〈塞尚的疑惑〉
梅洛龐蒂(Maurice Merleau-Ponty) 著
龔 卓 軍 譯
Cézanne’s Doubt
It took him one hundred working sessions for a still life, one hundred fifty
sittings for a portrait.
為了一幅靜物，他需要百次的工作投入；為了一幅肖像，他可以五百度去描摹那靜坐的人。
雄伯
One hundred fifty sittings 一百五十次的坐画姿态
What we call his work was, for him, only the attempt and the approach of his painting.
我們眼中所見的他的作品，對他而言不過是一而再、再而三的嘗試，試圖掌握繪畫。
In September of 1906, at the age of sixty seven—
one month before his death—he wrote: “I was in such a state of mental agitation, in such great confusion that for a time I feared my weak reason would not survive. . . . Now it seems I am better and that I see more
clearly the direction my studies are taking. Will I ever arrive at the goal, so
intensely sought and so long pursued? I am still working from nature, and
it seems to me I am making slow progress.”
一九○六年九月，正值他死前一個月，這位六十七歲的老人寫道：「我的內心騷亂躁動不已，有時候，我恐怕自己虛弱的理智已沒辦法維持下去了……現在，情形似乎好轉了，而我也對自己的研究方向摸得更清楚。但擺在眼前的，仍是那麼需要嘔心瀝血的探索歷程，我究竟能不能達成目標呢？我仍孜孜不倦地向自然學習，然而卻自覺進步甚緩。」
Painting was his world and his
mode of existence.
繪畫乃是他的世界、他的生活方式。
He worked alone, without students, without admiration
from his family, without encouragement from the critics.
他孤獨地畫著，沒有學生追隨，沒有家人的讚美，也沒有畫評家的鼓勵。
He painted on the afternoon of the day his mother died. In 1870 he was painting at
L’Estaque while the police were after him for dodging the draft. And still
he had moments of doubt about this vocation.
母親逝世的當天下午，他在畫畫。一八七○年，列斯塔克(l’Estaque) 地方警方以逃避兵役罪名緝捕他時，他也在畫畫。然而，他仍不時對其繪畫的志業充滿疑惑。
As he grew old, he wondered
whether the novelty of his painting might not come from trouble
with his eyes, whether his whole life had not been based upon an accident
of his body.
當他漸行老邁，他懷疑是否因為自己的眼疾，而不可能在繪事上推陳出新，並懷疑自己的一生，是否僅是以身體上某種毛病為基礎的意外？
The hesitation or muddle-headedness of his contemporaries
equaled this strain and self-doubt.
對於他這份努力和伴隨的疑惑，當時人的反應顯得愚蠢而游移不定。
雄伯
他的当代人们昏昧地迟疑不接受他的作品，更强化这种压力与自我疑惑。
“The painting of a drunken privy
cleaner,” said a critic in 1905. Even today, C. Mauclair finds Cézanne’s admissions
of powerlessness an argument against him.
「一位酗酒的神秘清潔工的作品！」一九○五年，某位畫評家有此一說。即使在今天，莫克萊(C.Mauclair)仍以塞尚自認虛弱不堪的自白來貶低他。
Meanwhile, Cézanne’s
paintings have spread throughout the world.
然而，塞尚的畫已傳遍了全世界。
Why so much uncertainty, so
much labor, so many failures, and, suddenly, the greatest success?
為什麼這麼多的不確定，如此大量的勞動，以及經歷如許多的失敗，最後卻突然總結為無與倫比的成就？
Zola, Cézanne’s friend from childhood, was the first to find genius
in him and the first to speak of him as a “genius gone wrong.”
左拉(Zola)，這位與塞尚一齊長大的玩伴，是發現塞尚天份的第一人，也是指塞尚為「失常的天才」的第一人。
An observer
of Cézanne’s life such as Zola was, more concerned with his character than
with the sense of his painting, might well consider it a manifestation of
ill health.
左拉無異是塞尚一生的觀察者，他對塞尚性格的關照遠遠超過對其繪畫之意義的關照，當然就認為其性格乃是其病端的表徵。
For as far back as 1852, upon entering the Collège Bourbon at Aix,
Cézanne worried his friends with his fits of temper and depression.
遠溯一八五二年，塞尚在艾克斯(Aix)進入波旁學院(College Bourbon)求學時，就因為忽而暴怒忽而沮喪的性情困擾著他周遭的朋友。
Seven
years later, having decided to become an artist, he doubted his talent and
did not dare to ask his father—a hatter and later a banker—to send him
to Paris.
七年後，他雖已決定要成為畫家，卻懷疑自己的才份，而不敢要求父親－－當時是帽商、後來成為銀行家－－送他去巴黎。
Zola’s letters reproach him for his instability, his weakness, and
his indecision. When finally he came to Paris, he wrote: “The only thing I
have changed is my location: my ennui has followed me.”
於是左拉去信譴責他的搖擺不定、他的懦弱和優柔寡斷。終於來到巴黎之後，他寫道「唯一改變的是我的位置，那股倦怠無聊仍緊緊跟隨著我。」
He could not
tolerate discussions, because they wore him out and he could never give
his reasoning. His nature was basically anxious.
他受不了討論，因為他常會因為討論而弄得精疲力竭，也因為他沒有能力做任何論證。他天生即是焦慮的脾性。
Thinking that he would
die young, he made his will at the age of forty-two; at forty-six he was for
six months the victim of a violent, tormented, overwhelming passion of
which no one knows the outcome and to which he would never refer.
四十二歲時，由於自認必定早死，所以他早早立了遺囑；四十六歲那年，他曾經有六個月陷在一股澎湃激情的煎熬折磨中，然而沒有任何人知道這股激情得到了什麼樣的結果，塞尚自己也從未提及。
At
fifty-one he withdrew to Aix, in order to find the nature best suited to his
genius but where also he returned to the milieu of his childhood, his
mother and his sister.
他在五十一歲隱退至愛克斯，塞尚發現此處的景緻非常適於揮灑自己的天份，同時，這個地方也讓他回到了童年的世界，一個和媽媽姊姊共同生活的世界。
After the death of his mother, Cézanne turned to
his son for support. “Life is terrifying,” he would often say. Religion, which
he then set about practicing for the first time, began for him in the fear
of life and the fear of death.
母親謝世後，塞尚轉向兒子尋求慰藉。「人生是可怖的，」這是他常掛在嘴邊的話。這份對人生和死亡的恐懼，使得他稍後開始投身宗教。
“It is fear,” he explained to a friend; “I feel I
will be on earth for another four days—what then? I believe in life after
death, and I don’t want to risk roasting in aeternum.”
塞尚向朋友解釋說：「可怕的事情在於，當我感覺自己只有四天可活在世上時－－接下來會是什麼呢？我相信來生，而不願冒著為無盡的地獄之火燒烤的風險。」
Although his religion
later deepened, its original motivation was the need to put his life in order
and be relieved of it.
雖然此後他的信仰更加深刻，而原始的動機則是為求安身立命、達成解脫。」
He became more and more timid, mistrustful, and
sensitive. Occasionally he would visit Paris, but when he ran into friends
he would motion to them from a distance not to approach him.
他變得愈來愈怯懦、焦慮不安、敏感而易怒。有一次，他偶然到巴黎去旅遊，老遠就向他的朋友示意不要接近他。
In 1903,
after his pictures had begun to sell in Paris at twice the price of Monet’s
and when young men like Joachim Gasquet and Émile Bernard came to
see him and ask him questions, he relaxed a little. But his fits of anger continued.
一九○三年，當他的畫作在巴黎開始以莫內(Monet)畫作的兩倍價碼賣出，而加斯奎(Joachim Gasquet)和勃納爾(Emile Bernard)這些年輕人開始來拜訪他之際，他的脾氣緩和了些。不過，他那忽爾發作的暴怒卻絲毫未改。
In Aix a child once hit him as he passed by; after that he could not
bear any contact. One day when Cézanne was quite old, Émile Bernard
steadied him as he stumbled. Cézanne flew into a rage.
He could be heard
striding around his studio and shouting that he wouldn’t let anybody “get
his hooks into me.”
（有一次，他在愛克斯的路上被一個小孩撞擊，此後他便無法忍受任何人的親近。）塞尚很老的時候，有一天，勃納爾在他絆倒的剎那扶住了他，塞尚馬上掀起一陣狂怒，有人聽見他在畫室裡踱著大步，走來走去，大喊大叫，說他絕不要「中任何人的圈套」。
Because of these “hooks” he pushed women who could
have modeled for him out of his studio, priests, whom he called “pests,”
out of his life, and Émile Bernard’s theories out of his mind, when they
became too insistent.
為了躲開這些「圈套」，他曾將馬上要成為他的模特兒的女人趕出畫室，將他稱為「冥頑不靈」的教士逐出自己的生命，將勃納爾變得過於堅持的繪畫理論拒斥於心房之外。
This loss of flexible human contact; this inability to master new situations;
this flight into established habits, in a milieu which presented no
problems; this rigid opposition between theory and practice, between the
“hook” and the freedom of a recluse—all these symptoms permit one to
speak of a morbid constitution and more precisely, as, for example, in the
case of El Greco, of schizothymia.
