1. References to Lacan’s Seminars XVIII (‘L’envers de la psychanalyse’, Lacan, 1969–70)
2. and XXI (‘Les non-dupes errent’, Lacan, 1973–4) (unpublished typescripts) are given to the week, and the page, of the typescript.
3. Scilicet, review of Lacan’s series, le champ freudien(Lacan, 1968–76).
4. It is not, therefore, a question of philology and thenthe phallus, as John Forrester argues, but of sexuality/the phallus aslanguage (John Forrester, ‘Philology and the phallus’, in MacCabe (1981)).
5. The difficulty of these terms is recognised by Safouan, but the problem remains; cf. also Eugénie Lemoine-Luccioni, Partage des femmes(1976), where there is the same collapse between the Other to be recognised by the woman in her advent to desire, and the real man whom, ideally, she comes to accept (‘the Other, the man’, p. 83; ‘the Other, the man as subject’, p. 87). There seems to be a constant tendency to literalise the terms of Lacan’s account and it is when this happens that the definitions most easily recognised as reactionary tend to appear. We can see this in such apparently different areas as Maude Mannoni’s translation of the Name of the Father into a therapeutic practice which seeks to establish the paternal genealogy of the psychotic child (Mannoni, 1967), and in Lemoine-Luccioni’s account of the real Other who ensures castration to the woman otherwise condemned to pure narcissism. Lemoine-Luccioni’s account is in many ways reminiscent of that of Helene Deutsch (1930) who described the transition to femininity in terms of a desire for castration which is produced across the woman’s body by the man.