La Coscienza di Zeno has been hailed as the "first psychoanalytic novel". The psuedonym Italo Svevo (meaning "Italus the Swabian") used by the author Ettore Schmitz is intergral to the story. Trieste, during Svevo's time had a interesting cultural dynamic. Politically, it was part of the Austro-Hungarian emprie. Culturally and linguistically, it was Italian, and Svevo himself was a Jew of Transylvanian descent (on his father's side). The diversity of his city Trieste, is reflected in both his pseudonym and his given name, which is characteristically both Jewish and Italian. At the end of the war, psychoanalysis was the Triestine soup de jour. Amateur diagnoses could be heard amoung the street conversations. This atmosphere is clearly one impetus for Svevo's novel. Another however, closer to home, was his brother-in-law Bruno's long but ultimately unsuccessful psychoanalytic treatment (Bruno was treated by both Viktor Tausk and Sigmund Freud, among others).

But how does Svevo accomplish his attempt at constructing a 'psychoanalytic' novel? In two ways. Psychoanalysis is first the underlying structural framework that keeps the novel progressing forward. That is, the events that unfold in the novel have been written down by Zeno in an attempt to help with his psychoanalysis. At the same time, the novel concerns itself with the practices and interpretations of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is not only the foundation of the novel, but also its subject matter. These two roles sometimes clash and in the end this clashing is responsible for the existence of the novel in the first place. That is, if Zeno had not instigated the situation with Dr. S, Zeno's diaries would not have been published by Dr. S out of spite.

While there are numerous situations we can discuss here, I will limit myself to a few that, to me, portray Svevo's view of psychoanalysis. To me Zeno viewed an individual's 'quirks', 'neuroses" as the glue that held the individual together. That they were integral not impinging upon the person. On the other hand, psychoanalysis is "a science which helps to study ourselves" as Schmitz himself wrote. The role of psychoanalysis then was not 'cure' but self-awareness. One was to study the quirks and neuroses perhaps but not attempt to artifically change them. But even self awareness was a double edged sword. My favorite example here is the scene in which Zeno thinks about the numerous muscles that make up his walk. Upon consciously attending to this, he no longer can keep this muscular complexity functioning correctly and develops a limp.

Here are my answers to a few of the questions posted on a reading group I participate in.

1. Is Zeno Cosini truly as hapless as he sometimes seems?

Zeno is hapless because he is engaged in 'psychoanalysis'- his temperment, much like Marcel in Proust's work is by disposition sensitive, insightful and yes neurotic. It is interesting to note how both Svevo and Proust take an interesting approach to "time", and I wonder how strongly/solely it has to do with the fact that both novels are individual histories of consciousness.

2. Is Zeno Cosini crazy, a genius--or both? Or neither?

Neither. Zeno is a prime example of a mind turned inward. But the more I think about it, I can see how he is both crazy and genius- that is, his ability to truly unravel a behavior, trace it backwards through associations, thoughts, actions (and when none provide themselves, cheerfully make them up), can be thought of as both genius or craziness- all depending on how functional the individual is in other ways.

3. Will Zeno Cosini ever stop reaching for that last cigarette? What is the significance of this?

Svevo himself was a horrific smoker but in Zeno I think the struggle with smoking should be seen as symbolic. He will never reach his last cigarette because smoking is a part of him, and as I said in the background, you do not seek to 'cure' yourself of these things (Of course at the time, the health implications of smoking were not of importance, and was never his reason to quit). But doesnt he mention something in the end of being able to smoke in moderation? Or am I making this up? This moderation, in effect accomplishes his goal, he is master over it.

4. Does Zeno Cosini really delude himself as often as it appears, or does he understand himself like no other, and instead turned the joke on us?

I think Zeno realizes that you can not really know yourself- (this is all said in the context of psychoanalysis)- you cannot know the unconscious (nor can the doctor) because at every turn the conscious is acting out to sabotage this- either intentionally, or altrusitically as when to help Dr. S along in his analysis, Zeno makes up memories that he thinks would confirm Dr. S hypotheses. So in this way he 'turns the joke on us'. But only _IF_ we forget the title of the novel, it is 'The (Conscience) Consciousness of Zeno' - NOT the 'Absolute Honest Truth of Zeno'. Why is this important? Well if we keep this in mind, we see the joke (and disaster) implicit in Zeno's adventure, and appreciate it nonetheless, not as history but as consciousness.

5. Is Zeno Cosini unique, or representative of people in general?

Zeno is representative of people, but perhaps unique in the breadth of his ability. Zeno ability to take psychoanalytic introspection to the extreme results in the vivid picture we get through his diary. It underlines the point: continuous thinking, introspection, "analysis" will lead to neurosis. It is not the way to health but sickness (I forget now, but Zeno's description of his wife's 'happiness' illustrates this as well). So in this way he is unique, but he is representative in that for everyone it would lead to sickness not health.

6. Zeno Cosini married Augusta while being in love with Ada. How does this dynamic change through the course of the novel, and what does it reveal about Zeno?

In its essence, the dynamic never changes but it is somewhat transferred onto Guido. The fact that Zeno 'goes to the wrong funeral' underlines that Guido was always his rival, due to his love for Ada (this is classic Freudian behavior). He appreciates Augusta for her strength in health and her loyalty. His ability to be looked upon by her family as the 'man' of the house was also important and, I think, leads to his acceptance of the situation. While his voiced views about Ada definitely change, remember we are dealing with a consciousness, and I am not convinced he would not have ran away with her if only she asked.

And more of my random comments:

I agree with Anna- Zeno's problems are luxury problems. But I accept these bourgeoisie 'problems' (could psychoanalysis at the beginning of the 20th century have been examined in any other circle?) I guess what interested me was how perceptive (or seemingly so) Zeno was into his own psyche. I like 'minds turned in on themselves' novels - so I must admit I am biased here.

I like Anna's point that Zeno invents problems. And they _are_ trivial. Trivial until/if Zeno points his magnifying glass towards them (similar to Proust where 50 pages can be dedicated to his exposition of whether the lack of a warm salutation in one of Alberte's letters alludes to her assignations with women - at some point you just want to say 'hey Marcel, put the notebook down, go outside and drink some wine'). But I think that this is at least part of the point being made- even trivial, nonsensical problems can be dangerous - can turn into neuroses- if granted sufficient exposition.

Zeno cant be a tragic figure- like Anna said, his humanity hasnt been portrayed enough to be tragic- but Zeno is pathetic- caused not by his trivial problems themselves, but with Zeno's illumination of them, focus on them and attempt to 'cure' them....