©2007 Cheema, Muhammad Yahya

<http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9238-2009>
Some Rights Reserved

Thi s work is l icensed under the Creative Comm ons Attribution-Noncomm ercial-N o D erivat ive Works 3.0
Unported License. To vi ew a copy of thi s license, vi sit <http://creativec ommons.org/l icenses/by-nc -nd/3.0/> or
send a l etter t o Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suit e 300, San Francisco, Californi a, 94105, U SA.
 Cheema 2

Muhammad Yahya Cheema

Dr. Waseem Anwar

Literary Theory

Monday, 25 June 2007

Jacques Derrida’s “Aphorism Countertime”: A Review

Recently I came across Jacques Derrida’s article “Aphorism Countertime” in one of

his most famous books Acts of Literature. This article was first published in 1986 and is

about the Shakespearean masterpiece Romeo and Juliet. The essay, primarily, deals with the

dichotomy of the signifier and the signified by analyzing the dichotomy between the names

of Romeo and Juliet and the selves that are referred to by these. Paying close attention to the

verbal exchange in the famous balcony scene, Derrida ventures to show us that proper human

names are aphorisms, which inherit certain paradoxical traits. Focusing on ‘contretemps’

(mishap or syncopation), that this aphorism gives birth to, Derrida declares that Romeo and

Juliet is the theatre of the unseen as most important events of the play take place in the

penumbra (of names, of light, of self etc).

The most notable thing about this essay is the format in which it is written. Instead of

writing it in the traditional way, Derrida chooses to write this essay itself as a collection of

different aphorisms, separated by numbers. This “disjunction and heterogeneity”, in its very

basic form, opposes the “homogeneous spatiotemporal continuum” that a traditional critical

essay attempts to produce (Attridge 415).

Derrida begins his (not so traditional) essay by asserting straight away that “aphorism

is the name” and, thence, it separates, “it separates in order to end – and to define” (416). In

order to further elaborate on the point, he states that each sentence and each paragraph is

marked by a spatiotemporal enclosure, which separates it from another sentence or paragraph

(417). This idea becomes important as Derrida seeks to highlight the separation inherent in
 Yahya 3

the names of Romeo and Juliet which are aphorisms, separated in their very own nature both

in space and time and denying the possibility of any “absolute synchronization” (418).

Romeo cannot be Juliet and vice versa. However, the desire(ed) of love is born in the very

heart of this impossibility (“I love because the other is the other, because its time will never

be mine” (420)). This separateness is something which essentially calls for desire, which

essentially calls for love. Erich Fromm in his book The Art of Loving approaches this feature

of human separateness from another angle, saying that a human being realizes his

separateness from others by the virtue of his isolated birth; and the desire for love and for a

reunion is born in the consequence of this very realization (6-7). The theatre, thence, becomes

the theatre of the ‘other’. The I (Eye) cannot see but the ‘other’. All else remains invisible,

the name, the self, the desire. Since this gaze (in Lacanian sense), in its nature, is the property

of the ‘other’, the visibility on stage is reduced to penumbra where the moon itself is killed by

the sun (Cf. Romeo’s “Arise fair sun and kill the envious moon” (2.2 2-5)). The paradox is

that the very aphorism that separates them also is shared amongst them, holding them in the

“desired sharing of a living present” (421). Like two lines parallel to each other, Romeo and

Juliet ‘share’ only to be ‘separated’.

 Cheema 4

An important point to note here would be that the above handwritten names are not

only separate to each other but are in separation to all other written or spoken letters that

appear as Romeo or Juliet. This separateness shows the inherent paradox/dichotomy of

sharing and separateness as the above handwritten names share the same space on the paper

and yet are separated from each other.

Derrida then moves on to dissect the Balcony Scene and hints upon the focal problem

of the text. “Romeo ‘himself’”, says Derrida, “the bearer of the name is not the name, it is

‘Romeo’, the name which he bears. And is it necessary to call the bearer by the name which

he bears?” (423). This “at once necessary and impossible” (426) aphorism terms the heart of

problem for the play. Juliet wants Romeo to do away with his name, yet she loves this very

name and no other name whatsoever. Name is the self. Self is the name. Or is it? The simile

that Juliet uses while analyzing the cultural function of the proper name, the simile of the

rose, in fact works to enhance the difference between the proper name and the name of things

instead of helping Juliet’s case. A rose, says she, would still remain one even if it is not called

by the name rose. However, Romeo will no longer remain what he is without his name. This

aporia of proper names stays unresolved till the end of play, confirming the paradox of

separateness and togetherness.

Ending the essay, Derrida also comments on the inversion of the law of “The-Name-

Of-The-Father”. Usually it is the woman who forsakes her family name in order to take her

husband’s name to re affirm the patriarchy of the cultural system. Here, however, Romeo is

being asked to do away with his name and not Juliet. This, Derrida tells us, is but appropriate

because Juliet was never in charge of her (family) name. Consequently, this inversion

confirms the law instead of challenging it. (429-430)

As perhaps any young student of literature would be, I have always been interested in

the dynamism of Romeo and Juliet. Reading this essay, therefore, was a great delight for me
 Yahya 5

as it did open some new possibilities of analysis and introduced some new viewpoints. The

essay, though lacking in analyzing Romeo and Juliet as a performative text, was,

nevertheless, a valuable addition to my reading list for it provided me with sufficient food for

thought and brought to my attention some paradoxes inherent in the text that were previously

unattended to.
 Cheema 6

Works Consulted

Attridge, Derek. “Introduction to Aphorism Countertime”. Acts of Literature. 414-15. Print.

Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall, [?]. Print.

Culler, Jonathan. “Deconstruction”. 1982. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts in Literary and

Cultural Studies. Ed. Jonathan Culler. Vol 1. London: Routledge, 2003. 52-71. 4

Vols. Print.

Derrida Jacques. “Aphorism Countertime”. Acts of Literature. Ed. Derek Attridge. New

York: Routledge, 1992. 416-433. Print.

Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. Wales: Thorsons, 1985. Print.

Johnson, Barbra. “The Frame of Reference: Poe, Lacan, Derrida”. 1978. Deconstruction:

Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. Ed. Jonathan Culler. Vol 3.

London: Routledge, 2003. 133-148. 4 Vols. Print.

Norris, Christopher. Deconstruction. 3 rd ed. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Selden, Raman and Peter Widdowson. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory.

3rd ed. Kentucky: The UP of Kentucky, 1993. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works.

Reprint. Gen. Ed. Alfred Harbage. New York: Viking, Penguin, 1977. 859-893. Print.

Steiner, George. Grammars of Creation. 1st Paperback ed. London: Faber and Faber, 2002.

Print.

Wolfreys, Julian, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack. Key Concepts in Literary Theory. 1st

Indian Reprint. New Delhi, India: Atlantic, 2005. Print.