View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
The
“Unca
nny”1
(1
91
9)
SIG
MU
ND
FR
EU
D
I
It i
s o
nly
ra
rely
th
at a
psy
cho
anal
yst
fee
ls i
mp
elle
d t
o i
n-
ves
tig
ate
the
sub
ject
of
aest
het
ics
even
wh
en a
esth
etic
s is
un
der
sto
od
to
mea
n n
ot
mer
ely
th
e th
eory
of
bea
uty
, b
ut
the
theo
ry o
f th
e q
ual
itie
s o
f fe
elin
g.
He
wo
rks
in o
ther
pla
nes
of
men
tal
life
an
d h
as l
ittl
e to
do w
ith
th
ose
su
b-
du
ed em
oti
on
al
acti
vit
ies
wh
ich
, in
hib
ited
in
th
eir
aim
s
and
d
epen
den
t u
po
n
a m
ult
itu
de
of
con
curr
ent
fact
ors
,
usu
ally
fu
rnis
h t
he
mat
eria
l fo
r th
e st
ud
y o
f ae
sth
etic
s. B
ut
it d
oes
occ
asio
nal
ly h
app
en t
hat
he
has
to
in
tere
st h
imse
lf
in s
om
e p
arti
cula
r p
rov
ince
of
that
su
bje
ct;
and
th
en i
t u
su-
ally
pro
ves
to
be
a ra
ther
rem
ote
reg
ion
of
it a
nd
on
e th
at
has
bee
n n
egle
cted
in
sta
nd
ard
wo
rks.
T
he
sub
ject
of
the
“un
can
ny
” is
a p
rov
ince
of
this
kin
d.
It u
nd
ou
bte
dly
bel
on
gs
to a
ll t
hat
is
terr
ible
—to
all
th
at
aro
use
s d
read
an
d cre
epin
g h
orr
or;
it
is
eq
ual
ly ce
rtai
n,
too
, th
at t
he
wo
rd i
s n
ot
alw
ays
use
d i
n a
cle
arly
def
inab
le
sen
se,
so t
hat
it
ten
ds
to c
oin
cid
e w
ith
wh
atev
er e
xci
tes
dre
ad.
Yet
we
may
ex
pect
th
at i
t im
pli
es s
om
e in
trin
sic
qu
alit
y w
hic
h j
ust
ifie
s th
e u
se o
f a s
pec
ial
nam
e.
On
e is
curi
ou
s to
kn
ow
wh
at t
his
pec
uli
ar q
ual
ity
is
wh
ich
all
ow
s
us
to d
isti
ng
uis
h as
“u
nca
nn
y”
cert
ain
th
ing
s w
ith
in th
e
bo
un
dar
ies
of
wh
at i
s “f
earf
ul.
”
A
s g
oo
d a
s n
oth
ing
is
to b
e fo
un
d u
po
n t
his
su
bje
ct i
n
elab
ora
te t
reat
ises
on
aes
thet
ics,
wh
ich
in
gen
era
l p
refe
r to
con
cern
th
em
selv
es w
ith
wh
at i
s b
eau
tifu
l, a
ttra
ctiv
e an
d
sub
lim
e, t
hat
is
wit
h f
eeli
ng
s o
f a
po
siti
ve
nat
ure
, w
ith
th
e
1 F
irst
pu
bli
shed
in
Imago
, B
d.
V.,
19
19
; re
pri
nte
d i
n Sammlung
, F
ün
fte
Fo
lge.
[T
ran
slate
d b
y A
lix
Str
ach
ey.]
circ
um
stan
ces
an
d t
he
ob
ject
s th
at c
all
them
fo
rth
, ra
ther
than
wit
h t
he
op
posi
te f
eeli
ng
s o
f u
np
leas
antn
ess
and r
e-
pu
lsio
n.
I k
no
w
of
on
ly
on
e at
tem
pt
in
med
ico
-
psy
cho
log
ical
lit
erat
ure
, a
fert
ile
bu
t n
ot
exh
aust
ive
pap
er
by
E.
Jen
tsch
.2 B
ut
I m
ust
co
nfe
ss t
hat
I h
ave n
ot
mad
e a
ver
y t
ho
rou
gh
ex
amin
atio
n o
f th
e b
ibli
og
rap
hy
, es
pec
iall
y
the
fore
ign
lit
erat
ure
, re
lati
ng
to
th
is p
rese
nt
mo
des
t co
n-
trib
uti
on
of
min
e, f
or
reas
on
s w
hic
h m
ust
be o
bv
iou
s at
this
tim
e;3 s
o t
hat
my
pap
er i
s p
rese
nte
d t
o t
he
read
er
wit
h-
ou
t an
y c
laim
of
pri
ori
ty.
In
his
stu
dy
of
the
“un
can
ny
,” J
ents
ch q
uit
e ri
gh
tly
lay
s
stre
ss o
n t
he
ob
stac
le p
rese
nte
d b
y t
he
fact
th
at p
eop
le v
ary
so v
ery
gre
atly
in
th
eir
sen
siti
vit
y t
o t
his
qu
alit
y o
f fe
elin
g.
Th
e w
rite
r o
f th
e p
rese
nt
con
trib
uti
on
, in
dee
d,
mu
st h
im-
self
p
lead
g
uil
ty
to
a sp
ecia
l o
btu
sen
ess
in
the
mat
ter,
wh
ere
ex
trem
e d
elic
acy
of
per
cep
tio
n w
ou
ld b
e m
ore
in
pla
ce.
It i
s lo
ng s
ince
he
has
ex
per
ien
ced
or
hea
rd o
f an
y-
thin
g w
hic
h h
as g
iven
him
an
un
can
ny
im
pre
ssio
n,
and
he
wil
l b
e o
bli
ged
to
tra
nsl
ate
him
self
in
to t
hat
sta
te o
f fe
el-
ing
, an
d t
o a
wak
en i
n h
imse
lf t
he
po
ssib
ilit
y o
f it
bef
ore
he
beg
ins.
Sti
ll,
dif
ficu
ltie
s o
f th
is k
ind
mak
e th
emse
lves
fel
t
po
werf
ull
y i
n m
any
oth
er b
ran
ches
of
aes
thet
ics;
we n
eed
no
t o
n t
his
acc
ou
nt
des
pai
r o
f fi
nd
ing
in
stan
ces
in w
hic
h
the
qu
alit
y i
n q
ues
tio
n w
ill
be
reco
gn
ized
wit
ho
ut
hes
ita-
tio
n b
y m
ost
peo
ple
.
T
wo
co
urs
es a
re o
pen
to
us
at t
he
star
t. E
ith
er w
e can
fin
d o
ut
wh
at m
ean
ing
has
co
me
to b
e at
tach
ed t
o t
he
wo
rd
“un
can
ny
” in
th
e c
ou
rse
of
its
his
tory
; o
r w
e ca
n c
oll
ect
all
tho
se p
rop
erti
es o
f p
erso
ns,
th
ing
s, s
ensa
tio
ns,
ex
per
ien
ces
and
sit
uat
ion
s w
hic
h a
rou
se i
n u
s th
e fe
elin
g o
f u
nca
nn
i-
nes
s, a
nd
th
en i
nfe
r th
e u
nk
no
wn
nat
ure
of
the
un
can
ny
fro
m w
hat
th
ey a
ll h
ave
in c
om
mo
n.
I w
ill
say
at
on
ce t
hat
bo
th c
ou
rses
lea
d t
o t
he
sam
e re
sult
: th
e “u
nca
nn
y”
is t
hat
clas
s o
f th
e t
erri
fyin
g w
hic
h l
ead
s b
ack
to
so
met
hin
g l
on
g
2 “
Zu
r P
sych
olo
gie
des
Un
hei
mli
chen
.”
