Option 1: Final Paper

Analysis of “The Purloined Letter”-Edgar Allan Poe

Perspectives from: Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida

Lance Light
Maxime Goergen
FREN 3200
December 12th, 2010
 Lacan and Derrida: An Analysis of “The Purloined Letter”

Literary analysis inherently involves the interpretation of literature. It is

ultimately a very subjective approach to criticism of any work, but the most famous
theorists can also succeed in justifying their rationale in a logical manner. Any well-
known author has underlying details within their novels or poetry that keep the
audience intrigued. In essence, the best pieces of literature are the ones that keep
the reader enthralled, as well as sending a mixed or hidden message. Although any
person that analyzes a literary work can formulate their own opinion, committed
theorists devote a lot of time in finding the intended root, or inherent meaning of
some of the most famous, or infamous pieces of writing. Even as most writers are
not technically sound, they have contributed to some of the most valuable modern
day thoughts and ideas regarding many aspects of life. Literary theory can
essentially be considered as a social science. On a fundamental level, social sciences
go into extreme depth in order to find the trends of greatest importance. Although
great writers usually value a concealed and open-ended meaning to their text,
theorists attempt to apply their knowledge of conjecture, in order to summarize an
author’s thoughts. In a logistical sense, literature can lead to very speculative
assumptions. As there may be a plethora of different ideals hidden within a novel,
theorists often develop adverse opinions and tend to disagree from time to time.
One of Edgar Allan Poe’s controversial short stories, “The Purloined Letter”(1845)
has had many respected theorists in a feud over its interpretation. This particular
story has been regarded as the first and foremost stepping-stone of the modern day
detective story. Many people even agree that a significant number of the characters
in Sherlock Holmes are directly based upon the characters that Edgar Allan Poe
created.
 Although a formal summary of the entire text (The Purloined Letter) is
merited, the most famous and controversial passage comes at the finale. As the
minister confesses a good portion of the story, the reader quickly starts to make
connections. Much of the untold information within the story is revealed at the end
and the entire ploy and ideals of the minister are stated. Even with a seemingly
complete explanation of his motives, any good writer/character will withhold key
facts in order for the reader to make presumptions. The last two paragraphs of “The
Purloined Letter” are a perfect example of this. After reading the last passage of the
story (full text cited on the final page), Edgar Allan Poe succeeds in leaving you
almost more confused than before. As Dupin summarizes his thoughts in the
second to last paragraph, he makes about fifteen conclusions in fourteen sentences.
Every single human emotion is flawlessly expressed in just two short paragraphs.
He rationalizes the entire mystery and tries to define the motives of all of the
supporting characters and their connection. Because he revealed so much
information in a short passage, Edgar Allan Poe sums up the story on the surface,
but leaves much to be analyzed beneath. In the very last paragraph of the story, the
philosophical meaning has been constantly critiqued. A brief idealistic monologue
asks the audience the main questions and the purpose of existence at the end of this
story. Poe follows up this dramatized conclusion with one more philosophical
thought that touches upon morality in a vague elucidation. “ –Un dessein si funeste,
S’il n’est, digne d’Atree, est digne de Thyeste.” In translation, this says, “A purpose
so deadly, if not worthy of Atreus, is worthy of Thyestes.” The interpretation of this
thought and the concluding portion of this story have been argued since its
induction onto paper.
Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan have notoriously gotten into a literary
feud over this text. The implied importance of this passage, as well as the story in
general, has created controversy between theorists regarding Poe’s perception. As
both critics have analyzed the story in a ubiquitous depth, they have both presented
valid, and extensive arguments for Edgar Allan Poe’s implication. On one hand,
Lacan has his analysis focused around repetition and “the pleasure principle”, while
Derrida has his focus centered around the “double triangle” and the structural
framework of the story. Both theorists have drawn from Sigmund Freud’s
principles, but have inevitably applied them differently to this text. Although
Sigmund Freud may have a better overall insight of the Egdar Allan Poe story, I will
analyze the implied meanings stemming from Lacan and Derrida.
The fundamental psychoanalytic concern from Lacan’s interpretation is
repetition. He views repetition as a characteristic not only of the human behavioral
phenomenon, but also of as a fictional narrative account. In “The Purloined Letter”
there is narrative within the narrative. The story itself repeated the narrator “I”
who hears and tells the tale of the purloined letter, which is retrieved through the
same pattern of the original purloining. With this rationale, Lacan therefore
confines the story to a series of interconnected recurrences and ultimately replays
these moves in his theoretical analysis. As Lacan drew many of his thoughts from
Freud in his “Seminar of The Purloined Letter”, he references many of the Freudian
concepts in his analysis. Freud considered pain, and the possibility of pleasure in
pain crucial to repetition and compulsion. Although he ultimately agrees with
Freud’s philosophy on the subject, he utilizes it in a much different context. The
question of repetition in Poe’s tale (for Lacan), is centered much more around loss
than on pain. The repeated deprivation of a primary object became a crucial literary
articulation for the concept of compulsion in Lacan’s eyes. The combination of
absence and displacement exemplify the signifier in Lacan’s model (Signifier over
signified). Ultimately, it is both present as well as absent. It is present in the sense
that it has a physical existence, and it is absent in a sense because it consists only in
the content of the story. It plays a role in the story just as Lacan’s signs play a role
within psychoanalysis. He’s basically stating that the essence of existence is always
missing. In Lacan’s own words: “the signifier is a unit in its very uniqueness, being
by nature symbol only of an absence. Which is why we cannot say of the purloined
letter that, like other objects, it must be or not be in a particular place but that unlike
them it will be and not be where it is, wherever it goes” (308-Seminar of The
Purloined Letter). Edgar Allan Poe’s short detective story is particularly associated
with a missing object. This object is never completely lost, but it compels the
characters into action while remaining itself, ungoverned. In this respect, “The
Purloined Letter” shows a close association between the subjectivity and the