喪失活絡的人際接觸；沒有面對新情境的能力；遁入一個牢固不化的習慣，對任何事都抱著不成問題的態度；堅決反對理論和實際中的「圈套」，以維持隱遁者的自由－－以上所有癥兆，我們都可以用一條病理學的規定來說明，就像葛列果(El Greco)的狀況一樣，這些是精神分裂症(schizophrenia)的病兆。
雄伯
Milieu 环境
This rigid opposition between theory and practice,理论与实践的强烈对立
between the
the rigid opposition between “hook” and the freedom of a recluse 「圈套」与隐居者的自由的强烈对立
a morbid constitution 病态的生理行为
The notion of painting “from nature”
could be said to arise from the same weakness.
「根據自然」而畫的理念，亦可以說是來自同樣的缺陷。
His extremely close attention
to nature and to color, the inhuman character of his paintings (he
said that a face should be painted as an object), his devotion to the visible
world: all of these would then only represent a flight from the human
world, the alienation of his humanity.
塞尚極端地注意自然和色彩，他的繪畫所呈現的非人文(inhuman)性格(他說一張臉應該當作一個物體來畫)，他對肉眼可見之世界的奉獻……種種跡象顯示了對人文世界的遁逃，及其人性的異化(alienation)。
These conjectures nevertheless do not give any idea of the positive
sense of his work; one cannot thereby conclude that his painting is a phenomenon
of decadence and of what Nietzsche called “impoverished” life
or that it has nothing to say to the educated person.
然而，這些推測並未針對他的作品提出任何正面的解說，我們不能就此將他的畫歸結為精神崩潰的產物，說他是尼采(Nietzsche)所說的「貧瘠虛弱」的生命，或說他的畫對有教養的人而言是毫無意義的。
雄伯
这些推测仍然没有让我们理解，为什么他的作品具有的正面的意义。我们不能因此作为结论地说：他的图画是精神颓废的现象，是尼采所谓的「贫瘠」生命的现象，或是说，他的图画对于受过教育的人，毫无意义。
Zola’s and Émile
Bernard’s belief in Cézanne’s failure probably arise from their having
put too much emphasis on psychology and their personal knowledge of
Cézanne.
左拉和勃納爾之所以認定塞尚是失敗的，恐怕是由於他們太過強調心理學的觀察和自己對塞尚的親身體認。
It is nonetheless possible that Cézanne conceived a form of art
which, while occasioned by his nervous condition, is valid for everyone.
雖然塞尚的精神耗弱，但很可能就是以此精神耗弱為基礎，使他領悟了一種放諸四海而皆準的藝術形式。
雄伯
这仍然是可能的。塞尚因为他的神经衰弱而有这个机缘构想一种适用于每个人的艺术的形式。
Left to himself, he was able to look at nature as only a human being knows
how to do it.
在他孤獨徜徉之際，他或許能以僅有人類才能夠做到的方式來注視自然。
雄伯
当他独处时，他能够注视自然，以仅有人类才知道如何如何注视的方式。
（跟前面所说的inhuman character 非人文的特性对照起来，耐人寻味：是谁inhuman？塞尚？还是我们自己？）
The sense of his work cannot be determined from his life.
其作品的意義實不能由其人生際遇來決定。
This sense will not become any clearer in the light of art history—
that is, by considering influences (the Italian school and Tintoretto, Delacroix,
Courbet, and the impressionists), Cézanne’s technique, or even his
own pronouncements on his work.
即使從藝術史的角度來看－－我們可以考察塞尚的畫法所帶來的影響(義大利畫派、丁多瑞多Tintoretto、德拉克瓦Delacroix、辜爾貝Courbet、和印象派畫家)，甚至我們援引塞尚對自己作品的論斷，塞尚作品的意義恐怕仍難然獲以得澄清。
雄伯
即使从艺术史的观点 ，也就是，考虑到各种影响 （義大利畫派、丁多瑞多Tintoretto、德拉克瓦Delacroix、辜爾貝Courbet、和印象派畫家)，塞尚的技法，或甚至从他对自己作品的论断来看，这个意义并未获得任何澄清。
His first pictures—up to about 1870—are painted fantasies: a rape,
a murder.
塞尚的早期繪畫，約至一八七○年左右，充滿了狂想：強暴，謀殺。
這些作品幾乎都以寬廣的筆觸來處理，著重表現動作的道德面貌，而不著重那些肉眼可見的面向。
Thanks
to the impressionists, he abandoned the baroque technique, which seeks
first to capture movement, for small dabs placed close together and for
patient hatchings.