3 [
An
all
usi
on
to
th
e E
uro
pean
War
on
ly j
ust
co
nclu
ded
.—T
ran
s.]
saraakantLine
saraakantLine
saraakantText Boxstart
saraakantLine
2
kn
ow
n t
o u
s, o
nce
ver
y f
amil
iar.
Ho
w t
his
is
po
ssib
le,
in
wh
at c
ircu
mst
ances
th
e fa
mil
iar
can
beco
me
un
can
ny
an
d
frig
hte
nin
g,
I sh
all
sho
w i
n w
hat
fo
llo
ws.
Let
me
also
ad
d
that
my
in
ves
tig
atio
n w
as a
ctu
ally
beg
un b
y c
oll
ecti
ng
a
nu
mb
er o
f in
div
idu
al c
ases
, an
d o
nly
lat
er r
ecei
ved
co
n-
firm
atio
n a
fter
I h
ad e
xam
ined
wh
at l
ang
uag
e co
uld
tel
l u
s.
In th
is d
iscu
ssio
n,
ho
wev
er,
I
shal
l fo
llo
w th
e o
pp
osi
te
cou
rse.
T
he
Ger
man
wo
rd u
nh
eim
lich
4 i
s o
bv
iou
sly
th
e o
pp
osi
te
of
hei
mli
ch,
hei
mis
ch,
mea
nin
g “
fam
ilia
r,”
“nat
ive,
” “b
e-
lon
gin
g t
o t
he
ho
me”
; an
d w
e ar
e te
mp
ted
to
co
ncl
ud
e th
at
wh
at i
s “u
nca
nn
y”
is f
rig
hte
nin
g p
reci
sely
bec
ause
it
is n
ot
kn
ow
n a
nd
fam
ilia
r. N
atu
rall
y n
ot
ever
yth
ing
wh
ich
is
new
and
un
fam
ilia
r is
fri
gh
ten
ing
, h
ow
ever
; th
e re
lati
on
can
no
t
be
inv
erte
d.
We
can
on
ly s
ay t
hat
wh
at i
s n
ov
el c
an e
asil
y
bec
om
e fr
igh
ten
ing
an
d
un
can
ny
; so
me
new
th
ing
s ar
e
frig
hte
nin
g b
ut
no
t b
y a
ny
mea
ns
all.
So
met
hin
g h
as t
o b
e
add
ed t
o w
hat
is
no
vel
an
d u
nfa
mil
iar
to m
ake i
t u
nca
nn
y.
O
n t
he
wh
ole
, Je
nts
ch d
id n
ot
get
bey
on
d t
his
rel
atio
n o
f
the
un
can
ny
to
th
e n
ov
el a
nd
un
fam
ilia
r. H
e as
crib
es t
he
esse
nti
al f
acto
r in
th
e p
rod
uct
ion
of
the
feel
ing
of
un
can
ni-
nes
s to
in
tell
ectu
al u
nce
rtai
nty
; so
th
at t
he
un
can
ny
wo
uld
alw
ays
be
that
in
wh
ich
on
e d
oes
no
t k
no
w w
her
e o
ne
is,
as i
t w
ere.
Th
e b
ette
r o
rien
tate
d i
n h
is e
nv
iro
nm
ent
a p
er-
son
is,
th
e le
ss r
ead
ily
wil
l h
e g
et t
he
imp
ress
ion
of
som
e-
thin
g u
nca
nn
y i
n r
egard
to
th
e o
bje
cts
and
ev
ents
in
it.
It
is
no
t d
iffi
cult
to
see
th
at t
his
def
init
ion
is
inco
mp
lete
,
and
we
wil
l th
eref
ore
try
to
pro
ceed
bey
on
d t
he
equ
atio
n
of
un
hei
mli
ch w
ith
un
fam
ilia
r. W
e w
ill
firs
t tu
rn t
o o
ther
lan
gu
ages
. B
ut
fore
ign
d
icti
on
arie
s te
ll u
s n
oth
ing
new
,
per
hap
s o
nly
bec
ause
we
spea
k a
dif
fere
nt
lan
gu
age.
In-
dee
d,
we
get
th
e im
pre
ssio
n t
hat
man
y l
ang
uag
es a
re w
ith
-
ou
t a
wo
rd f
or
this
part
icu
lar
vari
ety
of
wh
at i
s fe
arfu
l.
4 [
Th
rou
gh
ou
t th
is p
aper
“u
nca
nn
y”
is u
sed
as
the
En
gli
sh t
ran
slat
ion
of
“u
nh
eim
lich
,” l
iter
ally
“u
nh
om
ely
” —
Tra
ns.
]
I
wis
h t
o e
xp
ress
my
in
deb
ted
nes
s to
Dr.
Th
. R
eik
fo
r
the
foll
ow
ing
ex
cerp
ts:
L
AT
IN:
(K.
E.
Go
rges
, D
euts
chla
tein
isch
es W
ört
erb
uch
,
18
98
).
Ein
u
nh
eim
lich
er
Ort
[a
n u
nca
nn
y p
lace
]—lo
cus
susp
ectu
s; i
n u
nh
eim
lich
er N
ach
tzei
t [i
n t
he
dis
mal
nig
ht
ho
urs
]—in
tem
pes
ta n
oct
e.
G
RE
EK
: (R
ost
’s
and
S
chen
ki’
s L
exik
on
s).
Xen
os
stra
ng
e, f
ore
ign
.
E
NG
LIS
H:
(fro
m d
icti
on
arie
s b
y L
uca
s, B
ello
w,
Flü
gel
,
Mu
ret-
San
ders
). U
nco
mfo
rtab
le,
un
easy
, g
loo
my
, d
ism
al,
un
can
ny
, g
has
tly
; (o
f a
ho
use
) h
aun
ted
; (o
f a m
an)
a r
ep
ul-
siv
e fe
llo
w.
F
RE
NC
H:
(Sac
hs-
Vil
latt
e).
Inq
uié
tan
t, s
inis
tre,
lu
gu
bre
,
mal
à s
on
ais
e.
S
PA
NIS
H:
(To
llh
ause
n,
18
89
).
So
spec
ho
so,
de
mal
agu
ëro
, lu
gu
bre
, si
nie
stro
.
T
he
Ital
ian
an
d th
e P
ort
ug
ues
e se
em to
co
nte
nt
them
-
selv
es w
ith
wo
rds
wh
ich
we
sho
uld
des
crib
e as
cir
cum
lo-
cuti
on
s. I
n A
rab
ic a
nd
Heb
rew
“u
nca
nn
y” m
ean
s th
e sa
me
as “
daem
on
ic,”
“g
rues
om
e.”
L
et u
s th
eref
ore
ret
urn
to
th
e G
erm
an l
ang
uag
e.
In D
an
-
iel
San
der
s’
Wö
rter
bu
ch d
er d
euts
chen
S
pra
che (1
86
0),
the
foll
ow
ing
rem
ark
si [
abst
ract
ed i
n t
ran
slat
ion
] ar
e fo
un
d
up
on
th
e w
ord
hei
mli
ch;
I h
ave l
aid
str
ess
on
cer
tain
pas
-
sag
es b
y i
tali
cizi
ng
th
em.
H
eim
lich
, ad
j.:
I. A
lso
hei
mel
ich
, h
ein
ieli
g,
bel
on
gin
g t
o
the
ho
use
, n
ot
stra
ng
e, f
amil
iar,
tam
e,
inti
mat
e, c
om
fort
-
able
, h
om
ely
, et
c.
(a
) (O
bso
lete
) b
elo
ng
ing
to
th
e h
ou
se o
r th
e fa
mil
y,
or
reg
ard
ed a
s so
bel
on
gin
g (
cf.
Lat
in f
am
ilia
ris)
: D
ie H
eim
-
lich
en,
the
mem
ber
s o
f th
e h
ou
seh
old
; D
er h
eim
lich
e R
at
[him
to
wh
om
secr
ets
are
rev
eale
d]
Gen
. x
li.
45
; 2
Sam
.
xx
iii.
23
; n
ow
mo
re u
sual
ly G
ehei
mer
Ra
t [P
riv
y C
ou
nci
l-
lor]
, cf.
Hei
mli
cher
.
(b
) O
f an
imal
s: ta
me,
com
pan
ion
able
to
m
an.
As
op
-
po
sed
to
wil
d,
e.g
. “W
ild
an
imal
s .
. .
that
are
tra
ined
to
be
saraakantLine
saraakantLine
saraakantHighlight
saraakantHighlight
saraakantHighlight
3
hei
mli
ch a
nd
acc
ust
om
ed t
o m
en.”
“If
th
ese
yo
un
g c
rea-
ture
s ar
e b
rou
gh
t u
p f
rom
earl
y d
ays
amo
ng
men
th
ey b
e-
com
e q
uit
e h
eim
lich
, fr
ien
dly
,” e
tc.
(c
) F
rien
dly
, in
tim
ate,
ho
mel
ike;
th
e e
njo
ym
ent
of
qu
iet
con
ten
t, e
tc., a
rou
sin
g a
sen
se o
f p
eace
ful
ple
asu
re a
nd
se-
curi
ty a
s in
on
e w
ith
in t
he
fou
r w
alls
of
his
ho
use
. “Is
it
stil
l h
eim
lich
to
yo
u i
n y
ou
r co
un
try
wh
ere
stra
ng
ers
are
fell
ing
y
ou
r w
oo
ds?
” “S
he
did
n
ot
feel
al
l to
o h
eim
lich
wit
h h
im.”
“T
o d
estr
oy
th
e H
eim
lich
keit
of
the
ho
me.
” “I
cou
ld n
ot
read
ily
fin
d a
no
ther
sp
ot
so i
nti
mat
e an
d h
eim
-
lich
as
this
.” “
In q
uie
t H
ein
zlic
hke
it,
surr
ou
nd
ed b
y clo
se
wa
lls.
” “
A c
are
ful
ho
use
wif
e, w
ho
kn
ow
s h
ow
to
ma
ke a
ple
asi
ng
Hei
mli
chkei
t (H
äu
slic
hke
it)5
ou
t o
f th
e sm
alle
st
mea
ns.
” “T
he
pro
test
ant
rule
rs d
o n
ot
feel
. .
. h
eim
lich
amo
ng
th
eir
cath
oli
c su
bje
cts.
” “W
hen
it
gro
ws
hei
mli
ch
and
sti
ll,
and
th
e ev
enin
g q
uie
t al
on
e w
atch
es o
ver
yo
ur
cell
.” “
Qu
iet,
lo
vel
y a
nd
hei
mli
ch,
no
pla
ce m
ore
fit
ted
fo
r
her
res
t.”
“T
he
in a
nd
ou
t fl
ow
ing
wav
es o
f th
e cu
rren
ts
dre
amy
an
d
hei
mli
ch
as
a cr
adle
-so
ng
.”
Cf.
in
es
pec
ial
Un
hei
mli
ch.
Am
on
g S
wab
ian
an
d S
wis
s au
tho
rs i
n e
spe-
cial
, o
ften
as
tris
yll
able
: “
Ho
w h
eim
elic
h i
t se
em
ed a
gai
n
of
an e
ven
ing
, b
ack
at
ho
me.
” “T
he
war
m r
oo
m a
nd
th
e
hei
mel
ig a
ftern
oo
n.”
“L
ittl
e b
y l
ittl
e th
ey g
rew
at
ease
an
d
hei
mel
ig
amo
ng
th
em
selv
es.”
“T
hat
w
hic
h
com
es
fro
m
afar
. .
. a
ssu
red
ly d
oes
no
t li
ve
qu
ite
hei
mel
ig (
hei
ma
tlic
h
[at
ho
me],
fr
eun
dn
ach
ba
rlic
h
[in
a
nei
gh
bo
rly
w
ay])
amo
ng
th
e p
eop
le.”
“T
he
sen
tin
el’s
ho
rn s
ou
nd
s so
hei
me-
lig
fro
m t
he
tow
er,
an
d h
is v
oic
e in
vit
es s
o h
osp
itab
ly.”
Th
is f
orm
of
the
wo
rd o
ug
ht
to b
eco
me
gen
era
l in
ord
er t
o
pro
tect
th
e w
ord
fro
m b
eco
min
g o
bso
lete
in
its
go
od
sen
se
thro
ug
h
an
ea
sy
con
fusi
on
w
ith
II
. [s
ee
bel
ow
].
‘“T
he
Zec
ks [
a fa
mil
y n
ame]
are
all
“h
eim
lich
.”’
‘“H
eim
lich
”?
Wh
at
do
yo
u u
nd
erst
an
d b
y “
hei
mli
ch”
?’
‘Wel
l, .
. .
th
ey
are
lik
e a
bu
ried
sp
rin
g o
r a
dri
ed-u
p p
on
d.
On
e c
an
no
t
5 [F
rom
Ha
us
= h
ou
se;
Hä
usl
ich
kei
t =
do
mest
ic l
ife. —
Tra
ns.
]
wa
lk o
ver
it
wit
ho
ut
alw
ays
ha
vin
g t
he
feel
ing
th
at
wa
ter
mig
ht
com
e u
p t
her
e a
ga
in.’
‘O
h,
we
call
it
“u
nh
eim
lich
”;
you
ca
ll i
t “
hei
mli
ch.”
W
ell,
w
ha
t m
ake
s yo
u t
hin
k th
at
ther
e is
so
met
hin
g
secr
et
an
d
un
tru
stw
ort
hy
ab
ou
t th
is
fam
ily?
”’
Gu
tzk
ow
.
II
. C
on
ceal
ed,
kep
t fr
om
sig
ht,
so
th
at o
ther
s d
o n
ot
get
to k
no
w a
bo
ut
it,
wit
hh
eld
fro
m o
ther
s, c
f. G
ehei
m [s
e-
cret
]; s
o a
lso
Hei
mli
chke
it f
or
Geh
eim
nis
[se
cret
]. T
o d
o
som
eth
ing
hei
mli
ch,
i.e.
beh
ind
so
meo
ne’
s b
ack
; to
ste
al
away
h
eim
lich
; h
eim
lich
m
eeti
ng
s an
d ap
po
intm
ents
; to
loo
k o
n w
ith
hei
mli
ch p
leas
ure
at
som
eon
e’s
dis
com
fitu
re;
to s
igh o
r w
eep
hei
mli
ch;
to b
ehav
e h
eim
lich
, as
th
ou
gh
ther
e w
as s
om
eth
ing
to
co
nce
al;
hei
mli
ch l
ov
e, l
ov
e-a
ffai
r,
sin
; h
eim
lich
p
lace
s (w
hic
h
go
od
m
ann
ers
o
bli
ge
us
to
con
ceal
). 1
Sam
, v
. 6
; “T
he
hei
mli
ch c
ham
ber
” [p
riv
y].
2
Kin
gs
x.
27
etc
.; “
To
th
row
in
to p
its
or
Hei
mli
chke
it.”
Led
the
stee
ds
hei
mli
ch
bef
ore
L
aom
edo
n.”
“A
s se
cret
ive,
hei
mli
ch,
dec
eitf
ul
and
mal
icio
us
tow
ard
s cru
el m
aste
rs .
.
. as
fra
nk
, o
pen
, sy
mp
ath
etic
an
d h
elp
ful
tow
ard
s a
frie
nd
in m
isfo
rtu
ne.
” “T
he
hei
mli
ch a
rt”
(mag
ic).
