I mentioned in Chap. 2 that when Lacan uses the term “object” in this Seminar, he is almost always referring to another person, which was quite typical in most of psychoanalytic theory at the time (and perhaps even to this day). What he means by the object—and this is true for other concepts as well, like the phallus—keeps evolving over the course of his work, and we are left with a many-layered concept, instead of something with one clear meaning. Lacan’s innovation in terminology in the 1950s was to reserve “object” for the little other or semblable. He was, of course, aware of the term “partial object” or “part-object” (see, for example, S6, p. 439, where it is contrasted with “total object”; see, also, Écrits, p. 505) introduced by Karl Abraham, which he embraces to some degree but also critiques for a variety of reasons, the simplest of which is found in Écrits: