That is what they say I said when they found me in the blackness after three hours; found me crouching in the blackness over the plump, half-eaten body of Capt.[136] Norrys, with my own cat leaping and tearing at my throat. Now they have blown up Exham Priory, taken my Nigger-Man away from me, and shut me into this barred room at Hanwell with fearful whispers about my heredity and experiences.[137] Thornton is in the next room, but they prevent me from talking to him. They are trying, too, to suppress most of the facts concerning the priory. When I speak of poor Norrys they accuse me of a hideous thing, but they must know that I did not do it. They must know it was the rats; the slithering,[138] scurrying rats whose scampering will never let me sleep; the daemon rats that race behind the padding in this room and beckon me down to greater horrors than I have ever known; the rats they can never hear; the rats, the rats in the walls.[139]
Notes
Editor’s Note: There is no surviving manuscript, so we are reliant on the two published appearances in HPL’s lifetime, both in Weird Tales (March 1924 and June 1930). There is internal evidence that HPL revised the story for the second appearance, although it is a matter of judgment which divergences between the two texts constitute deliberate revisions by HPL and which are alterations by the Weird Tales editors; many changes seem in accordance with the magazine’s later “house style,” hence must be editorial. The first appearance also appears to feature numerous instances where HPL’s long paragraphs were broken down into two or three shorter paragraphs; these paragraphs have been conjecturally restored. The Arkham House editions followed the first Weird Tales appearance.
Texts: A = Weird Tales 3, No. 3 (March 1924): 25–31; B = Weird Tales 15, No. 6 (June 1930): 841–53; C = The Dunwich Horror and Others (Arkham House, 1963), 33–52. Copy-text: A (with some readings from B).
1. labours.] labors. A, B, C
2. ancestors] ancestors, B
3. line.] line. ¶ A, B, C
4. Cymric,] Cymric A
5. Anchester.] Anchester. ¶ A, B, C
6. mould] mold B
7. foundations. ¶] foundations. C
8. forbear] forebear B
9. neighbours,] neighbors, A, B, C
10. honourable,] honorable, A, B, C
11. that] that had C
12. greyness] grayness B
13. information;] information, A, B, C
14. colourful] colorful A, B, C
15. Capt.] Captain B
16. them] them so C
17. shewed] showed A, B, C
18. surprisingly] surprizingly B
19. partners.] partners. ¶ A, B, C
20. Capt.] Captain B
21. labourers,] laborers, A, B, C
22. ostracised] ostracized B
23. doubted;] doubted, A, B, C
24. introduced.] introduced. ¶ A, B, C
25. sub-cellar] sub-/cellar A, B; subcellar C
26. centre] center A, B, C
27. favourite] favorite A, B, C
28. forbears] forebears B
29. sceptic.] skeptic. A, B, C
30. shewn] shown A, B, C
31. of] of the A, C
32. bat-winged] bat-/winged A; batwinged C
33. Witches’ Sabbath] witches’ sabbath A, B, C
34. Capt.] Captain B
35. restoration.] restoration. ¶ A, B, C
36. “Nigger-Man”,] “Nigger-Man,” A, B, C
37. Capt.] Captain B
38. priory.] priory. ¶ A, B, C
39. demeanour,] demeanor, A, B, C
40. honoured,] honored, A, B, C
41. an] om. C
42. gentleman-adventurer,] gentleman adventurer, A, B, C
43. honour,] honor, A, C; honor B
44. locality.] locality. ¶ A, B, C
45. old] om. C
46. realise] realize A, B, C
47. panelling,] paneling, B
48. stone.] stone. ¶ A, B, C
49. odour] odor A, B, C
50. Capt.] Captain B
51. London.] London. ¶ A, B, C
52. dreams,] dreams B
53. fore feet] forefeet A, B, C
54. directed.] directed. ¶ A, B, C
55. cannot] can not B
56. prowlers.] prowlers. ¶ A, B, C
57. unusual,] unusual B
58. windowsill.] window-sill. B
59. Capt.] Captain B
60. paris-green,] Paris green, C
61. shew] show A, B, C
