowgoesby adifferentname,orgoesbymanynames—namesthatmightsuit many(im)proprieties.
Thejudgmentsweformofourselvesofteninvolvequestioning ourcompetencetospeakwellandtrulyforourselves,togivethe bestpossibleaccountofourselves.Andtherearemanygoodreasons toask:Am I reallythebestpersontowritemyautobiography?DoI knowenough, myself?DoIknowmyself enough?Yet,ironically, feelingsoftrepidationinthefaceofsuchquestionsmaybethesurest signofone’sautobiographicalcompetence,ofhavinganadequately keensenseofthemanylimitsofself-knowledgeandthusofbeing able,attheveryleast,togivetheblanks,hollows,andinconsistenciestheirdue.
4.Pseudonymy,Celebrity,andSelf-Regard
Clemenshadbeenusing“MarkTwain”asthe nomdeplume hefrequentlycalledhis“nomdeguerre”since1863.4 Itwasoneof manypseudonyms—including“Grumbler,”“JohnSnooks,”“Josh,” “Rambler,”“SargeantFathom,”“SonofAdam,”“ThomasJefferson Snodgrass,”and“W.EpaminondasAdrastusBlab”—thathe’dtried outasayoungnewspapermanduringtheearly1860s.Pennames werefashionablethen.ButmoreimportanttoClemenswastheprotectiontheyaffordedhimastheauthorofvarioussatiricalandoccasionallyincendiaryarticles.ThewayClemenstellsit,in Lifeonthe Mississippi (1883),hesettledonthatnamepreciselybecauseofthe unintendedhurtthatoneofhislampooningsketcheshadcauseda famoussteamboatcaptainandoccasionalnewspapercorrespondent,
who,Clemensclaims,hadused“MarkTwain”ashisownpenname (516–20).But,accordingtobiographerRonPowers,noevidence haseverbeenfoundofanyarticlesbyCaptainIsaiahSellerssigned “MarkTwain”(118).KevinMacDonnellarguesthatClemens pluckedhispennamefromahithertooverlookedcomico-nautical sketchpublishedin VanityFair in1861,inwhichoneofthecharactersiscalled“MarkTwain.”AndGaryScharnhorst(dismissing withoutmentionDonnell’sclaim)concludesthatthemost“plausible explanation”centersonyoungClemens’sdocumentedreputationas amanwhohabituallydrankenoughliquorfortwo.Inanycase,the nameitselfwouldhaveresonatedforClemens,whohadobtained hispilot’slicensein1859,asthoroughlyriverine:inhisday,riverboatsusedropesmarkedatintervalsofsixfeet(equaltoone fathom),andthesecond mark—MarkTwo,or“MarkTwain”in MississippiRiverlingo—indicatedadepth(twelvefeet)thatwas justsafeenough forsteamboatnavigation,makingitanicelyambiguousmetaphorforthe“depth”ofaperson’scharacter.
Butwhateverfoibles,jokes,orparodiesitsignaledtothosein theknow,“MarkTwain”wasnot,initself,arisiblename(like “W.EpaminondasAdrastusBlab”).Nor,asanauthorialsignature, diditsignalthatallofitsproductionsweresatiresorburlesques. Rather,oncehe’dsettledon“MarkTwain,”Clemensuseditnot onlyasapennamebutalso,onvariousoccasions,asifittrulywere hispropername.AsearlyasJuly1863,hewassigning“Mark”to variouslettershometohismotherandsister,and,whileheseemsto havebeentemporarilydissuadedfromdoingso,heresumedthe practicein1866,inlettersthatyearalonetoawiderangeofcorrespondents,fromfamilyandfriendsallthewaytothegovernorsof NevadaandCalifornia.Fromthatpointon,inhisvoluminouscorrespondence,healternated—apparentlyaccordingtowhim—between variantsof“SamuelLanghorneClemens”and“MarkTwain.”It’s difficulttothinkofanotherauthorwhosepennamebecamesothoroughlyimplicatedinwhothatauthorwasunderstoodtobeasahistoricalperson,whileatthesametimebeingsothoroughlyapartof whothatauthorunderstoodhimselftobe.Thesimplisticdistinction drawnbysomecriticsbetweenwhatJenniferZaccara,forone,calls “theauthenticselfofSamuelClemensandthepersonaormaskof MarkTwain”isplainlyinsufficient(107).Foronlyhavingcut throughtheclaptrapaboutsplit-personalitiesand Doppelganger can onebegintoappreciatehowcomplex,ambivalent,cannilyreflexive, andshrewdlyresponsivetotheworldaroundhimthisparticular autobiographer’smultipleself-designationsactuallyare.
SuchanappreciationiscrucialtoanyreadingofClemens’s AutobiographyofMarkTwain andtheformsofself-encounter memorializedinitsmanythousandsoflong-secretedmanuscript
pages.Fordecades,Clemensbothlaughedandweptatthetaskof self-representationhehadsetforhimself,ataskheexecutedagainst thebackdropofagrowingcultureofmasspublicityincreasingly definedbythenewmediumofphotography.Areadytechnologyfor thedocumentationofordinarylives,photographyalsocreated modernmass-mediacelebrities,likeClemenshimself,openingup possibilitiesforself-inventionandfalsificationtoadeptsofaneverexpandingrangeofimage-makingtechnologies.Evenwithhismodestprovincialbeginnings,SamClemensbeganatanearlyageto grasp(literallyaswellasfiguratively)thetechnologicalchallenges ofrepresentinghimselfbothfromandagainstthepointofviewof hismediatizedimages,ultimatelymakingandremakinghimself— bothinthelivingandinthewritingofhislife—as,simultaneously, subjectandobjectofregard.
Considerthat,in1850(probablyasa15th-birthdaypresent), Clemenssatforadaguerreotype:astudioportraitoftheyoungprinter’sapprenticecradlingacomposingstickholdingthreedisplay-size letters,“S,”“A,”and“M”(Figure1).Samwouldgrowuptobeone ofhisera’smostastuteobserversofhowphotographytransformed AmericanlifeandthestoriesAmericanstoldabouttheirlives— includinghisown Autobiography.Clemens’sbookbrims,notwith photographs,butwithreflectionsuponthenineteenth-centuryexplosionofprintmediaandtheeffectofthemechanicalreproductionof photographicimagesondemocraticsociety.Evenasayouth, Clemensseemstohavegraspedthepossibilities.Forinthe1850 daguerreotype,hehassetthethreelettersbackwards(as“M,”“A,” “S”),sothat,whenreversedbythephotographicapparatus,they wouldreadintheproper,self-identifyingorder.
BeyondhisfellowAmericans’widelysharedconfidencein photography’sindexicalrelationtothe“real,”Clemensfurther intuiteditspotentialforshapingappearancesinacultureincreasinglyrivenbyantitheticalcommitmentstopublicity(thetransparencyandknowabilityoftheworkingsofanopensocietyofequals) andtoprivacy(individualcontroloverpublicaccesstoone’sown identityandexperience).Oneofthefirstmodernmediacelebrities, Clemenswatcheddemocraticculturebecomeincreasinglydependentuponphotography’spowerbothtowidenandtodistortpopular perceptionofthings“astheyreallyare,”includingitspowerto shapehisownincreasinglyinternationalimage.
AsyoungSamunderstood,thedaguerreotypeapparatusworks asamirror,andhewassavvyenoughtomanipulatetheobjectsin theviewfinder’sframe(likethethreelettersofhisname)soasto controlwhateveryonewouldseeinthereversed,reflected,framed image(recallthat“frame”isalsoaprinter’stermforthewoodor metalformthatholdsthetype-blockinplace).Morethan50years
Fig.1.G.H.Jones, SamuelL.Clemens,29Nov.1850,Hannibal,Missouri. ImagecourtesyoftheMarkTwainPapersandProject,TheBancroftLibrary, UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.
later,Clemensusedthesamemirrormetaphortodescribehis Autobiography:inoneofhis1906dictations,heinsiststhathisautobiography“differsfrom all otherautobiographies”inasmuchas thosearemere“windows”throughwhichthe“conventional”autobiographerobservestheworld,whereashis“isamirror,andIam lookingatmyselfinitallthetime”(2:12).The Autobiography is the1850daguerreotypewritlarge(very large),inthatClemens rarelysharedwithothersaglimpseintothemirrorofhislifethathe hadn’talreadytimedorstagedtoachievesomedesiredeffect.While the Autobiography hasfarmore“movingpieces,”itsmethodology andresultingformsustaintheanalogy.Clemens“composed”his Autobiography frommanyhundredsofpieces,likeajourneyman printerassemblingandreassemblingtypographicalelements,blocks oftype,andengravingstoproducedesiredimpressionsindesired arrangements.
Asacannymanipulatorofthetechnologiesofcelebrity, Clemensrecognizedthatwidelysharedenthusiasmforcelebrated figuresresultsnotonlyinregimesofinterpellation,inwhichcelebritiesarecalledupontosustainimitationsoftheirownmediatized imagesbutalsoincollectiveexpressions,onthepartofenthusiasts, oftheirowndesireforrecognition.Celebrityautobiographers— includingClemens,whowrotehislifestorywellbeforeconsumercapitalism’stechnologiesofmass-imaginaryprojectioncametobea subjectofseriousstudy—faceanexaggeratedform,endemictotheir hypertrophiedpublicity,ofachallengethatallautobiographersface: decidingwhethertowritefromoragainstthepointofviewoftheir ownmediatedimage(s)and,ultimately,negotiatingwithothers
exactlywhatitwillmeanforthem“towrite”andsubsequentlyto signthiswritingwithanamethatonlyeveruncertainlyendorsesits ownpropriety.
5.WhoAmIToSay?
Mostofthe Autobiography’s“movingpieces”weredictatedto anamanuensisorstenographer,andadditional“audience”members oftenattendedthesesessions.AsLindaRuggobserves,
thespecular,reflexivesituation,imaginedbymanycriticsof autobiographyastakingplacewithinthenarratororbetweenthe narratorandaprojectedreader,refers[inClemens’scase] explicitlytothebodyasitisseenandheardbyothersatthe timeofthedictation.(63)
Signsoftheperformativesituationofthisdictationpermeate Clemens’stext,asdoremindersofhisrejectionofchronological ordering(“theplanthatstartsyouatthecradleanddrivesyou straightforthegrave”)infavorofathoroughlyassociativemethod: “Side-excursions,”hewroteearlyon,“arethelifeofourlifevoyage,andshouldbe,also,ofitshistory”(Autobiography 1:203). Later,inoneofhis1906NewYorkdictations,heelaboratedonhis methodology:
[T]heideaofblockingoutaconsecutiveseriesofeventswhich havehappenedtome,orwhichIimaginehavehappenedto me—Icanseethatthatisimpossibleforme.Theonlything possibleformeistotalkaboutthethingthatsomethingsuggests atthemoment.(1:250)
Thefollowingday,heexpandedonhisassociativemethodandits concomitant dissociative featuresinrepresentingthe“mostinteresting”incidents:
Later,youwonderwhyyoueverthoughtofsettingsuchathing down—ithasnovalue,noimportance.Thechampagnethat madeyoudrunkwithdelightorexasperationatthetimehasall passedaway;itisstale.Butthatiswhathumanlifeconsists of—littleincidentsandbigincidents,andtheyareallofthe samesizeifweletthemalone.Anautobiographythatleaves outthelittlethingsandenumeratesonlythebigonesisno properpictureoftheman’slifeatall;hislifeconsistsofhis
feelingsandhisinterests,withhereandthereanincidentapparentlybigorlittletohangthefeelingson.(1:258–59)
There’samoreastutepsychologyatworkherethanmerecapitulationtoanavoweddigressivetendency.Clemensrecognizes,andhas thecourageinhis Autobiography toportray,thefundamentallydissociativenatureofthehumanpsyche—notpathologically“split,” butresemblingacommunityofwhathisliteraryexecutorAlbert Painereferredtoas“ourvariousandmultipleselves”(352),rather thanasingular,unifiedconsciousness.