接受了印象畫派的影響，使塞尚放棄了巴洛克(Baroque)技法，印象派畫家的基本目標是捕捉運動，用小而輕的筆觸緊密設色、點描出影線。
雄伯
which 指的是the baroque technique 巴洛克技法，而非印象派画家，后面的动词seeks是单数动词。
由于印象画派的影响，塞尚放弃著重于捕捉动作的巴洛克技法，而改採紧密一块的轻小笔触，以及耐心的线条阴影的描绘。
It is thanks to the impressionists, and particularly to Pissarro, that Cézanne later conceived painting not as the incarnation of imagined scenes, the projection of dreams outward, but as the exact study of appearances:
less a work of the studio than a working from nature.
由於受到印象派畫家－－特別是畢沙羅 (Pissarro) 的影響，塞尚後來認為繪畫並不是想像場景的具象化、或夢幻外顯的結果，而應是表象的精細研究，繪事不僅止於畫室，更應該根據自然。
He quickly parted ways with the impressionists, however. Impressionism
was trying to capture, in the painting, the very way in which objects
strike our eyes and attack our senses. They are therefore almost always executed in broad strokes and
present the moral physiognomy of the actions rather than their visible aspect.
然而，他很快就與印象派畫家分道揚鑣。印象派試圖以繪畫捕捉物體為肉眼乍見和敲擊感官時的特定方式，物體被描繪為它們呈現給瞬間知覺時的表象，它沒有固鎖的輪廓線，而是由光線和空氣使之成形。
Impressionism represented
them in the atmosphere through which instantaneous perception gives
them to us, without absolute contours, bound together by light and air.
To capture this envelope of light, one had to exclude siennas, ochres, and
black and use only the seven colors of the spectrum.
為了掌握此一光線的氛圍，畫者必須放棄赭色、黃土色及黑色，只使用光譜的七色。
In order to represent
the color of objects, it was not enough to put their local tone on the canvas,
that is, the color they take on isolated from their surroundings; one
also had to pay attention to the phenomena of contrast which modify local
colors in nature.
而且，不是僅將物體的各區色調塗上畫布為算了事，換言之，對象的色調不能孤立於其周遭環境之外，還必須注意自然中色區互補的對比現象。
Furthermore, by a sort of reversal, every color we see
in nature elicits the vision of its complement; and these complementaries
heighten one another.
進一步說，我們在自然中所知覺的每一種色彩均會誘發其補充性表象，而這些互補的表象又彼此增強對方的顯現。
To achieve sunlit colors in a picture which will be
seen in the dim light of apartments, not only must there be a green—if
you are painting grass—but also the complementary red which will make
it vibrate.
想在一幅畫中得到草地為陽光所照射的色彩，又明知這幅畫會掛在房裡微弱的燈光下展示，你就不能僅僅使用綠色，還必須補出紅色，才會使那片草地顫動起來。
Finally, the impressionists break down the local tone itself. One
can generally obtain any color by juxtaposing rather than mixing the colors
which make it up, thereby achieving a more vibrant tone.
最後，印象派畫家打破了區域色調本身，畫家可以將細部的色彩並列，而不再將它們混合起來，藉著並列，廣泛的保留所有的色彩，並獲致更具顫動效果的色調。
The result
of these procedures was that the canvas—which no longer corresponded
point by point to nature—restored a general truth of the impression
through the action of the separate parts upon one another.
經過這些程序的處理，畫布上所呈現的－－當然已不再是與自然的一一對應－－是各個細部的交疊互動而形成的普遍真實的印象。
But at the same
time, depicting the atmosphere and breaking up the tones submerged
the object and caused it to lose its proper weight.
但在同時，舖陳氛圍和打碎色調的方式卻也淹沒了對象，使對象失去了應有的重量。
The composition of
Cézanne’s palette leads one to suppose that he had another aim. Instead
of the seven colors of the spectrum, one finds eighteen colors—six reds,
five yellows, three blues, three greens, and one black.
不過，塞尚調色盤上的配置會讓人認為他與印象派畫家的目標有所不同。他不是用光譜上的七色，而是十八色－－六紅、五黃、三藍、三綠及黑。
The use of warm colors
and black shows that Cézanne wants to represent the object, to find it
again behind the atmosphere.
暖色系和黑色的使用顯示了塞尚希望描寫對象，希望在氛圍之外重新挖掘出對象。
Likewise, he does not break up the tone;
rather, he replaces this technique with graduated mixtures, with a progression
of chromatic nuances across the object, with a modulation of colors
which stays close to the object’s form and to the light it receives.