62. realisation] realization A, B, C
63. mistaken.] mistaken. ¶ A, B, C
64. oak-panelled] oak-paneled A, B
65. conceivably, or inconceivably,] conceivably or inconceivably C
66. realised] realized A, B, C
67. ceased.] ceased. ¶ A, B, C
68. men] men, A, C
69. Later] Later, B
70. below;] below, A, C
71. morning;] morning, A, B, C
72. profoundly,] profoundly C
73. Capt.] Captain B
74. sub-cellar.] sub-cellar. ¶ A, B, C
75. centre] center A, B, C
76. connexion] connection A, B, C
77. had] om. C
78. reproduction] replica A, C
79. me.] me. ¶ A, B, C
80. Capt.] Captain B
81. paralyses] paralyzes A, B
82. sub-cellars,] sub-cellars A, C
83. sceptical] skeptical A, B, C
84. clamour,] clamor, A, B, C
85. centre] center A, B, C
86. Capt.] Captain B
87. fervour] fervor A, B, C
88. favour] favor A, B, C
89. of] of the C
90. tessellated] tesselated A, B, C
91. imagined.] imagined. ¶ A, B, C
92. draught] draft B
93. crevices] crevice A, C
94. brilliantly lighted] brilliantly-lighted A, C
95. pile— . . . centuries—] pile; . . . centuries; A, B, C
96. for ever] forever A, C
97. depths.] depths. ¶ A, B, C
98. archaeologists] archeologists B
99. recognised] recognized A, B, C
100. Capt.] Captain B
101. legendary] legendry B
102. but instead] but, instead, A, B, C
103. symbolised] symbolized A, B, C
104. 7th] 7 C
105. guests.] guests. ¶ A, B, C
106. shewn] shown A, B, C
107. shew] show A, B, C
108. eleven a.m.] 11 a. m. A; eleven a. m. B; 11 A.M. C
109. centre,] center, A, B, C
110. shewed] showed A, B, C
111. semi-apedom.] semi-apedom. ¶ A, B, C
112. chiselled] chiseled A, B, C
113. chiselled] chiseled A, B, C
114. ploughing] plowing B
115. aëronaut] aeronaut A, B, C
116. eyes.] eyes. ¶ A, B, C
117. composure;] composure, A, B, C
118. stooped] stopped C
119. Hoffmann] Hoffman A, C
120. rat-fear.] rat-fever. B
121. building,] building C
122. Greek,] Greek B
123. Phrygia.] Phrygia. ¶ A, B, C
124. gorilla’s,] gorilla’s B
125. indescribable] indescribably C
126. secrets] secret B
127. twilit] twilight B
128. shewed] showed A, B, C
129. Capt.] Captain B
130. centre] center A, B, C
131. sea.] sea. ¶ A, B, C
132. flabby,] flabby C
133. aodann ] aodaun A, B, C
134. ungl ] nngl A, B
135. rrrlh ] rrlh C
136. Capt.] Captain B
137. experiences.] experience. C
138. slithering,] slithering C
139. walls.] walls! A, B
The Unnamable
We were sitting on a dilapidated seventeenth-century tomb in the late afternoon of an autumn day
at the old burying-ground[1] in Arkham, and speculating about the unnamable. Looking toward the giant willow in the centre of [2] the cemetery, whose trunk has[3] nearly engulfed an ancient, illegible slab, I had made a fantastic remark about the spectral and unmentionable nourishment which the colossal roots must be sucking in[4] from that hoary, charnel earth; when my friend chided me for such nonsense and told me that since no interments had occurred there for over a century, nothing could possibly exist to nourish the tree in other than an ordinary manner. Besides, he added, my constant talk about “unnamable” and “unmentionable” things was a very puerile device, quite in keeping with my lowly standing as an author. I was too fond of ending my stories with sights or sounds which paralysed[5] my heroes’ faculties and left them without courage, words, or associations to tell what they had experienced. We know things, he said, only through our five senses or our religious intuitions; wherefore it is quite impossible to refer to any object or spectacle which cannot be clearly depicted by the solid definitions of fact or the correct doctrines of theology—preferably those of the Congregationalists, with whatever modifications tradition and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle may supply.
With this friend, Joel Manton, I had often languidly disputed. He was principal of the East High School, born and bred in Boston and sharing New England’s self-satisfied deafness to the delicate overtones of life. It was his view that only our normal, objective experiences possess any aesthetic[6] significance, and that it is the province of the artist not so much to rouse strong emotion by action, ecstasy, and astonishment, as to maintain a placid interest and appreciation by accurate, detailed transcripts of every-day[7] affairs. Especially did he object to my preoccupation with the mystical and the unexplained; for although believing in the supernatural much more fully than I, he would not admit that it is sufficiently commonplace for literary treatment. That a mind can find its greatest pleasure in escapes from the daily treadmill, and in original and dramatic re-combinations of images usually thrown by habit and fatigue into the hackneyed patterns of actual existence, was something virtually incredible to his clear, practical, and logical intellect. With him all things and feelings had fixed dimensions, properties, causes, and effects; and although he vaguely knew that the mind sometimes holds visions and sensations of far less geometrical, classifiable, and workable nature, he believed himself justified in drawing an arbitrary line and ruling out of court all that cannot be experienced and understood by the average citizen. Besides, he was almost sure that nothing can be really “unnamable”.[8] It didn’t sound sensible to him.
Though I well realised[9] the futility of imaginative and metaphysical arguments against the complacency of an orthodox sun-dweller, something in the scene of this afternoon colloquy moved me to more than usual contentiousness. The crumbling slate slabs, the patriarchal trees, and the centuried gambrel roofs of the witch-haunted old town that stretched around, all combined to rouse my spirit in defence[10] of my work; and I was soon carrying my thrusts into the enemy’s own country. It was not, indeed, difficult to begin a counter-attack, for I knew that Joel Manton actually half clung to many old-wives’ superstitions which sophisticated people had long outgrown; beliefs in the appearance of dying persons at distant places, and in the impressions left by old faces on the windows through which they have[11] gazed all their lives. To credit these whisperings of rural grandmothers, I now insisted, argued a faith in the existence of spectral substances on the earth apart from and subsequent to their material counterparts. It argued a capability of believing in phenomena beyond all normal notions; for if a dead man can transmit his visible or tangible image half across the world, or down the stretch of the centuries, how can it be absurd to suppose that deserted houses are full of queer sentient things, or that old graveyards teem with the terrible, unbodied intelligence of generations? And since spirit, in order to cause all the manifestations attributed to it, cannot be limited by any of the laws of matter; why is it extravagant to imagine psychically living dead things in shapes—or absences of shapes—which must for human spectators be utterly and appallingly “unnamable”? “Common sense” in reflecting on these subjects, I assured my friend with some warmth, is merely a stupid absence of imagination and mental flexibility.
Twilight had now approached, but neither of us felt any wish to cease speaking. Manton seemed unimpressed by my arguments, and eager to refute them, having that confidence in his own opinions which had doubtless caused his success as a teacher; whilst I was too sure of my ground to fear defeat. The dusk fell, and lights faintly gleamed in some of the distant windows, but we did not move. Our seat on the tomb was very comfortable, and I knew that my prosaic friend would not mind the cavernous rift in the ancient, root-disturbed brickwork close behind us, or the utter blackness of the spot brought by the intervention of a tottering, deserted seventeenth-century house between us and the nearest lighted road. There in the dark, upon that riven tomb by the deserted house, we talked on about the “unnamable”,[12] and after my friend had finished his scoffing I told him of the awful evidence behind the story at which he had scoffed the most.
My tale had been called “The Attic Window”,[13] and appeared in the January, 1922, issue of Whispers. In a good many places, especially the South and the Pacific coast, they took the magazines off the stands at the complaints of silly milksops; but New England didn’t get the thrill and merely shrugged its shoulders at my extravagance. The thing, it was averred, was biologically impossible to start with; merely another of those crazy country mutterings which Cotton Mather had been gullible enough to dump into his chaotic “Magnalia Christi Americana”,[14] and so poorly authenticated that even he had not ventured to name the locality where the horror occurred. And as to the way I amplified the bare jotting of the old mystic—that was quite impossible, and characteristic of a flighty and notional scribbler! Mather had indeed told of the thing as being born, but nobody but a cheap sensationalist would think of having it grow up, look into people’s windows at night, and be hidden in the attic of a house, in flesh and in spirit, till someone saw it at the window centuries later and couldn’t describe what it was that turned his hair grey.[15] All this was flagrant trashiness, and my friend Manton was not slow to insist on that fact. Then I told him what I had found in an old diary kept between 1706 and 1723, unearthed among family papers not a mile from where we were sitting; that, and the certain reality of the scars on my ancestor’s chest and back which the diary described. I told him, too, of the fears of others in that region, and how they were whispered down for generations; and how no mythical madness came to the boy who in 1793 entered an abandoned house to examine certain traces suspected to be there.