LikeWilliamJames,Clemenswasthoroughlyskepticalofthe notionofamonadicself.BothwritersweremuchtakenwithRalph WaldoEmerson’stheoryofmood,whichanticipatesClemens’s rationaleforhisown(dis)associativemethod:“Ourmoods,”says Emerson,
donotbelieveineachother.To-dayIamfullofthoughts,and canwritewhatIplease.IseenoreasonwhyIshouldnothave thesamethought,thesamepowerofexpression,to-morrow. WhatIwrite,whilstIwriteit,seemsthemostnaturalthingin theworld;butyesterdayIsawadrearyvacuityinthisdirection inwhichnowIseesomuch;andamonthhence,Idoubtnot,I shallwonderwhohewasthatwrotesomanycontinuouspages. (406)
Insteadofdutifullyemployingtheoftendrearytechniqueofchronologicalsequencing,Clemenslooksinwhateverdirectionpleases him,today—whetherit’stowardanepisodefromchildhoodorthe latestbulletinfromNewYork,alifelongfriendshiporapassing fancy,amemoryofromanceoranintimationofmortality—knowingalwaysthat,tomorrow,hemightwonderwhohewas,notto havebeenlookingsomewhereelse.
AlthoughClemensdictatedthelion’sshareofhis Autobiography between1906and1910,theprojecthadoccupied himsince1870,whenhebegandraftingepisodesandexperimenting withcompositionalmethodandform.Alltold,morethanhalfhis lifewasspentcraftinghisowncontributiontoaliterarygenrehe greatlyadmired.Asareader,hecountedBenvenutoCellini’s Vita [Life][1566],Jean-JacquesRousseau’s Confessions (1782),and GiacomoCasanova’s Histoiredemavie [StoryofMyLife][1797] amonghisfavoritebooks,andhewasaspecialdevoteeofSamuel Pepys’s Diary [1669],which,atoveramillionwordsandrenowned foritsfrankness,wasamodelofsortsforClemens’sownfrank account,projectedfromthestarttobeonagrandscale.AsClemens assuredonecorrespondentin1886,“ifone’sautobiographymaybe
calledabook—infactminewillbeneareralibrary”(qtd.inWillis 168).And,inanotetohimselfin1896,hereaffirmedhiscommitmenttowritethisautobiography“infull&withremorselessattentiontofacts&propernames”(qtd.inSmith12).Hewantedtotell everything,withoutreservation,andhebelievedthatmandatingthe hundred-yearpostponementwouldhelphimtoavoidbothselfcensorshipandthepossiblediscountenanceofothers.
Heneverdeviatedmuchfromthisgeneralplan.Yetthemore hewrotethelesssanguinehebecameabouthis(oranyone’s)ability tobecompletelyhonest.ToaninterviewerfortheLondon Times in 1899,Clemensassertedthata
bookthatisnottobepublishedforacenturygivesthewritera freedomwhichhecouldsecureinnootherway.Intheseconditionsyoucandrawamanwithoutprejudiceexactlyasyou knewhimandyethavenofearofhurtinghisfeelingsorthose ofhissonsorgrandsons.
Suchabook,hecontinued,wouldbeincomparablyvaluableto“a remoteposterity”asatruthful“pictureofthepast.”Inthesame interview,however,Clemensalsoacknowledgedthatonecould neverbeentirelyforthcomingaboutoneself,regardlessofcircumstanceorstrengthofwill:
Amancannottellthewholetruthabouthimself,evenifconvincedthatwhathewrotewouldneverbeseenbyothers.Ihave personallysatisfiedmyselfofthatandhavegototherstotestit also.Youcannotlaybareyourprivatesoulandlookatit.You aretoomuchashamedofyourself.Itistoodisgusting. (“Bequest”4)
Howellswasoneofthoseother“testers,”withwhomClemens engagedinextendedconversationsaboutthelimitsofforthcomingness.Ina1904letter,Howellsconfessedhisskepticism:
Youalwaysratherbewilderedmebyyourveracity,andIfancy youmaytellthetruthaboutyourself.But all ofit?Theblack truth,whichweallknowofourselvesinourhearts,oronlythe whity-browntruthofthepericardium,orthenice,whitened truthoftheshirtfront?Even you won’ttelltheblackheart’struth.Themanwhocoulddoitwouldbefamedtothelastday. (TwainandHowells781)
Clemens’sextraordinaryreply(quotedabove)aboutthenatureof autobiographicaltruthhelpedclinchHowells’stransferential
complicity(asakindofBreuertoClemens’sFreud)inClemens’s efforttoproduceanewkindofautobiographygroundedindepth psychologyanditsnewmethodofself-analysis.