symbolic.
Overall, Lacan remains fairly hypothetical with his review. Although the
object (the purloined letter) can never be governed, he comes to the conclusion that
the object will always arrive at its rightful destination. So this is essentially an open-
ended meaning in reality. Although he has made a philosophical inference
regarding complacency, I feel as though he has made a simple assumption in which
he gives in to the notion of fate.
On a completely different interpretation of Freud’s work, Jacques Derrida
takes a very different approach in analyzing “The Purloined Letter”. He takes a very
logical approach and attempts to create an outline of all the ideas that develop
throughout the story. As he analyzes many different literary aspects within the
body of the story, it helps him come to an overall conclusion about the implication of
the last two paragraphs. On the surface, Derrida completely disagrees with Lacan
about the framework of the story. Much of the story is left open for interpretation
and Lacan uses his observations to give an implied meaning to the purloined letter
at the conclusion. While simply recognizing primary symbols within the text,
Derrida cannot avoid turning the signifier into the Signified and ultimately taking the
opposite position in his analysis. He also uses the same logic of rectification to
rebuttal against Lacan’s perception. Rectification can be defined as a calculated
inference within literature. Derrida uses his observational facts to conclude his
thoughts concerning “The Purloined Letter” and disagrees with Lacan on the
fundamental aspects of Poe’s intentions. As stated in “The Purveyor of Truth”,
Derrida is recognizing rather than reading. “The frame of reference allows the
analyst to frame the author of the text he is reading for practices whose locus is
simultaneously beyond the letter of the text and behind the vision of its reader”
(240- The Purveyor of Truth). Derrida is basically attributing his conclusion based
upon the symbols and the inherent meaning of the text throughout. In the overall
speculation of the ending, Derrida is able to make final assumptions about the
characters as well as the letter, simply by applying the Freudian Complex along with
facts that are relevant in the story. One of the key differences in their discussion is
how they view the phallus. Lacan never uses the word “phallus” in his analysis of
“The Purloined Letter” whereas he does mention the word “castration” towards the
end of his Seminar. On the whole, their opposing viewpoints may be rooted from
their interpretation of the phallus within the story.
In the concluding paragraphs, Derrida draws several fundamental ideas
about the mystery that Lacan fails to mention. His first assumption is that the letter
belongs to the Queen, as a substitute for the phallus (that she innately does not
have). The position in which the letter was placed in the Minister’s apartment also
constitutes meaning. As a solitary icon within the story, Derrida also states that the
letter must always be singular. It is inherently a single object with a transverse
meaning; rather than a letter with a simple textual analysis. Even as the ending may
be argued, Derrida does agree with one of the inferences that Lacan makes. He
agrees with the fact that the letter always arrives at its predetermined destination.
Because it was the primary symbol throughout the story, it had a final resting place
that was naturally determined from the beginning.
 Ultimately, Lacan and Derrida will always have merit in their arguments
simply due to the fact that both of them left some holes in their perspectives. Lacan
discounts the structure of the story and uses it as an excuse to formulate his own
opinion about the letter. As Lacan concludes that not a lot can be determined about
the letter, much of his argument is completely ambiguous. He argues that Edgar
Allan Poe is intentionally writing the story with a “series of reversals” and that the
poetic twist at the end just goes into offering an open-ended cliffhanger for analysts.
Derrida doesn’t necessarily disagree with the formation of Lacan’s thoughts, but
more so with the concluding result. Lacan also ignores the story’s position in the
“Dupin Trilogy” [which consists of 3 short-stories (detective) all written with the
same character: Dupin]. He never touches on the personal growth or intentions of
the character and conforms to the belief that it is unimportant in analyzing “The
Purloined Letter”. Derrida’s perspective is not without flaws either. Although he
outlines many of Freud’s ideas and concepts, he cannot prove that it is the Queen’s
letter or that it is relating to a phallus whatsoever. It may be symbolic for a phallus,
but at the same time, symbolic order within the story that correlates to the
conclusion can be perceived differently. Therefore, many people would argue that
the assumptions made by Derrida do not have any real worth, as they are simply
implied; not stated.
As a very controversial piece of literature, “The Purloined Letter” is up for
interpretation. Although even the most famous literary critics can state their
opinions and methodology for their analysis, the last passage from the story could
potentially have a multitude of meanings. Literary analysis is called a social science
for a very good reason. There is little anyone can do to prove, or to disprove
somebody’s implication of writing; as there are intrinsically many different ways to
approach it. With such a significant piece of writing, it is interesting to see that
academics and philosophers are still arguing its’ absolute meaning. Sigmund Freud
definitely set a solid groundwork for them (Lacan and Derrida) to base an argument,
but I feel as though neither of them have an extremely valuable opinion. I would
however tend to agree with more of Lacan’s arguments. After reading the text, I
have to assume that it was meant to be a very vague or open-ended conclusion.
Edgar Allan Poe wants to have a mysterious effect on the audience at the end of the
story. He gives just enough information in order to keep the reader guessing, but he
also leaves out key aspects that make it nearly impossible to develop an absolute
interpretation. In this sense, I think Lacan can justify his analysis simply because it
is more vague and leaves some of the material un-examined. If the author wanted to
display his final message in plain English, he would have left it hidden in the text.
Edgar Allan Poe may not have had a primary message or meaning to this story so
there is no way to infer anything that isn’t stated. One of the best things about this
story is that it causes people to look for a hidden meaning, and even develop
meaning around their own principles. As Lacan states that most of it cannot be
analyzed to an exact measure, he succeeds in conveying that there is an
individualized message for everyone that reads it. In the end, I have to agree with
Lacan’s evaluation by default until Mr. Edgar Allan Poe comes back from the grave
with a proper analysis.
 Full Analyzed Text:
“But what purpose had you,” I asked, “in replacing the letter by a facsimile? Would it
not have been better, at the first visit, to have seized it openly, and departed?”