“W
her
e p
ub
lic
ven
tila
tio
n h
as to
st
op
, th
ere
hei
mli
ch m
ach
inat
ion
s b
e-
gin
.” “
Fre
edo
m i
s th
e w
his
per
ed w
atch
wo
rd o
f h
eim
lich
con
spir
ato
rs a
nd
th
e lo
ud b
attl
e-cr
y o
f p
rofe
ssed
rev
olu
-
tio
nar
ies.
” “A
ho
ly,
hei
mli
ch e
ffec
t.”
“I
hav
e r
oo
ts t
hat
are
mo
st h
eim
lich
, I
am
gro
wn
in
th
e d
eep
ear
th.”
“M
y h
eim
-
lich
pra
nk
s.”
(Cf.
Hei
mtü
cke
[mis
chie
f]).
To
dis
cov
er,
dis
-
clo
se,
bet
ray
so
meo
ne’
s H
eim
lich
kei
ten
; “t
o
con
coct
Hei
mli
chkei
ten
beh
ind
my
back
.” C
f. G
ehei
mn
is.
C
om
po
un
ds
and
es
peci
ally
al
so
the
op
po
site
fo
llow
mea
nin
g I
. (a
bo
ve)
: U
nh
eim
lich
, u
neas
y,
eeri
e, b
loo
dcu
r-
dli
ng
; “S
eem
ing
alm
ost
un
hei
mli
ch a
nd
‘g
ho
stly
’ to
him
.”
“I h
ad a
lrea
dy
lo
ng
sin
ce f
elt
an u
nh
eim
lich
, ev
en g
rue-
som
e fe
elin
g.”
“F
eels
an
un
hei
mli
ch h
orr
or.
” “U
nh
eim
lich
and
mo
tio
nle
ss l
ike
a st
on
e-im
age.
” “T
he
un
hei
mli
ch m
ist
call
ed h
ill-
fog
.” “
Th
ese
pal
e y
ou
ths
are
un
hei
mli
ch a
nd
are
bre
win
g h
eav
en k
no
ws
wh
at m
isch
ief.
” “‘U
nh
eim
lich
’ is
saraakantLine
saraakantLine
saraakantHighlight
saraakantHighlight
4
the
na
me
for
ever
yth
ing
th
at
ou
gh
t to
ha
ve r
em
ain
ed .
. .
hid
den
an
d s
ecre
t a
nd
ha
s b
eco
me
visi
ble
,” S
chel
lin
g.
“To
vei
l th
e d
ivin
e,
to
surr
ou
nd
it
w
ith
a
cert
ain
U
nh
eim
-
lich
keit
.”—
Un
hei
mli
ch
is
no
t o
ften
u
sed
as
o
pp
osi
te
to
mea
nin
g I
I. (
abo
ve).
W
hat
in
tere
sts
us
mo
st i
n t
his
lo
ng e
xtr
act
is t
o f
ind
that
amo
ng
its
dif
fere
nt
shad
es o
f m
ean
ing
th
e w
ord
hei
mli
ch
exh
ibit
s o
ne
wh
ich
is
iden
tica
l w
ith
its
op
po
site
, u
nhei
m-
lich
. W
hat
is
hei
mli
ch t
hu
s co
mes
to
be
un
hei
mli
ch.
(Cf.
the
qu
ota
tio
n f
rom
Gu
tzk
ow
: “W
e cal
l it
un
hei
mli
ch;
yo
u
call
it
h
eim
lich
.”)
In
gen
eral
w
e are
re
min
ded
th
at
the
wo
rd h
eim
lich
is
no
t u
nam
big
uo
us,
bu
t b
elo
ngs
to t
wo
set
s
of
idea
s, w
hic
h w
ith
ou
t b
ein
g c
on
trad
icto
ry a
re y
et v
ery
dif
fere
nt:
on
th
e o
ne
han
d,
it m
ean
s th
at w
hic
h i
s fa
mil
iar
and
co
ng
enia
l, a
nd
on
th
e o
ther
, th
at w
hic
h i
s co
nce
aled
and
kep
t o
ut
of
sig
ht.
Th
e w
ord
un
hei
mli
ch i
s o
nly
use
d
cust
om
ari
ly,
we
are
to
ld,
as
the
con
tra
ry o
f th
e fi
rst
sig
ni-
fica
tio
n,
an
d n
ot
of
the
seco
nd
. S
an
der
s te
lls
us
no
thin
g
con
cern
ing
a
p
oss
ible
g
enet
ic co
nn
ecti
on
b
etw
een
th
ese
two
so
rts
of
mea
nin
gs.
On
th
e o
ther
ha
nd
, w
e n
oti
ce t
ha
t
Sch
elli
ng
sa
ys s
om
eth
ing
wh
ich
th
row
s q
uit
e a
new
lig
ht
on
th
e co
nce
pt
of
the “u
ncan
ny
,” o
ne w
hic
h w
e h
ad c
er-
tain
ly
no
t aw
aite
d.
Acc
ord
ing
to
h
im
ever
yth
ing
is
u
n-
can
ny
th
at o
ug
ht
to h
ave
rem
ain
ed h
idd
en a
nd
sec
ret,
an
d
yet
co
mes
to
lig
ht.
S
om
e o
f th
e d
ou
bts
th
at h
ave
thu
s ari
sen
are
rem
ov
ed i
f
we c
on
sult
Gri
mm
’s d
icti
on
ary
.ii
W
e re
ad:
H
eim
lich
; ad
j.
and
ad
v.
vern
acu
lus,
o
ccu
ltu
s;
MH
G.
heî
mel
ich
, h
eîm
lich
.
P
. 8
74
. In
a s
lig
htl
y d
iffe
ren
t se
nse
: “I
feel
hei
mli
ch,
well
, fr
ee
fro
m f
ear.
. .
.
(b
) H
eim
lich
, al
so i
n t
he
sen
se o
f a
pla
ce
free
fro
m g
ho
stly
in
-
flu
ences
. .
. f
am
ilia
r, f
rien
dly
, in
tim
ate.
4
. F
rom
th
e id
ea o
f “
ho
mel
ike,
” “
bel
on
gin
g t
o t
he
ho
use
,” t
he
furt
her
id
ea i
s d
evel
op
ed o
f so
met
hin
g w
ith
dra
wn
fro
m t
he e
yes
of
oth
ers,
so
meth
ing
co
nce
ale
d,
secre
t, a
nd
th
is i
dea
is
exp
an
ded
in m
an
y w
ays
. .
. .
P
. 8
76
. “O
n t
he l
eft
ban
k o
f th
e l
ake
ther
e li
es a
mead
ow
heim
-
lich
in
th
e w
oo
d.”
Sch
ille
r, T
ell
. .
. .
Po
eti
c li
cen
ce,
rare
ly s
o
use
d i
n m
od
ern
sp
eec
h .
. .
In
co
nju
ncti
on
wit
h a
ver
b e
xp
ress
ing
the
act
of
con
ceal
ing
: “I
n t
he s
ecr
et
of
his
tab
ern
acle
he
shal
l
hid
e m
e (h
eim
lich
).”
Ps.
xxvi
i. 5
. .
. H
eim
lich
pla
ces
in
th
e h
u-
man
bo
dy
, p
ud
end
a. .
. “
the
men
th
at
die
d n
ot
wer
e sm
itte
n” (
on
thei
r h
eim
lich
par
ts).
1 S
am
uel
v.
12
.
(c
) O
ffic
ials
wh
o g
ive i
mp
ort
ant
adv
ice
wh
ich
has
to b
e k
ep
t
secr
et i
n m
att
ers
of
state
are
cal
led
hei
mli
ch c
ou
ncil
lors
; th
e a
d-
ject
ive,
acc
ord
ing
to
mo
der
n u
sag
e, h
avin
g b
een
rep
lace
d b
y g
e-
hei
m [
secr
et]
. .
. ‘P
har
aoh
cal
led
Jo
sep
h’s
nam
e “
him
to
wh
om
secr
ets
are
rev
eale
d”’
(h
eim
lich
co
un
cil
lor)
. G
en. x
li. 4
5.