另外，他也未將色調瓦解為細小的筆觸，而寧以漸進色取代這個技巧，以色彩的微小差異漸進地佈施於對象，將色彩調整到接近對象的外觀和它所受的光。
The suppression
of exact contours in certain cases and giving color priority over
the outline obviously do not have the same sense in Cézanne and in impressionism.
某些狀況下，他更乾脆撤除明確的輪廓線，讓色彩較線條更具優位－－對塞尚和印象派畫家而言，這個分歧點即意味著他們之間的差異。
The object is no longer covered by reflections and lost in
its relationships to the air and to other objects: it seems subtly illuminated
from within, light emanates from it, and the result is an impression of solidity
and material substance.
對象不再為折射的光所覆蓋，而失去它與氛圍和與其他對象之間的關連，它似乎微微地由內部發光，光線由它的內部發散出來，因而形成一種固著狀態和物質實體的印象。
雄伯
對象不再為折射的光所覆蓋，不再迷失于氛圍和與其他對象關連中。对象似乎微微地由內部發光，光線由它的內部發散出來，因而形成一種固著狀態和物質實體的印象。
lost 在此是过去分词，与前面的covered 对等，no longer covered and lost
Moreover, Cézanne does not give up making
the warm colors vibrate, but achieves this chromatic sensation through
the use of blue.
再者，塞尚並未放棄製造暖色系的震顫效果，但卻改用藍色來獲致這種上色的效果。
One must therefore say that Cézanne wished to return to the object
without abandoning the impressionist aesthetic which takes nature as its
model.
如果說印象派畫家的美學是將自然當作他們的模特兒，則我們必須接續上文的論證，說塞尚是企圖回到對象本身而並不放棄印象派的美學。
Émile Bernard reminded him that, for the classical artists, painting
demanded outline, composition, and distribution of light.
勃納爾曾提醒塞尚，對於古典的藝術家來說，繪畫要求的是輪廓、構圖和光線的分佈。
Cézanne
replied: “They created pictures; we are attempting a piece of nature.”
塞尚回答道：「不錯，他們創作的是一幅幅的圖畫，而我們追求的則是一幅幅的自然。」
He
said of the old masters that they “replaced reality with imagination and by
the abstraction which accompanies it.” Of nature, he said, “the artist must
conform to this perfect work of art.
提到那些古典大師時，他說他們「以想像力和伴隨而生的抽象化取代了真實。」論及自然時，他說：「藝術家必須順從這件完美的藝術品。
Everything comes to us from nature;
we exist through it; let us forget everything else.” He stated that he wanted
to turn impressionism into “something solid, like the art in the museums.”
所有的事物均是透過自然來到我們的面前；我們仰賴自然而存在：除自然之外，再也沒有什麼值得記憶了。」他說他希望使印象主義變得「更堅實，就像那些博物館中的藝術一樣。」
His painting would be a paradox: investigate reality without departing
from sensations, with no other guide than the immediate impression of
nature, without following the contours, with no outline to enclose the
color, with no perspectival or pictorial composition.
他的繪畫是很弔詭的：既想追求真實，又不放棄感官的外貌；而除了取法來自自然的直接印象外，別無索引；不循輪廓線作畫，不用輪廓線框限住色彩，也不採視點或構圖上的安排。
This is what Bernard
called Cézanne’s suicide: aiming for reality while denying himself the
means to attain it.
勃納爾認為塞尚這樣做無異是自殺：追求真實卻自絕於通向真實之技道。
This is the reason for his difficulties and for the distortions
one finds in his pictures between 1870 and 1890. Cups and saucers
on a table seen from the side should be elliptical, but Cézanne paints the
two ends of the ellipse swollen and expanded.
塞尚陷入困惑的理由就在這裡。而在他一八七○到九○年間作品中所呈現的那股扭曲不安，理由亦在此。桌子上的茶杯和杯托，由側邊看過去應該是橢圓的，但塞尚把這個橢圓的兩端畫得臃腫膨大。
The work table in his portrait
of Gustave Geffroy stretches, contrary to the laws of perspective, into
the lower part of the picture.
在古斯塔夫‧喬弗瑞(Gustave Geoffrey)的肖像畫中，那張工作檯拉得非常長，直伸向此畫的底部，這顯然違反了視點法則。
By departing from the outline, Cézanne
would be handing himself over to the chaos of the sensations. Now, the
sensations would capsize the objects and constantly suggest illusions—for
example, the illusion we have when we move our heads that objects themselves
are moving—if our judgment did not constantly set these appearances straight.