By1906,Howellshadreadenoughofthemanuscripttoconcede(inlanguagethatrevealstheperhapsunconsciousinfluenceof Clemens’sidiom):“YouarenakederthanAdamandEveput together,andtruerthansin”(TwainandHowells803).Yetnotquite. AsClemenswroteelsewherethatsameyear,
Ihavethoughtoffifteenhundredortwothousandincidentsin mylifewhichIamashamedof,butIhavenotgottenoneof themtoconsenttogoonpaperyet.Ithinkthatthatstockwill stillbecompleteandunimpairedwhenIfinishthesememoirs,if Ieverfinishthem.
Andjustayearbeforehisdeath,herespondedtoaquestionabout thetruthfulnessofthedetailsinoneofthepublishedexcerptsby saying:“Yes...literarilytheyaretrue,thatistosaytheyareaproductofmyimpressions—recollections.Assworntestimonytheyare notworthanything;theyaremerelyliterature”(qtd.inSmith57).
Tellingly,Clemensmadethisremarkasaplaintiffduringa depositioninalawsuit(overhisfamily’slandinTennessee)—asituationthatevokesthelongstanding,highlyoverdeterminedrelation betweenautobiographyandbothconfessionaldiscourseandlegal testimony.Theimportanceofthatveryrelationhadbeenfor Clemensthekeytotheproblemofmethod,forhehadinitiallyfound the writing ofhisautobiographyparticularlyarduousandunsatisfying.Hemadesporadiceffortstobeginandtobeginagain.Buthe didn’tdeveloprealmomentumuntilhecommittedhimselftodictation.Ultimately,thisishowmostofthe Autobiography gotwritten—andrewritten.AshetoldHowells,muchofwhathe’dalready writtenwouldhavetobedone“overagainwithmymouth,”inorder toachievethe“dewy&breezy&woodsyfreshness”ofdiscursive narration(TwainandHowells779).AsSmitharguespersuasively, incomposinghis Autobiography,inparticular,Clemensfelt“the needforaresponsive,humanaudience”(10)andthathisdesireto tellthetruthwaswellservedby“thedisinhibitingnatureoftalk” (22).
DictationalsohelpedClemensdispelanylingeringattachment tochronologicalsequence.Asearlyas1876hehaddeclaredhis intentiontofamilyfriendAnnieAdamsFieldsnotto“limitmyself astospaceandatwhateverageIamwritingaboutevenifIaman infantandanideacomestomeaboutmyselfwhenIamfortyIshall putthatin”(qtd.inSmith7),andby1906,ashewascompilinghis piecemealmanuscriptsintoasinglenarrative,hehadprettymuch
freedhimselfofthechronologicalcompulsion.ForClemens,this wasnotonlyamatterofcontentbutalsoofform,asheexplainedto hisfriendHenryHuttlestonRogersin1906:
Iwouldliketheliteraryworldtosee...thatthe form ofthis bookisoneofthemostmemorableliteraryinventionsofthe ages.Andsoitis.Itrankswiththesteamengine,theprinting pressandtheelectrictelegraph.I’mtheonlypersonwhohas everfoundouttherightwaytobuildanautobiography.(Twain andRogers611)
Thefactthat,inthisletter,Clemenssoundsmorelikeanengineer thananauthorowesmuchtohiscorrespondent,Rogers,atitanof industry,who,amonghismanyotherenterprises,hadhelpedJohn D.RockefellersetuptheAmalgamatedCopperCompany,which suppliedmostoftherawmaterialthatwiredthecountry’srapidly expandingelectronicnetworks.
In1900,Rogers,actingasClemens’sagent,negotiatedthe rightstothe Autobiography withthepresidentofHarperand Brothers,GeorgeHarvey,whosuggestedtheinsertionofaclauseto theagreementthatwould“provideforpublicationinwhatever modesshouldthen[onehundredyearshence]beprevalent,thatis, byprintingasatpresent,orbyuseofphonographiccylinders,orby electricalmethod,orbyanyothermodewhichmaythenbeinuse” (qtd.inSmith19).WhiletheMarkTwainProjectOnlinecouldn’t havebeenfullyenvisionedbyeitherClemensorRogers,bothwould surelybepleasedbythesimultaneousprintandelectronicpublicationofthe Autobiography,thefirstmeticulouslyeditedvolumeof whichappearedin2010—almostexactly100yearsafterClemens’s death—followedbytheremainingtwovolumesin2013and2015, complementedbyanevenlargerelectronicversionthatincludes additionaleditorialapparatuses.
6.ClemensandthePsychodynamicsofLiteraryForm
Forallitsdeterrentbulk(nottomentionitsdocumentedwoes andtragedies),the Autobiography isasrousinglybriskabookas Clemenseverwrote,notleastbecauseofthestructuralanachronicity thatmakesitboththestoryofClemens’slifeasheremembersit and thestoryofClemens’smemoryasheexperiencesit.AnditisprincipallyasthestoryofClemens’smemorythathis Autobiography addressesitselftothelargerquestionsofthegenre’sresourcesfor managingthelimitsofself-knowledgeandself-authorizationandfor adjudicatingtherelationbetweensenseandreferent.Clemens’s
fascination,notmerelywithmemory’sfallibilitybutalsowiththe narrativefungibilityofparticularmemories,isfrequentlyondisplay, asinthispassageconcerningthenatureandvalueofearlychildhood memories:
Iusedtoremember[mybrotherHenry]walkingintoafireoutdoorswhenhewasaweekold.Itwasremarkableinmeto rememberathinglikethat,whichoccurredwhenIwasso young.AnditwasstillmoreremarkablethatIshouldclingto thedelusion,forthirtyyears,thatI did rememberit—forof courseitneverhappened;hewouldnothavebeenabletowalk atthatage.IfIhadstoppedtoreflect,Ishouldnothaveburdenedmymemorywiththatimpossiblerubbishsolong.Itis believedbymanypeoplethatanimpressiondepositedina child’smemorywithinthefirsttwoyearsofitslifecannot remaintherefiveyears,butthatisanerror.Theincidentof BenvenutoCelliniandthesalamandermustbeacceptedas authenticandtrustworthy;andthenthatremarkableandindisputableinstanceintheexperienceofHelenKeller....For manyyearsIbelievedthatIrememberedhelpingmygrandfatherdrinkhiswhiskeytoddywhenIwassixweeksold,butIdo nottellaboutthatanymore,now;Iamgrownold,andmy memoryisnotasactiveasitusedtobe.WhenIwasyoungerI couldrememberanything,whetherithadhappenedornot;but myfacultiesaredecaying,now,andsoonIshallbesoIcannot rememberanybutthelatter.(1:209–10)
Themordantwitofthatfinalsentencecharacterizeswhatisperhaps Clemens’smostwidelyrecognizedself-state:thehighlyselfreferentialhumoristwithanunflappablesenseofironyandan engaginglyaphoristicstyle.Butthedivagationsofparadoxandearnestnessthatcharacterizethelongerpassage,andmanyotherslike it,arenotalwayseasilyreconciledwiththatself-state.Indeed,one ofClemens’sachievementsinthe Autobiography istoresistthefacileassimilationofself-states,ormoods,orstatesofmind,intoa merereflectionofit.Instead,hepliesthediscordancesandcontradictions.Herehesimultaneouslydeniesanddefendsthetruthfulness ofearlychildhoodmemories,discreditinghisearlymemoryof Henry,whileinsistingthattheprevailingtheoryofthetransienceof infantilememories“isanerror,”withanappealtotheauthority oftwootherfamousautobiographers:CelliniandClemens’sgood friendHelenKeller.Withregardtohisagingmind,hespeaksof havingaless“active”memory,notalessaccurateone,usingthe wordinthewayadultswillspeakofachild’s“activeimagination,” whichisusuallytheirwayofdecliningtomeetthechildontheplane
ofitsstill-developingmind,wheretheprincipleofnoncontradiction hasyettobeconqueredbyrepeatedreality-testing.
TheallusionstoCelliniandKellerarealsoheavilyoverdetermined,linkingearlychildhoodmemorytoparentalabusein Cellini’scaseandtothephysicalpainandfearofillnessinKeller’s. Clemens’sprematurebirthandprotractedinfantileillness,hisearly childhoodnightmaresandothersleepdisorders,thedeathshewitnessed,andtheabusehesufferedareallwelldocumentedinhis Autobiography.Hisforthcomingnessonthesemattersmaywell havebeenoneofthefactorsinhisdecisiontoputsolongastayon itspublication,whichrevealed,forexample,that“inmyage,asin myyouth,nightbringsmemanyadeepremorse”andthat“fromthe cradleupIhavebeen...neverquitesaneinthenight.”Hislifewas acycleofdescentsinto“theraginghellofrepentance”(1:159)for guiltyactsbothrealandimagined,likethedeathbyfireofhis belovedlittlebrother.Henry,however,didnotdieinthefirewalkingscenedescribedabove,butinasteamboatexplosionin 1858.YetClemensalwaysblamedhimself,whichmakesitnotatall “remarkablethatIshouldclingtothedelusion,forthirtyyears,that I did remember”Henrypassingthroughflamesunharmed(1:209). Likeseveralothermembersofhisfamily,Clemenswagedalifelong battlewithwhatwecannowrecognizeasaformofbipolarillness. Asheputsit,“periodicalandsuddenchangesofmoodinme,from deepmelancholytoinsanetempestsandcyclonesofhumor,are amongthecuriositiesofmylife”(1:362).
Clemens’scharacteristicunderstatement—“aboy’slifeisnot allcomedy”(1:157)—doesn’tbegintodiminishthehorrorofthis earlycareeroftraumaticwitnessing,whichhelpsonemorefully understandhisheartbreakingreminiscenceof“thosepleasantdays” inaletterwrittenin1900(afterhe’denduredmanyfurthertraumas acrossfivedecadesofadultlife)tothewidowofhisclosestchildhoodfriend,WillBowen:
[T]hosewerepleasantdays;nonesincehavebeen...sowell worthlivingoveragain....Ishouldgreatlyliketorelivemy youth,&thengetdrowned.IshouldliketocallbackWill Bowen&JohnGarth&theothers,&livethelife,&beaswe were,&makeholidayuntil15,thenalldrowntogether.(qtd.in Loving22)
Inhis Autobiography,Clemensisquiteopenaboutthefactthathe’d contemplatedsuicidemanytimes.Moreover,hispinpointingage “15”inthelettertoDoraBowennotonlyrecallsthedaguerreotype of1850butalsomighthelpaccountforanotherwiseperplexing
claimmadeinaletterwrittentwoyearsearliertohissister-in-law, Mollie:
The“boy-pictureholdingtheprinters’stick”—Irememberit well.Itwasadaguerreotype.I destroyedit in[hissister] Pamela’shouseinStLouisinthespringof1861.(“Samuel LanghorneClemenstoMollieClemens”)
HereisproofthatClemenscould“rememberanything,whetherit hadhappenedornot.”Thedaguerreotypewasnotdestroyed;it existstothisday,initsoriginalwoodencase,aspartoftheTwain collectionatBerkeley’sBancroftLibrary,towhichitwasdonatedin 1949byClemens’sdaughterClara.Daguerreotypes,unlikephotographs,areuniqueobjects:copperplatescoatedwithlight-sensitive silveremulsion,exposedtolighttoproduceamirror-image,which isthenfixedwithmercuryvaporsontotheplateitself.Thereisno negativefromwhichidenticalcopiescaneasilybemade,andthere isnoevidencethatasecond,similardaguerreotypewasproducedon thatoranyotherday.ClemenstellsMollieheremembersthe daguerreotypewell;yetheseemsevensurerofhaving“destroyed it”inaparticularplace,aswellasataparticularlymemorable time: duringtheUSCivilWar.