It had been an eldritch thing—no wonder sensitive students shudder at the Puritan age in Massachusetts. So little is known of what went on beneath the surface—so little, yet such a ghastly festering as it bubbles up putrescently in occasional ghoulish glimpses. The witchcraft terror is a horrible ray of light on what was stewing in men’s crushed brains, but even that is a trifle. There was no beauty;[16] no freedom—we can see that from the architectural and household remains, and the poisonous sermons of the cramped divines. And inside that rusted iron strait-jacket[17] lurked gibbering hideousness, perversion, and diabolism. Here, truly, was the apotheosis of the unnamable.
Cotton Mather, in that daemoniac[18] sixth book which no one should read after dark, minced no words as he flung forth his anathema. Stern as a Jewish prophet, and laconically unamazed as none since his day could be, he told of the beast that had brought forth what was more than beast but less than man—the thing with the blemished eye—and of the screaming drunken wretch that they hanged for having such an eye. This much he baldly told, yet without a hint of what came after. Perhaps he did not know, or perhaps he knew and did not dare to tell. Others knew, but did not dare to tell—there is no public hint of why they whispered about the lock on the door to the attic stairs in the house of a childless, broken, embittered old man who had put up a
blank slate slab by an avoided grave, although one may trace enough evasive legends to curdle the thinnest blood.
It is all in that ancestral diary I found; all the hushed innuendoes and furtive tales of things with a blemished eye seen at windows in the night or in deserted meadows near the woods. Something had caught my ancestor on a dark valley road, leaving him with marks of horns on his chest and of ape-like[19] claws on his back; and when they looked for prints in the trampled dust they found the mixed marks of split hooves and vaguely anthropoid paws. Once a post-rider said he saw an old man chasing and calling to a frightful loping, nameless thing on Meadow Hill in the thinly moonlit hours before dawn, and many believed him. Certainly, there was strange talk one night in 1710 when the childless, broken old man was buried in the crypt behind his own house in sight of the blank slate slab. They never unlocked that attic door, but left the whole house as it was, dreaded and deserted. When noises came from it, they whispered and shivered; and hoped that the lock on that attic door was strong. Then they stopped hoping when the horror occurred at the parsonage, leaving not a soul alive or in one piece. With the years the legends take on a spectral character—I suppose the thing, if it was a living thing, must have died. The memory had lingered hideously—all the more hideous because it was so secret.
During this narration my friend Manton had become very silent, and I saw that my words had impressed him. He did not laugh as I paused, but asked quite seriously about the boy who went mad in 1793, and who had presumably been the hero of my fiction. I told him why the boy had gone to that shunned, deserted house, and remarked that he ought to be interested, since he believed that windows retained latent images of those who had sat at them. The boy had gone to look at the windows of that horrible attic, because of tales of things seen behind them, and had come back screaming maniacally.
Manton remained thoughtful as I said this, but gradually reverted to his analytical mood. He granted for the sake of argument that some unnatural monster had really existed, but reminded me that even the most morbid perversion of Nature[20] need not be unnamable or scientifically indescribable. I admired his clearness and persistence, and added some further revelations I had collected among the old people. Those later spectral legends, I made plain, related to monstrous apparitions more frightful than anything organic could be; apparitions of gigantic bestial forms sometimes visible and sometimes only tangible, which floated about on moonless nights and haunted the old house, the crypt behind it, and the grave where a sapling had sprouted beside an illegible slab. Whether or not such apparitions had ever gored or smothered people to death, as told in uncorroborated traditions, they had produced a strong and consistent impression; and were yet darkly feared by very aged natives, though largely forgotten by the last two generations—perhaps dying for lack of being thought about. Moreover, so far as aesthetic[21] theory was involved, if the psychic emanations of human creatures be grotesque distortions, what coherent representation could express or portray so gibbous and infamous a nebulosity as the spectre[22] of a malign, chaotic perversion, itself a morbid blasphemy against Nature? Moulded[23] by the dead brain of a hybrid nightmare, would not such a vaporous terror constitute in all loathsome truth the exquisitely, the shriekingly unnamable?