由於放棄了輪廓線，塞尚使自己陷溺於感覺的混沌之中，這種混沌常常會干擾對象而引生出幻覺－－譬如，若我們搖晃自己的腦袋，這時所見的對象好像自己正在搖動一樣－－除非我們已在判斷中認定了表象本是直挺不動的。
According to Bernard, Cézanne engulfed “the painting in
ignorance and his mind in shadows.”
照勃納爾的說法，塞尚「將他的畫埋沒在無知裡，將他的心埋沒在陰影中。」
In fact, one can judge his painting in this way only by letting half of
what he said drop away and only by closing one’s eyes to what he painted.
作是，若要這樣子來評斷塞尚，只能說評斷者對塞尚的話只聽了一半、對塞尚的畫也只看了一半。
It is clear from his conversations with Émile Bernard that Cézanne
was always seeking to avoid the ready-made alternatives suggested to him:
the senses versus intelligence; the painter who sees versus the painter who
thinks; nature versus composition; primitivism versus tradition.
在跟勃納爾的對話中，塞尚總是刻意避開任何對方所提出的現成選項，如：感覺相對於判斷；看的畫家相對於思考的畫家；自然相對於構圖；素人畫家相對於傳統學院畫家。
“We have
to develop an optics,” Cézanne said, “by which I mean a logical vision—
that is, one with nothing absurd.”
塞尚說：「我們必須發展一種光學，這種光學即是我所謂的邏輯的視覺－－換言之，這種視覺中全然沒有荒謬的成份。」
“Are you speaking of our nature?” asked
Bernard. Cézanne: “It has to do with both.” “But aren’t nature and art different?”
勃納爾問：「你這不是在說我們所面對的自然嗎？」塞尚說：「這種光學兩者都要處理。」「然而自然和藝術不是完全不同的兩回事嗎？」
“I want to unite them. Art is a personal apperception. I place this
apperception in the sensations and I ask intelligence to organize them
into a work.”1
「我就是希望把它們弄成一回事。藝術是個人的親身感受，這些感受在感覺中具現出來，並在我的知性要求下組織成一幅畫。」
But even these formulas put too much emphasis on the ordinary
notions of “sensibility” or “sensations” and “intelligence”—which
is why Cézanne could not persuade and this is why he liked to paint better.
但即使是這些敘述，也過度強調了「感受性」、「感覺」和「知性」這些普通的理念，這也就是為什麼塞尚寧願去畫，而不能信賴自己的論證有什麼說服力。
Rather than apply to his work dichotomies, which moreover belong
more to the scholarly traditions than to the founders—philosophers or
painters—of these traditions, we would do better to let ourselves be persuaded
to the proper sense of his painting, which is to challenge those dichotomies.
他也不喜歡讓自己的作品受二分法的擺佈，說是較接近保存傳統的作風，或較接近推動傳統的作風。他所致力的是繪畫的真正意義，因而必須經常地質疑傳統。
Cézanne did not think he had to choose between sensation
and thought, as if he were deciding between chaos and order. He did not
want to separate the stable things which appear before our gaze and their
fleeting way of appearing.
塞尚並不認為他必須在感情與思想間抉擇，在秩序與混沌間取捨；他也不想將我們眼見的靜物和它們顯現的變化樣態割裂開來。
He wanted to paint matter as it takes on form,
the birth of order through spontaneous organization. He makes a basic
distinction not between “the senses” and “intelligence” but rather between
the spontaneous order of perceived things and the human order of
ideas and sciences.
他希望將事物描畫得如其外觀所呈現的樣貌，在自發性的組織中引生出秩序來。他做了一個基本的區別，但並不是「感性」、「知性」之類的分別，而是區分出我們知覺中事物的自發組合，和依賴觀念、科學所做出的人為的組合。
We perceive things; we agree about them; we are anchored
in them; and it is with “nature” as our base that we construct the
sciences.
我們看到事物；我們與它們交融；我們停泊於它們之中；而我們建構的各門科學乃以此「自然」為根基的。
Cézanne wanted to paint this primordial world, and this is why
his pictures give us the impression of nature at its origin, while photographs
of the same landscapes suggest man’s works, conveniences, and
imminent presence.
塞尚想要畫出這個原初世界(primordial world)，他的畫似乎因此將自然表現得素淨純粹，相對於同樣的風景照片來看，照片本身提示了人工、便捷而急迫的呈現。
Cézanne never wished to “paint like a savage.” He
wanted to put intelligence, ideas, sciences, perspective, and tradition back
in touch with the world of nature which they were intended to comprehend.