P
. 8
78
. 6
. H
eim
lich
, as
use
d o
f k
no
wle
dg
e, m
yst
ic,
all
ego
rical
:
a h
eim
lich
mea
nin
g, m
ysti
cus,
div
inu
s, o
ccu
ltu
s, f
igu
ratu
s.
P
. 8
78
. H
eim
lich
in
a
dif
fere
nt
sen
se,
as
wit
hd
raw
n
fro
m
kn
ow
led
ge,
un
con
scio
us:
. .
. H
eim
lich
als
o h
as t
he
mea
nin
g o
f
that
wh
ich
is
ob
scu
re,
inacc
essi
ble
to
kn
ow
led
ge.
. .
. “
Do
yo
u
no
t se
e? T
hey
do
no
t tr
ust
me;
they
fear
th
e h
eim
lich
face
of
the
Du
ke
of
Fri
edla
nd
.” W
all
enst
ein
s L
ag
er,
Act.
2.
9
. T
he n
oti
on
of
som
eth
ing
hid
den
an
d d
an
ger
ou
s, w
hic
h i
s
exp
ress
ed in
th
e la
st p
ara
gra
ph
, is
st
ill
furt
her
dev
elo
ped
, so
tha
t “
heim
lich
” c
om
es t
o h
ave
th
e m
ean
ing
usu
all
y a
scri
bed
to
“u
nh
eim
lich
.” T
hu
s: “
At
tim
es
I fe
el
lik
e a
man
wh
o w
alk
s in
the
nig
ht
and
bel
iev
es
in g
ho
sts;
ev
ery
co
rner
is
heim
lich
an
d f
ull
of
terr
ors
fo
r h
im.”
Kli
ng
er.
Th
us
hei
mli
ch i
s a
wo
rd t
he
mea
nin
g o
f w
hic
h d
evel
op
s
tow
ard
s an
am
biv
alen
ce,
un
til
it f
inal
ly c
oin
cid
es w
ith
its
op
po
site
, u
nh
eim
lich
. U
nh
eim
lich
is
in s
om
e w
ay o
r o
ther
a su
b-s
pec
ies
of
hei
mli
ch.
Let
u
s re
tain
th
is
dis
cov
ery
,
wh
ich
w
e d
o n
ot
yet
p
rop
erly
u
nd
erst
and
, al
on
gsi
de
of
Sch
elli
ng
’s d
efin
itio
n o
f th
e “u
nca
nn
y.”
Th
en i
f w
e ex
am-
ine
ind
ivid
ual
in
stan
ces
of
un
can
nin
ess,
th
ese
ind
icat
ion
s
wil
l b
eco
me c
om
pre
hen
sib
le t
o u
s.
saraakantLine
saraakantLine
5
II
In
pro
ceed
ing
to
rev
iew
th
ose
th
ing
s, p
erso
ns,
im
pre
s-
sio
ns,
ev
ents
an
d s
itu
atio
ns
wh
ich
are
ab
le t
o a
rou
se i
n u
s a
feel
ing
of
the u
nca
nn
y i
n a
very
fo
rcib
le a
nd
def
init
e fo
rm,
the
firs
t re
qu
irem
ent
is o
bv
iou
sly
to
sel
ect
a su
itab
le e
x-
amp
le t
o s
tart
up
on
. Je
nts
ch h
as t
aken
as
a v
ery
go
od
in
-
stan
ce
“do
ub
ts
wh
eth
er
an
app
aren
tly
an
imat
e b
ein
g
is
real
ly a
liv
e; o
r co
nv
erse
ly,
wh
eth
er a
lif
eles
s o
bje
ct m
igh
t
no
t b
e in
fac
t an
imat
e”;
and
he
refe
rs i
n t
his
co
nn
ecti
on
to
the
imp
ress
ion
mad
e b
y w
ax-w
ork
fig
ure
s, a
rtif
icia
l d
oll
s
and
au
tom
ato
ns.
He
add
s to
th
is c
lass
th
e u
nca
nn
y e
ffec
t o
f
epil
epti
c se
izu
res
and
th
e m
anif
esta
tio
ns
of
insa
nit
y,
be-
cau
se t
hes
e ex
cite
in
th
e sp
ecta
tor
the
feel
ing
th
at a
uto
-
mat
ic,
mec
han
ical
p
roce
sses
ar
e at
w
ork
, co
ncea
led
b
e-
nea
th t
he
ord
inar
y a
pp
ear
ance
of
anim
atio
n.
Wit
ho
ut
en-
tire
ly a
ccep
tin
g t
he
auth
or’
s v
iew
, w
e w
ill
tak
e it
as
a st
art-
ing
-po
int
for
ou
r in
ves
tig
atio
n b
ecau
se i
t le
ads
us
on
to
con
sid
er a
wri
ter
wh
o h
as s
ucc
eed
ed b
ette
r th
an a
ny
on
e
else
in
pro
du
cin
g u
ncan
ny
eff
ects
.
Je
nts
ch s
ays:
“In
tel
lin
g a
sto
ry,
on
e o
f th
e m
ost
su
cce
ss-
ful
dev
ices
fo
r ea
sily
cre
atin
g u
nca
nn
y e
ffect
s is
to
lea
ve
the
read
er i
n u
nce
rtai
nty
wh
eth
er a
par
ticu
lar
fig
ure
in
th
e
sto
ry i
s a
hu
man
bei
ng
or
an a
uto
mat
on
; an
d t
o d
o i
t in
such
a w
ay t
hat
his
att
enti
on
is
no
t d
irec
tly
fo
cuse
d u
po
n
his
un
cert
ain
ty,
so t
hat
he
may
no
t b
e u
rged
to
go
in
to t
he
mat
ter
and
cle
ar i
t u
p i
mm
edia
tely
, si
nce
th
at,
as w
e h
ave
said
, w
ou
ld q
uic
kly
dis
sip
ate
the
pec
uli
ar e
mo
tio
nal
eff
ect
of
the
thin
g.
Ho
ffm
ann
has
rep
eate
dly
em
plo
yed
th
is p
sy-
cho
log
ical
art
ific
e w
ith
su
cces
s in
his
fan
tast
ic n
arr
ativ
es.”
T
his
ob
serv
atio
n,
un
do
ub
ted
ly a
co
rrec
t o
ne,
ref
ers
pri
-
mar
ily
to
th
e st
ory
o
f “T
he
San
d-M
an”
in
Ho
ffm
an
n’s
Na
chts
tück
en,6
wh
ich
co
nta
ins
the
ori
gin
al o
f O
lym
pia
, th
e
do
ll
in
the
firs
t ac
t o
f O
ffen
bac
h’s
o
per
a,
Ta
les
of
6 [
Fro
m H
au
s =
ho
use
; H
äu
slic
hke
it =
do
mes
tic
life
. —
Tra
ns.
]
Ho
ffm
an
n.
Bu
t I
can
no
t th
ink
—an
d I
ho
pe
that
mo
st r
ead
-
ers
of
the
sto
ry w
ill
agre
e w
ith
me—
that
th
e th
eme
of
the
do
ll,
Oly
mp
ia,
wh
o i
s to
all
ap
pea
ran
ces
a li
vin
g b
eing
, is
by
an
y m
ean
s th
e o
nly
ele
men
t to
be
hel
d r
esp
on
sib
le f
or
the
qu
ite
un
par
alle
led
at
mo
sph
ere o
f u
ncan
nin
ess
wh
ich
the
sto
ry e
vo
kes
; o
r, i
nd
eed
, th
at i
t is
th
e m
ost
im
po
rtan
t
amo
ng
th
em
. N
or
is t
his
eff
ect
of
the s
tory
hei
gh
ten
ed
by
the
fact
th
at t
he
auth
or
him
self
tre
ats
the
epis
od
e o
f O
lym
-
pia
wit
h a
fai
nt
tou
ch o
f sa
tire
an
d u
ses
it t
o m
ake
fun
of
the
yo
un
g m
an’s
id
eali
zati
on
o
f h
is m
istr
ess.