“D—,” replied Dupin, “is a desperate man, and a man of nerve. His hotel, too, is not
without attendants devoted to his interests. Had I made the wild attempt you
suggest, I might never have left the Ministerial presence alive. The good people of
Paris might have heard of me no more. But I had an object apart from these
considerations. You know my political prepossessions. In this matter, I act as a
partisan of the lady concerned. For eighteen months the Minister has had her in his
power. She has now him in hers; since, being unaware that the letter is not in his
possession, he will proceed with his exactions as if it was. Thus will he inevitably
commit himself, at once, to his political destruction. His downfall, too, will not be
more precipitate than awkward. It is all very well to talk about the facilis descensus
Averni; but in all kinds of climbing, as Catalani said of singing, it is far more easy to
get up than to come down. In the present instance I have no sympathy—at least no
pity—for him who descends. He is the monstrum horrendum, an unprincipled man of
genius. I confess, however, that I should like very well to know the precise character
of his thoughts, when, being defied by her whom the Prefect terms ‘a certain
personage,’ he is reduced to opening the letter which I left for him in the card-rack.”

“How? did you put any thing particular in it?”

“Why—it did not seem altogether right to leave the interior blank—that would have
been insulting. D—, at Vienna once, did me an evil turn, which I told him, quite
good-humoredly, that I should remember. So, as I knew he would feel some
curiosity in regard to the identity of the person who had outwitted him, I thought it a
pity not to give him a clue. He is well acquainted with my MS., and I just copied into
the middle of the blank sheet the words—

—Un dessein si funeste,

S'il n'est digne d'Atree, est digne de Thyeste.

They are to be found in Crébillon's ‘Atrée.’”

-Edgar Allan Poe(1845)- “The Purloined Letter”
 References/Sources:

1) Poe, Edgar Allan. The Purloined Letter. Mankato, MN: Creative

Education, 1986. Print.

2) Garner, Stanton. "Emerson, Thoreau, and Poe's 'Double Dupin',"

collected in Poe and His Times: The Artist and His Milieu, edited by
Benjamin Franklin Fisher IV. Baltimore: The Edgar Allan Poe Society,
1990. p. 141.

3) Lacan, Jacques. "Jacques Lacan - Seminar on The Purloined Letter."

Splash31. 21 Feb. 1997. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.
<http://www.lacan.com/purloined.htm>.

4) Derrida, Jacques. "The Purveyor of Truth." STOR: Yale University Press

(French Studies), 12 Sept. 1975. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.
<http://art3idea.psu.edu/locus/purveyor_of_truth.pdf>.