Abstract

The discovery in 1987 of Paul de Man?s pro?Nazi literary activities in wartime Belgium prompted a debate over the fact that de Man neither publicly declared his collaboration, nor clarified the relationship between his wartime experience and his post?war work. De Man?s detractors argued that he insidiously hid his past. The evidence of his concealment, they maintained, was his silence and unwavering conviction in his mature work that the meaning of every text contains its opposite. De Man guaranteed the impossibility of knowing the original meanings of his wartime articles. In contrast, de Man?s supporters argued that what appeared to be de Man?s silence masked his life?long critique of his wartime errors. His heroic analysis, they maintained, was expressed in his post?war work. In contrast to these interpretations, it is argued that de Man?s silence and post?war work resulted from his rejection of his former self and the influence of its unacknowledged presence. The unintentional presence of his past caused de Man?s inability to speak openly about his coll aboration and shaped the content of his late work