T
he
mai
n
them
e o
f th
e s
tory
is,
on
th
e co
ntr
ary
, so
met
hin
g d
iffe
ren
t,
som
eth
ing
wh
ich
giv
es i
ts n
am
e to
th
e st
ory
, an
d w
hic
h i
s
alw
ays
re-i
ntr
od
uce
d a
t th
e cri
tica
l m
om
ent:
it
is t
he
them
e
of
the
“S
and
-Man
” w
ho
tea
rs o
ut
chil
dre
n’s
ey
es.
T
his
fa
nta
stic
ta
le
beg
ins
wit
h
the
chil
dh
ood
-
reco
llec
tio
ns
of
the s
tud
ent
Nat
han
iel:
in
sp
ite
of
his
pre
-
sen
t h
app
ines
s, h
e ca
nn
ot
ban
ish
th
e m
emo
ries
ass
oci
ated
wit
h t
he
my
ster
iou
s an
d t
erri
fyin
g d
eat
h o
f th
e f
ath
er
he
lov
ed.
On
cer
tain
ev
enin
gs
his
m
oth
er u
sed
to
se
nd
th
e
chil
dre
n t
o b
ed e
arly
, w
arn
ing
th
em t
hat
“th
e S
and
-Man
was
co
min
g”;
an
d s
ure
en
ou
gh
Nat
han
iel
wo
uld
no
t fa
il t
o
hea
r th
e h
eav
y tr
ead
o
f a
vis
ito
r w
ith
w
ho
m h
is fa
ther
wo
uld
th
en b
e o
ccu
pie
d th
at ev
enin
g.
Wh
en q
ues
tio
ned
abo
ut
the
San
d-M
an,
his
mo
ther
, it
is
tru
e, d
enie
d t
hat
su
ch
a p
erso
n e
xis
ted
ex
cep
t as
a f
orm
of
spee
ch;
bu
t h
is n
urs
e
cou
ld g
ive
him
mo
re d
efin
ite
info
rmat
ion
: “H
e is
a w
ick
ed
man
w
ho
co
mes
w
hen
ch
ild
ren
w
on
’t
go
to
b
ed,
and
thro
ws
han
dfu
ls o
f sa
nd
in
th
eir
eyes
so
th
at t
hey
ju
mp
ou
t
of
thei
r h
ead
s al
l b
leed
ing
. T
hen
he
pu
ts t
he
eyes
in
a s
ack
and
car
ries
th
em o
ff t
o t
he
mo
on
to
feed
his
ch
ild
ren
. T
hey
sit
up
th
ere
in t
hei
r n
est,
an
d t
hei
r b
eak
s ar
e h
oo
ked
lik
e
ow
ls’
bea
ks,
an
d t
hey
use
th
em
to
peck
up
nau
gh
ty b
oy
s’
and
gir
ls’
eyes
wit
h.”
A
lth
ou
gh
lit
tle
Nat
han
iel
was
sen
sib
le a
nd
old
en
ou
gh
no
t to
bel
iev
e in
su
ch g
rues
om
e at
trib
ute
s to
th
e fi
gu
re o
f
the
San
d-M
an,
yet
th
e d
read
of
him
bec
am
e f
ixed
in
his
saraakantText Boxyou can stop reading here
saraakantLine
saraakantLine
6
bre
ast.
H
e d
eterm
ined
to
fi
nd
o
ut
wh
at
the
San
d-M
an
loo
ked
li
ke;
an
d o
ne
even
ing
, w
hen
th
e S
and
-Man
w
as
agai
n e
xp
ecte
d,
he
hid
him
self
in
his
fat
her
’s s
tud
y.
He
reco
gn
ized
th
e v
isit
or
as t
he
law
yer
Co
pp
eliu
s, a
rep
uls
ive
per
son
of
wh
om
th
e ch
ild
ren
were
fri
gh
ten
ed w
hen
he o
c-
casi
on
ally
cam
e to
a m
eal;
an
d h
e n
ow
id
enti
fied
this
Co
p-
pel
ius
wit
h t
he
dre
aded
San
d-M
an.
Co
ncer
nin
g t
he
rest
of
the
scen
e, H
off
man
n a
lread
y l
eav
es u
s in
do
ub
t w
heth
er
we
are
wit
nes
sin
g t
he
firs
t d
elir
ium
of
the
pan
ic-s
tric
ken
bo
y,
or
a su
cces
sio
n o
f ev
ents
wh
ich
are
to
be
reg
ard
ed
in
the
sto
ry a
s b
ein
g r
eal.
His
fat
her
an
d t
he
gu
est
beg
in t
o
bu
sy t
hem
selv
es a
t a
hea
rth
wit
h g
low
ing
fla
mes
. T
he
litt
le
eav
esd
rop
per
h
ears
C
op
pel
ius
cal
l o
ut,
“H
ere w
ith
y
ou
r
eyes
!” a
nd
bet
ray
s h
imse
lf b
y s
cre
am
ing
alo
ud
; C
op
peli
us
seiz
es h
im a
nd
is
abo
ut
to d
rop
gra
ins
of
red
-ho
t co
al o
ut
of
the
fire
in
to h
is ey
es,
so as
to
ca
st th
em
o
ut
on
th
e
hea
rth
. H
is f
ath
er b
egs
him
off
an
d s
aves
his
ey
es.
Aft
er
this
th
e b
oy
fal
ls i
nto
a d
eep
sw
oo
n;
and
a l
on
g i
lln
ess
fol-
low
ed u
po
n h
is e
xp
erie
nce
. T
ho
se w
ho
lea
n t
ow
ard
s a r
a-
tio
nal
isti
c in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f th
e S
and
-Man
wil
l n
ot
fail
to
reco
gn
ize
in t
he
chil
d’s
ph
anta
sy t
he
conti
nu
ed i
nfl
uen
ce
of
his
n
urs
e’s
sto
ry.
Th
e g
rain
s o
f sa
nd
th
at
are
to
be
thro
wn
in
to t
he
chil
d’s
ey
es t
urn
in
to r
ed-h
ot
gra
ins
of
coal
ou
t o
f th
e fl
ames
; an
d i
n b
oth
cas
es t
hey
are
mea
nt
to m
ake
his
ey
es ju
mp
ou
t. In
th
e co
urs
e o
f an
oth
er v
isit
o
f th
e
San
d-M
an’s
, a
yea
r la
ter,
his
fat
her
was
kil
led
in
his
stu
dy
by
an
ex
plo
sio
n.
Th
e la
wy
er C
op
pel
ius
van
ish
ed f
rom
th
e
pla
ce w
ith
ou
t le
avin
g a
tra
ce
beh
ind
.
N
ath
anie
l, n
ow
a s
tud
ent,
bel
iev
es t
hat
he
has
rec
og
niz
ed
this
ch
ild
ho
od
’s p
han
tom
of
ho
rro
r in
an
iti
ner
ant
op
tici
an,
an I
tali
an c
alle
d G
iuse
pp
e C
op
po
la.
Th
is m
an h
ad o
ffer
ed
him
bar
om
eters
fo
r sa
le i
n h
is u
niv
ersi
ty t
ow
n a
nd
wh
en
Nat
han
iel
refu
sed
had
ad
ded
: “E
h,
no
t b
aro
met
ers,
no
t b
a-
rom
eter
s—al
so
go
t fi
ne
eyes
, b
eau
tifu
l ey
es.”
T
he
stu
-
den
t’s
terr
or
was
all
ayed
on
fin
din
g t
hat
th
e p
roff
ered
ey
es
were
on
ly h
arm
less
sp
ect
acle
s, a
nd
he b
ou
gh
t a
po
ck
et-
tele
sco
pe
fro
m C
op
po
la.