He wished, as he said, to confront the sciences with the nature
“from which they came.”
這並不是說塞尚曾想要「像一個野人般作畫」。他只是想把智巧、觀念、科學、視點和傳統都放回與自然世界保持接觸的狀態裡去，在此狀態中，它們必須融合為一個整體。如同他所說的，他希望將各門科學帶到「它們所從出的」自然面前。
By remaining faithful to the phenomena in his investigations of perspective,
Cézanne discovered what recent psychologists have come to formulate:
the lived perspective, that of our perception, is not a geometric
or photographic one.
由於塞尚一直忠實於現象本身，在他對視點的探究中，他發現了晚近心理學家所發掘出來的－－生活的視點(lived perspective)。這是我們日常知覺的真正狀態，它不同於幾何式和攝影式的視點。
In perception, the objects that are near appear
smaller, those far away larger, than they do in a photograph, as we see in
the cinema when an approaching train gets bigger much faster than a
real train would under the same circumstances.
一張照片裡面的物體，若與我們實際去看相比較，我們會發現，照片近處的物體在實地看時變得比較小，而照片遠方的物體在實地看時則顯得比較大。(電影裡面也有類似情形：在相同條件下，一列火車由遠方駛近，在影片中變大的速度比實地上火車變大的速度要快得多。)
To say that a circle seen
obliquely is seen as an ellipse is to substitute for our actual perception the
schema of what we would have to see if we were cameras. In fact, we see a
form which oscillates around the ellipse without being an ellipse.
因此，如果說斜看一平面圓形即是看到一橢圓，就等於以相機來取代我們實際的知覺，因為，我們實際所見的形狀，乃似橢圓而非橢圓的未決形狀。
雄伯
假如我们说，倾斜角度观看的圆形，被作为椭圆形来观看，那等于是，我们的实际的知觉被这种基模所取代，假如我们是照相机，我们必然会看见的东西这样的基模。实际上，我们看见一个形式环绕椭园形摇摆，但是它并不是椭园形。
In a portrait of Mme Cézanne, the border of the wallpaper on one side of her
body does not form a straight line with that on the other: and indeed it is
known that if a line passes beneath a wide strip of paper, the two visible
segments appear dislocated.
在一幅塞尚夫人的肖像中，夫人身體兩側的壁紙邊緣並未形成一直線，而事實上，眾所皆知，一直線若通過一條不透明寬紙帶底下，則其兩段可見的分節會顯得脫了臼。
雄伯
在一幅塞尚夫人的肖像中，夫人身體的一侧的壁纸的边缘，跟身体的另一侧的边缘，并没有形成一条直线。的确，众所周知，假如一条线从一条宽长的纸底下通过，两个看得见的片段看起来像是脱臼分开。
Gustave Geffroy’s table stretches into the bottom
of the picture, and indeed, when our eye runs over a large surface,
the images it successively receives are taken from different points of view,
and the whole surface is warped.
古斯塔夫‧喬弗瑞的桌子伸進圖畫的底部，而事實上，當我們透視一大塊面的時候，我們所連續接收到的意象，並不是以同一視點構成的，因而整個塊面會翹曲起來。
雄伯
古斯塔夫‧喬弗瑞的桌子伸進圖畫的底部。的确，當我們的眼睛览视一大塊表面时，我們眼睛連續接收到的各种意象，从许多不同的观点获得，因而整個塊面會翹曲起來。
It is true that I freeze these distortions
in repainting them on the canvas; I stop the spontaneous movement in
which they pile up in perception and tend toward the geometric perspective.
因此，我將這些翹曲凝塑於畫布之繪事中並未偏離真實，我等於是中止了一個自發的運動。這些翹曲在知覺中進行此項運動而漸漸累積，進而形成一幾何學的視點。
雄伯
的确，当我将这些意象重新绘画在画布时，我凝冻了这些翘曲。我中止这个自动自发的运动，在运动中
这些翘曲在知觉中堆积起来，并且倾向于几何学的透视法。
This is also what happens with colors. Pink upon gray paper colors
the background green.
同樣的事亦發生在色彩中。把玫瑰紅色塗在灰紙上，當作綠色的背景。
雄伯
Colors 在此是动词，作「改变颜色」解释，而非名词「颜色」，
同樣的事亦發生在色彩中。将粉红色加在灰色之上，会将背景改变成为绿色/
Academic painting shows the background as gray,
assuming that the picture will produce the same effect of contrast as the
real object.