InClemens’svastoeuvre,theCivilWarexistslikeagrainof sandaroundwhichanoysterspinsitspearl:anirritatingdisruption attheheartofthings,knowntobetherebutseldomdweltupon explicitly.EvenClemens’snovelaboutthewaryears, RoughingIt (1872),barelymentionsthebloodychaosoftheirunfolding.Yetthe springof1861wasawatershedinhisownhistoryandthe nation’s—abreakwithvirtuallyeverythingthatcamebefore.At first,25-year-oldSamuelClemensdidhisbesttosteerclearofthe conflictthatbeganon12Aprilbypursuinghispilotingcareeronthe Mississippi.ButbyJunehewascompelledtojointheMissouri StateGuard,andhebrieflyzigzaggedhiswaythroughmilitarylife beforedesertinghissquad,thewar,hishome,andhislivelihoodand lightingoutforCarsonCity,Nevada,whichhereachedsometimein August.
Attheendofhisautobiographicalsketch,“ThePrivateHistory ofaCampaignthatFailed”(1885),heinventstheepisodethatboth justifieshisdesertionandaddsyetanothercorpsetothealready well-packedmausoleumofhisyouth.Onenight,asClemenstellsit, hissquadspottedaridertheyassumedwasaUnionsoldierandfired onhim.Clemens’snarratortakesuponhimselftheguiltofhaving killedthisunarmed,ununiformedstranger,perhapsasClemens habituallyblamedhimselfforactualdeathshecouldn’thavecaused:
ThethoughtshotthroughmethatIwasamurderer;thatIhad killedaman—amanwhohadneverdonemeanyharm. Thatwasthecoldestsensationthateverwentthroughmymarrow....Thethoughtofhimgottopreyinguponmeevery night;Icouldnotgetridofit.Icouldnotdriveitaway,thetakingofthatunoffendinglifeseemedsuchawantonthing.Andit seemedanepitomeofwar;thatallwarmustbejustthat—the killingofstrangersagainstwhomyoufeelnopersonalanimosity;strangerswhom,inothercircumstances,youwouldhelpif youfoundthemintrouble,andwhowouldhelpyouifyou neededit.Mycampaignwasspoiled.(“PrivateHistory”42–43, 44–45)
ThatClemens,in1898,wouldhavefelttheurgeto“spoil”orerase aniconicimageofhischildhoodandthathewouldhaveassociated thisurgewiththepointintimewhenbothhisownlifeandhiscountry’shistorywerelurchingofftherailsyieldaplausibleexplanation forhisclaimtohave“destroyedit.”Andthefactthatherefersto “it”withthesingularpronounstronglysuggeststhat,inhismindat least,therewasonlyoneofthem.Yeteveniftherehad(implausibly)beenaseconddaguerreotypethatClemensinfactdestroyed, thetimeandcircumstancesstillsuggestanefforttoleavehimself behind,asitwere.ForduringtheweeksinMayandJuneof1861 spentathissisterPamelaClemensMoffett’shouseinSt.Louis,he wasbothadeserterfromtheConfederacyandalikelycandidatefor arrestbyUnionagents.Thesecircumstancesalonecouldsurelyhave promptedhimtodestroyvariouspersonaleffectsincasePamela’s housewassearched.AndshortlythereafterClemensfledtheworld heknewandbeganhisperipateticcareerasawriterwhowould eventually(in1863)settleon“MarkTwain”ashis“nomde guerre”—atermhemightwellhavefavoredover nomdeplume becauseitpunsonthenameoftheinventor(LouisDaguerre)ofthat photographicprocess.
Thereisanotherpossibility,perhapsthemostplausibleofall. Daguerreotypesareextremelydelicateandhighlysusceptibleto degradationanddamage.TheBancroftdaguerreotypebearsmany visibletracesofsuchdamage:severalsmudgesandnumerousscarlikemarkingsonandaroundSam’sfaceappeartohavebeenmade withapencilorsomeotherpointedinstrument.Ithasnotbeen “destroyed,”butithasbeen defaced,perhapsbyananxious,conflictedyoungmanhidinginhissister’shousewhiletheworldas “SAM”thejourneymanprinterknewitwasitselfbeingdestroyed. TheemphasisClemensplacesonthephrase“destroyedit”strongly suggeststheextravagantself-reproachfulnessinwhichClemensso frequentlyindulged.Itevensuggestshewasreproachinghimself,
notmerelyforhavingdamagedthedaguerreotype,but—in1898— forthepopularreceptionofhiswritingsastributes,chiefly,tothe mythicboyhoodworldforwhichthehandsome,impishladinthat earlydaguerreotypesopoignantlystands.
7.AutobiographyandtheHistoricityofUnconsciousLife
InaSt.Valentine’sDaydictationin1908,justtwoyears beforehisdeath,Clemensfoundhimselfmusingonhismany encounterswithnewtechnologies,includingthedaguerreotype:
Istillrememberquiteclearlythewonderanddelightthatswept throughmethefirsttimeIeversawadaguerreotype;andalong withitwasthesensethattherewasn’tanyrealityaboutthis miracle;thatitwasadream,aproductofenchantment—beautiful,astonishing,butimpermanent.(Autobiography 3:205)
Herewasatechnologythatpromisedaccuratelytorepresentand preserveotherwisefleetingmomentsintimethatwasitselfnotonly highlyunstableasaphysicalobjectandeasy,evenfora15-year-old boy,tomanipulateasavisualrecord,butalso,inClemens’srecollection,achimera,asifitweresomething,inhiswords,likea “dream.”
YetClemenshadbeenpreoccupiedforquitesometimewith theNietzscheanobservationthatdreamswerejustasrealasanythingelseinthis“impermanent”world.Hehabituallyrecordedthem andoftenculledmaterialfromhisdreamjournalsforhisfictional works.Oneofthem,“MyPlatonicSweetheart”(writtenin1898),is anarrativemadeupofdream-sequencesaboutateenageloveaffair, wherethenamesandeventheappearancesoftheloverschangeafter eachoftheirencounters.Buttherealheroofthestoryiswhat Clemenscalls“thedream-artistwhoresidesinus”andwhocancreateanythingwhileweareasleep,unlikeduring“mywakinghours, whentheinferiorartistinmeisincommand.”This“dream-artist,” theunconscious,Clemenscontinues,isnomereillusionistbutan authorofthereal:“Inourdreams—Iknowit!—wedomakethe journeysweseemtomake:wedoseethethingsweseemtosee” (Collected 293–94).Andthroughtheunself-censoredrecountingof dreamsmadethese“things”apparenttohimselfandtoothers.
Throughhisautobiographicalpracticeofdictation,Clemens hadalreadydiscovered,asZaccararightlyobserves,thebenefitsof thepsychoanalytic“talkingcure”forhimself,recognizingthatthere was“method”intheseeminglyrandomassociativeprocessof
sayingoutloud,toareceptive,nonjudgmentallistener,whatever comestomind.Asheexplains,thismethodis
onlyapparentlysystemless,foritisnotthat.Itisadeliberate system,andthelawofthesystemisthatIshalltalkaboutthe matterwhichforthemomentinterestsme,andcastitasideand talkaboutsomethingelsethemomentitsinterestformeis exhausted.
Hewasconfidentthathis Autobiography,whenfinished,wouldrepresentboth“aformandmethodwherebythepastandthepresentare constantlybroughtfacetoface,resultingincontrastswhichnewly fireuptheinterestallalonglikecontactofflintwithsteel” (Autobiography 1:441).Andnothingcould“fireuptheinterest”in dynamiccontrastsofpastandpresentexperiencelikeanattentive but“disinterested”audience—anaudienceoflistenersandreaders whomightwellfindthemselvesprivyto“theremorselesstruth” despitetheauthor’s“wilydiligences.”
Clemens’s“disinterestedspectator”isthemirror-image,asit were,oftheFreudiananalyst,whoturnshisorher “gleichschwebendeAufmerksamkeit[evenlysuspendedattention]” (483)bothtowhatisbeingsaidandtowhatthe“wilydiligences”of thepatient’sunconsciousarestruggling(not)tosay.Inoneofthe prefatorytextsforhis Autobiography,composedin1906,Clemens employsacharacteristicallyFreudiandepth-metaphortoconveyhis ownsenseoftherelativeimportanceofconsciousandunconscious experience:
Whataweelittlepartofaperson’slifearehisactsandhis words!...Alldaylong,andeveryday,themillofhisbrainis grinding,andhis thoughts,(whicharebutthemutearticulation ofhisfeelings,)notthoseotherthings,arehishistory.His acts andhis words aremerelythevisiblethincrustofhisworld,with itsscatteredsnowsummitsanditsvacantwastesofwater—and theyaresotriflingapartofhisbulk!amereskinenvelopingit. Themassofhimishidden—itanditsvolcanicfiresthattoss andboil,andneverrest,nightnorday. Thesearehislife,and theyarenotwritten,andcannotbewritten.(1:220–21)
ForClemens,asforFreud,thewishtounderstandanythingatallof one’sultimatelyunknowablelifeisbestpursuedbytalkingandby doingone’sbest,whiletalking,toassociatefreely:theonly“lawof thesystem.”Clemens,likeFreud,recognizedthatmostofone’s experience,mostofone’sthoughtsandfeelings—mostofone’s
proper“self”—wouldalwaysbeunintelligible.Remarkably, Clemens’sworkonhis Autobiography seemstohavebeengalvanizedratherthanfrustratedbythisawareness,notleastbecausehe imagineditwouldbecomethemodelforanewkindofautobiographicalwriting,forwhichmodernpsychology’sdestabilizationof themonadicselfwouldilluminateandauthorizenewformsofselfrelationandthus,consequently,newwaysofansweringthequestion,“WhoamItosay?”
Notes
1.AQuarryFarmFellowshipfromtheCenterforMarkTwainStudiesprovideda welcomebreakfromcitylifeaswellastheuninterruptedtimeneededtodoatleast partialjusticetooneofthelongestandmostunusualautobiographiesI’veeverread. SincerethankstoJosephLemak,MatthewSeybold,andSteveWebbforhelpingto makemystayatQuarryFarmbothsopleasantandsoproductive.
2.SeeCarlDolmetsch, “Ourfamousguest”:MarkTwaininVienna (1992). 3.Exceptwhereotherwiseindicated,alltranslationsaremyown.
4.See,forexample, MississippiWritings (1982),editedbyGuyCardwell,pp.363 and520.