Wit
h i
ts a
id h
e lo
ok
s ac
ross
in
to
Pro
fess
or
Sp
alan
zan
i’s
ho
use
o
pp
osi
te
and
th
ere
spie
s
Sp
alan
zan
i’s
bea
uti
ful,
bu
t st
ran
gel
y s
ilen
t an
d m
oti
onle
ss
dau
gh
ter,
Oly
mp
ia.
He
soo
n f
alls
in
lo
ve
wit
h h
er s
o v
io-
len
tly
th
at
he
quit
e fo
rget
s h
is
clev
er
and
se
nsi
ble
b
e-
tro
thed
o
n h
er ac
cou
nt.
B
ut
Oly
mp
ia w
as an
au
tom
ato
n
wh
ose
wo
rks
Sp
alan
zan
i h
ad m
ade,
an
d w
ho
se e
yes
Co
p-
po
la,
the
San
d-M
an,
had
pu
t in
. T
he
stu
den
t su
rpri
ses
the
two
m
en q
uar
rell
ing
o
ver
th
eir
han
diw
ork
. T
he
op
tici
an
carr
ies
off
th
e w
oo
den
ey
eles
s d
oll
; an
d t
he
mech
anic
ian
,
Sp
alan
zan
i, ta
kes
u
p O
lym
pia
’s b
leed
ing
ey
e-b
alls
fr
om
the
gro
un
d a
nd
th
row
s th
em a
t N
ath
anie
l’s
bre
ast,
say
ing
that
Co
pp
ola
had
sto
len
th
em
fro
m h
im (
Nat
han
iel)
. N
a-
than
iel
succ
um
bs
to a
fre
sh a
ttack
of
mad
nes
s, a
nd
in
his
del
iriu
m h
is r
eco
llec
tio
n o
f h
is f
ath
er’s
dea
th i
s m
ing
led
wit
h
this
n
ew
exp
erie
nce
. H
e cr
ies,
“F
aste
r—fa
ster
—
fast
er—
rin
gs
of
fire
—ri
ng
s o
f fi
re!
Wh
irl
abo
ut,
rin
gs
of
fire
—ro
un
d a
nd
ro
un
d!
Wo
od
en d
oll
, h
o!
lov
ely
wo
od
en
do
ll,
wh
irl
abo
ut—
—,”
th
en
fall
s u
po
n
the
pro
fess
or,
Oly
mp
ia’s
so
-cal
led
fat
her,
an
d t
ries
to
str
ang
le h
im.
R
ally
ing
fr
om
a
lon
g
and
se
rio
us
illn
ess,
N
ath
anie
l
seem
ed a
t la
st t
o h
ave r
eco
ver
ed.
He
was
go
ing
to
mar
ry
his
bet
roth
ed w
ith
wh
om
he
was
rec
on
cile
d.
On
e d
ay
he
was
wal
kin
g t
hro
ug
h t
he
tow
n a
nd
mar
ket
pla
ce,
wh
ere t
he
hig
h t
ow
er o
f th
e T
ow
n-H
all
thre
w i
ts h
ug
e sh
ado
w.
On
the
gir
l’s
sug
ges
tio
n t
hey
mo
un
ted
th
e to
wer
, le
avin
g h
er
bro
ther
, w
ho
w
as
wal
kin
g
wit
h th
em,
do
wn
b
elo
w.
Up
ther
e, C
lara
’s a
tten
tio
n i
s d
raw
n t
o a
cu
rio
us
ob
ject
co
min
g
alo
ng
th
e st
reet
. N
ath
anie
l lo
ok
s at
th
is t
hin
g t
hro
ug
h C
op
-
po
la’s
sp
yg
lass
, w
hic
h h
e fi
nd
s in
his
po
cket
, an
d f
alls
in
to
a n
ew
fi
t o
f m
adn
ess.
S
ho
uti
ng
o
ut,
“W
hir
l ab
ou
t,
my
wo
od
en d
oll
!” h
e tr
ies
to f
lin
g t
he
gir
l in
to t
he
dep
ths
be-
low
. H
er
bro
ther
, b
rou
gh
t to
her
sid
e b
y h
er c
ries
, re
scu
es
her
an
d h
aste
ns
do
wn
to
saf
ety
wit
h h
er.
Up
ab
ov
e,
the
rav
ing
man
ru
shes
ro
un
d,
shri
ekin
g “
Rin
gs
of
fire
, w
hir
l
abo
ut!
”—w
ord
s w
ho
se o
rig
in w
e k
no
w.
Am
on
g t
he
peo
ple
7
wh
o b
egin
to
gat
her
bel
ow
th
ere
com
es f
orw
ard
th
e fi
gu
re
of
the
law
yer
Co
pp
eliu
s, s
ud
den
ly r
etu
rned
. W
e m
ay s
up
-
po
se i
t w
as h
is a
pp
roac
h,
seen
th
rou
gh
th
e te
lesc
op
e, t
hat
thre
w N
ath
anie
l in
to h
is m
adn
ess.
Peo
ple
wan
t to
go
up
and
o
ver
po
wer
th
e m
adm
an,
bu
t C
op
pel
ius7
la
ug
hs
and
say
s, “
Wai
t a
bit
; h
e’ll
co
me
do
wn
of
him
self
.” N
ath
an
iel
sud
den
ly s
tan
ds
stil
l, c
atch
es s
igh
t o
f C
op
pel
ius,
an
d w
ith
a w
ild
sh
riek
“Y
es!
‘Fin
e ey
es-b
eau
tifu
l ey
es,’
” fl
ing
s
him
self
do
wn
ov
er t
he
par
apet
. N
o s
oo
ner
do
es h
e li
e o
n
the
pav
ing
-sto
nes
wit
h a
sh
atte
red
sk
ull
th
an t
he
San
d-M
an
van
ish
es i
n t
he
thro
ng
.
T
his
sh
ort
su
mm
ary
leav
es,
I th
ink
, n
o d
ou
bt
that
th
e
feel
ing
of
som
eth
ing
un
can
ny
is
dir
ectl
y a
ttac
hed
to
th
e
fig
ure
of
the S
and
-Man
, th
at i
s, t
o t
he
idea
of
bei
ng
ro
bb
ed
of
on
e’s
eyes
; an
d t
hat
Jen
tsch
’s p
oin
t o
f an
in
tell
ectu
al
un
cert
ain
ty h
as n
oth
ing
to
do
wit
h t
his
eff
ect.
Un
cer
tain
ty
wh
eth
er
an o
bje
ct i
s li
vin
g o
r in
anim
ate,
wh
ich
we
mu
st
adm
it i
n r
egard
to
th
e d
oll
Oly
mp
ia,
is q
uit
e ir
rele
van
t in
con
nec
tio
n w
ith
th
is o
ther
, m
ore
str
ikin
g i
nst
ance
of
un
-
can
nin
ess.
It
is t
rue
that
th
e w
rite
r cr
eate
s a
kin
d o
f u
nce
r-
tain
ty i
n u
s in
th
e b
egin
nin
g b
y n
ot
lett
ing
us
kn
ow
, n
o
do
ub
t p
urp
ose
ly,
wh
eth
er
he
is
tak
ing
u
s in
to
the
real
wo
rld
or
into
a p
ure
ly f
anta
stic
on
e o
f h
is o
wn
cre
atio
n.
He
has
ad
mit
ted
th
e ri
gh
t to
do
eit
her
; an
d i
f h
e ch
oo
ses
to
stag
e h
is a
ctio
n i
n a
wo
rld
peo
ple
d w
ith
sp
irit
s, d
emo
ns
and
gh
ost
s, a
s S
hak
esp
ear
e d
oes
in
H
am
let,
in
M
acb
eth
and
, in
a d
iffe
ren
t se
nse
, in
Th
e T
em
pes
t an
d A
Mid
sum
-
mer
-Nig
ht’
s D
rea
m,
we
mu
st b
ow
to
his
dec
isio
n a
nd
tre
at
his
set
tin
g a
s th
ou
gh i
t w
ere
real
fo
r as
lo
ng
as
we
pu
t o
ur-
selv
es i
nto
his
han
ds.
Bu
t th
is u
nce
rtai
nty
dis
app
ears
in t
he
cou
rse
of
Ho
ffm
ann
’s
sto
ry,
and
w
e
per
cei
ve
that
h
e
mea
ns
to m
ake
us,
to
o,
loo
k t
hro
ug
h t
he
fell
C
op
po
la’s
gla
sses
—p
erh
aps,
in
dee
d,
that
h
e h
imse
lf
on
ce
gaz
ed
7 F
rau
Dr.
Ran
k h
as p
oin
ted
ou
t th
e ass
oci
atio
n o
f th
e n
am
e w
ith
“C
op
-
pel
la”
= c
ruci
ble
, co
nn
ect
ing
it
wit
h t
he
chem
ical
op
era
tio
ns
that
cau
sed
the
fath
er’
s d
eath
; an
d a
lso
wit
h “
cop
po
” =
ey
e-s
ock
et.
thro
ug
h s
uch
an
in
stru
men
t. F
or
the
con
clu
sio
n o
f th
e st
ory
mak
es i
t q
uit
e cl
ear
that
Co
pp
ola
th
e o
pti
cian
rea
lly
is
the
law
yer
Co
pp
eliu
s an
d t
hu
s al
so t
he S
and
-Man
.
T
here
is
no
qu
esti
on
, th
eref
ore
, o
f an
y “
inte
llec
tual
un
-
cert
ain
ty”;
we k
no
w n
ow
th
at w
e are
no
t su
pp
ose
d t
o b
e
loo
kin
g o
n a
t th
e p
rod
uct
s o
f a
mad
man
’s i
mag
inat
ion
be-
hin
d w
hic
h w
e, w
ith
th
e su
per
iori
ty o
f ra
tio
nal
min
ds,
are
able
to
det
ect
the
sob
er t
ruth
; an
d y
et t
his
kn
ow
led
ge
do
es
no
t le
ssen
th
e im
pre
ssio
n o
f u
nca
nn
ines
s in
th
e le
ast
de-
gre
e. T
he
theo
ry o
f “i
nte
llec
tual
un
cert
ain
ty”
is t
hu
s in
ca-
pab
le o
f ex
pla
inin
g t
hat
im
pre
ssio
n.
W
e k
no
w f
rom
psy
cho
anal
yti
c ex
peri
ence
, h
ow
ever,
th
at
this
fea
r o
f d
amag
ing
or
losi
ng
on
e’s
eyes
is
a t
erri
ble
fea
r
of
chil
dh
oo
d.
Man
y a
du
lts
stil
l re
tain
th
eir
app
reh
ensi
ve-
nes
s in
th
is
resp
ect,
an
d
no
b
od
ily
in
jury
is
so
m
uch
dre
aded
by
th
em
as
an i
nju
ry t
o t
he
eye.
We
are
accu
s-
tom
ed t
o s
ay,
too
, th
at w
e w
ill
trea
sure
a t
hin
g a
s th
e ap
ple
of
ou
r ey
e. A
stu
dy
of
dre
ams,
ph
anta
sies
an
d m
yth
s h
as
tau
gh
t u
s th
at a
mo
rbid
an
xie
ty c
on
nec
ted
wit
h t
he
eyes
and
wit
h g
oin
g b
lin
d i
s o
ften
en
ou
gh
a s
ub
stit
ute
fo
r th
e
dre
ad
of
cast
rati
on
. In
b
lin
din
g
him
self
, O
edip
us,
th
at
my
thic
al l
aw-b
reak
er,
was
sim
ply
car
ryin
g o
ut
a m
itig
ated
form
o
f th
e p
un
ish
men
t o
f cas
trat
ion
—th
e o
nly
p
un
ish
-
men
t th
at a
cco
rdin
g t
o t
he
lex
tali
on
is w
as f
itte
d f
or
him
.
We
may
try
to
rej
ect
the
der
ivat
ion
of
fear
s ab
ou
t th
e e
ye
fro
m t
he
fear
of
cast
rati
on
on
rat
ion
alis
tic
gro
un
ds,
an
d s
ay
that
it
is v
ery
nat
ura
l th
at s
o p
reci
ou
s an
org
an a
s th
e e
ye
sho
uld
be
gu
ard
ed b
y a
pro
po
rtio
nat
e d
read
; in
dee
d,
we
mig
ht
go
fu
rth
er a
nd
say
th
at t
he
fear
of
cast
rati
on
its
elf
con
tain
s n
o o
ther
sig
nif
ican
ce a
nd
no
dee
per
sec
ret
than
a
just
ifia
ble
dre
ad o
f th
is k
ind
. B
ut
this
vie
w d
oes
no
t ac
-
cou
nt
adeq
uat
ely
fo
r th
e su
bst
ituti
ve
rela
tio
n b
etw
een
th
e
eye
and
th
e m
ale m
emb
er w
hic
h i
s se
en t
o e
xis
t in
dre
ams
and
my
ths
and
ph
anta
sies
; n
or
can
it
dis
pel
th
e im
pre
ssio
n
on
e g
ain
s th
at i
t is
th
e th
reat
of
bei
ng
cas
trat
ed i
n e
spec
ial
wh
ich
ex
cite
s a
pec
uli
arly
v
iole
nt
and
o
bsc
ure
em
oti
on
,
8
and
th
at t
his
em
oti
on
is
wh
at f
irst
giv
es t
he
idea
of
losi
ng
oth
er o
rgan
s it
s in
ten
se c
olo
uri
ng
. A
ll f
urt
her
do
ub
ts a
re
rem
ov
ed
wh
en
we
get
th
e d
etai
ls
of
thei
r “c
astr
atio
n-
com
ple
x”
fro
m t
he
anal
yse
s o
f n
euro
tic
pat
ien
ts,
and r
eal-
ize
its
imm
ense
im
po
rtan
ce
in t
hei
r m
enta
l li
fe.
M
ore
ov
er,
I w
ou
ld n
ot
reco
mm
end
an
y o
pp
on
ent
of
the
psy
cho
anal
yti
c v
iew
to
se
lect
p
reci
sely
th
e st
ory
o
f th
e
San
d-M
an u
po
n w
hic
h t
o b
uil
d h
is c
ase
that
mo
rbid
an
xi-
ety
ab
ou
t th
e ey
es h
as n
oth
ing t
o d
o w
ith
th
e ca
stra
tio
n-
com
ple
x.
Fo
r w
hy
do
es H
off
man
n b
rin
g t
he
anx
iety
ab
ou
t
eyes
in
to s
uch
in
tim
ate
con
nec
tio
n w
ith
th
e fa
ther
’s d
eat
h?
An
d w
hy
do
es t
he
San
d-M
an a
pp
ear
each
tim
e i
n o
rder
to
inte
rfer
e w
ith
lo
ve?
He
div
ides
th
e u
nfo
rtu
nat
e N
ath
an
iel
fro
m h
is b
etro
thed
an
d f
rom
her
bro
ther,
his
bes
t fr
ien
d;
he
des
tro
ys
his
se
con
d o
bje
ct o
f lo
ve,
O
lym
pia
, th
e lo
vel
y
do
ll;
and h
e d
riv
es h
im i
nto
su
icid
e at
th
e m
om
ent
wh
en
he
has
wo
n b
ack
his
Cla
ra a
nd
is
abo
ut
to b
e h
app
ily
un
ited
to
her
. T
hin
gs
lik
e th
ese
Recommended