WorksCited
Bachelard,Gaston. FragmentsofA PoeticsofFire,trans.byKenneth Haltman.DallasInstitute,1997.
Derrida,Jacques. Margesdelaphilosophie. EditionsdeMinuit,1972.
——. Lepassagedesfrontie`res.Galilee, 1994.
Donnell,KevinMac.“MarkTwainat TenPaces:FactsVersusFictionsinthe Originof‘MarkTwain’asaNomde Plume.” MarkTwainJournal,vol.57, no.1,2019,pp.77–111.
Emerson,RalphWaldo. Essaysand Poems,editedbyJoelPorteetal., LibraryofAmerica,1996.
Freud,Sigmund.“Uber Psychoanalyse.” GesammelteWerke:
ChronologischGeordnet,vol.8. Fischer,1910,pp.1–60.
——.“Ratschl€ agefu¨rdenArztbeider psychoanalytischenBehandlung.” Zentralblattfu¨rPsychoanalyse,vol.2, 1912,pp.483–489.
——. DieTraumdeutung Gesammelte Werke:ChronologischGeordnet, vol.2/3.Imago,1942,pp.1–642.
Galat,JoshuaR.“‘Thenameless something’:AuthorialSuicide andtheTrueBodyofthe AutobiographyofMarkTwain.” MarkTwainJournal,vol.54,no.1, 2016,pp.33–67.
Hegel,G.W.F. TheEncyclopaedia Logic.1817.Trans.byT.F.Geraetset al.,Hackett,1991.
Horn,JasonGary. MarkTwainand WilliamJames:CraftingaFreeSelf UofMissouriP,1996.
Kiskis,Michael,editor. MarkTwain’s OwnAutobiography:TheChapters fromtheNorthAmericanReview.Uof WisconsinP,1990.
Lacan,Jacques.“Propositiondu9octobre1967surlepsychanalystede l’Ecole.” Scilicet,1,1968,pp.14–30.
Loving,Jerome. MarkTwain:The AdventuresofSamuelL.Clemens.Uof CaliforniaP,2010.
Macpherson,C.B. ThePoliticalTheory ofPossessiveIndividualism:Hobbesto Locke.Clarendon,1962.
Masson,JeffreyMoussaieff,editorand translator. TheCompleteLettersof SigmundFreudandWilhelmFliess, 1887–1904.HarvardUP,1985.
Miller,Jacques-Alain.“Lestatutdu psychanalyste.” LeDebat,vol.3,no.30, 1984,pp.186–89.
Paine,AlbertBigelow,editor. Mark Twain’sNotebooks.Harperand Brothers,1935.
Robinson,ForrestG.,etal. TheJester andtheSages:MarkTwainin ConversationwithNietzsche,Freud, andMarx.UofMissouriP,2011.
Rugg,Linda. PicturingOurselves: PhotographyandAutobiography.Uof ChicagoP,1997.
Scharnhorst,Gary.“ANoteonSamuel Clemens’ NomdeGuerre.” American LiteraryRealism,vol.48,no.3,2016, pp.277–79.
Sedgwick,EveKosofsky. ADialogue onLove.BeaconPress,1999.
Smith,HarrietElinor.“Introduction.” AutobiographyofMarkTwain,vol.1, editedbyHarrietElinorSmith.Uof CaliforniaP,2010,pp.1–58.
Twain,Mark.“Post-MortemPoetry.” TheGalaxy,vol.9,June1870,p.864.
——.“TheLateBenjaminFranklin.” TheGalaxy,vol.10,July1870,pp. 138–40.
——.“MentalTelegraphy.A ManuscriptwithaHistory.” Harper’s MonthlyMagazine,Dec.1891,pp. 95–104.
——“ThePrivateHistoryofa CampaignthatFailed.” MerryTales CharlesL.Webster,1892,pp.9–50.
——.“MentalTelegraphyAgain.” Harper’sMonthlyMagazine,Sept. 1895,pp.521–24.
——.SamuelLanghorneClemensto MollieClemens,16May1898.Mark TwainPapers,BancroftLibrary,Uof CaliforniaatBerkeley.
——.“MarkTwain’sBequest.” Times [London],23May1899,p.4.
MarkTwaintoMrs.Fairbanks, editedbyDixonWecter.Huntington Library,1949.
——. MississippiWritings,editedby GuyCardwell.LibraryofAmerica, 1982.
——. CollectedTales,Sketches, Speeches,andEssays:1891–1910, editedbyLouisJ.Budd.Libraryof America,1992.
——. AutobiographyofMarkTwain.3 vols.,editedbyBenjaminGriffinand HarrietElinorSmith.UofCaliforniaP, 2010–2015.
Twain,Mark,andWilliamDean Howells. MarkTwain–Howells Letters:TheCorrespondenceofSamuel L.ClemensandWilliamD.Howells, 1872–1910,vol.2,editedbyHenry NashSmithandWilliamM.Gibson. HarvardUP,1960.
Twain,Mark,andHenryHuttleston Rogers. MarkTwain’sCorrespondence withHenryHuttlestonRogers, editedbyLewisLeary.UofCalifornia P,1969.
Willis,Resa. MarkandLivy:TheLove StoryofMarkTwainandtheWoman whoAlmostTamedHim.Routledge, 2004.
Zaccara,JenniferL.“MarkTwain, IsabelLyon,andthe‘TalkingCure’: NegotiatingNostalgiaandNihilismin theAutobiography.” ConstructingMark Twain:NewDirectionsinScholarship, editedbyLauraE.SkanderaTrombley andMichaelJ.Kiskis.UofMissouriP, 2001,pp.101–21.