學院派的繪畫會把背景仍當作灰色，而假定畫面可產生現實事物中的相同對比效果。
雄伯
學院派的繪畫则是显示背景作为灰色，因为它们假定，畫面可產生跟現實事物相同的對照的效果。
Impressionist painting uses green in the background in order
to achieve a contrast as brilliant as that of objects in nature. Doesn’t this
falsify the color relationship?
印象派繪畫則將此狀態的背景當作綠色，以便獲得如同事物處於自然中一般的鮮明對比效果。
。然而，如此一來，不是曲解了色彩的關係嗎？
雄伯
印象派的绘画则是使用绿色当背景，为了获得鲜明的对照，如同客体在自然界的的鲜明对照。这难道不是会让颜色的关系变成不真实？
It would if it stopped there, but the painter’s
task is to modify all the other colors in the picture so that they take away
from the green background its characteristics of a real color.
若僅停留在上述的層次，好像是很有問題，但畫家的工作乃是調整畫面中所有的其他顏色，以便讓它們由這般的綠色背景中獲得自己顏色的真實特性。
雄伯
假如它仅是停在那里，那将会颜色的关系成为不真实。但是画家的工作就是要修改图画中的所有的其他颜色，这样它们才能够从绿色的背景，拿走掉绿色作为真实颜色的特征。
Similarly, it is Cézanne’s genius that when the overall composition of the picture is
seen globally, perspectival distortions are no longer visible in their own
right but rather contribute, as they do in natural vision, to the impression
of an emerging order, an object in the act of appearing, organizing itself
before our eyes.
同樣的，塞尚的才份在於，當整個構圖看起來是圓球狀時，視點的翹曲本身會隱而不現，如同它們在日常視覺中的運作，甚至它能夠幫助我們對浮現中的秩序產生印象，也能夠幫助對象在我們眼前進行表象和形構自身的活動。
雄伯
同樣的，塞尚的才份在於，當图画的整個構圖从球形角度观看时，視點的翹曲本身不再看得见。相反地，如同它們在日常視象中的運作，它们促成这个印象：在我们的眼前，有个正在浮现的秩序，一个客体正在出现当中，组织它自己。
In the same way, the contour of objects, conceived as a
line encircling the objects, belongs not to the visible world, but to geometry.
同理可知，物體的輪廓線若被構想成一條包圍著物體的實線，此線即顯然不屬於我們肉眼所見的世界，而屬於幾何學的世界。
雄伯
同样地，物体的轮廓，被构想作为环绕各个物体旋转的实线。各物体的轮廓并不属于可见的世界，而是属于几何学。
belongs 的主词是the contour of objects，而不是a line
If one outlines the contour of an apple with a continuous line, one
turns the contour into a thing, whereas the contour is rather the ideal
limit toward which the sides of the apple recede in depth. To outline no
contour would be to deprive the objects of their identity.
如果有人為一顆蘋果描出一條外形的連續線，他便製成了一個這種形狀的對象，但同時這條輪廓線也只是一條理想的界線，而讓這個蘋果的各個側面都失去了深度。更別提有哪一種形狀是不會奪走對象的正身(identity)的了。
雄伯
假如有人用一条连续的线描绘一颗蘋果的轮廓，他会将这个轮廓转变成为物体。另一方面，这个轮廓也是理想的限制，蘋果的各个侧面在深度方面，会朝这个限制消退。不画上任何轮廓，将是替各个物体剥夺它们的身份。
To outline just
one contour sacrifices depth—that is, the dimensions which give us the
thing, not as spread out before us, but as full of reserves and as an inexhaustible
reality.
只描出一條輪廓線，必然會犧牲了深度，換言之，事物所呈現的向度(dimension)，並不是攤開了擺平在我們的面前，而是充滿了錯綜交雜、無可窮盡的現實(reality)。
That is why Cézanne follows the swelling of the object in
a colored modulation, and outlines several contours in blue lines. Referred
from one to the other, the gaze captures a contour that emerges from
among them all, just as it does in perception.
於是我們才明白，塞尚撙節調運色彩時，為何要隨順著對象的起伏而勾勒出許多條藍色的輪廓線。我們在這些線條間往返流連，然後在某一瞥中掌握了自這些線條中浮現而出的形狀，如同我們在知覺過程中所經歷的一樣。
雄伯
那就是为什么塞尚用彩色的调配，来遵循物体的膨胀，并且用蓝色的线条勾勒好几个轮廓。当眼光从一个轮廓转到另一个轮廓时，眼光捕捉从它们当中出现的一个轮廓，如同它在知觉中所为。
Nothing could be less arbitrary
than these famous distortions which, moreover, Cézanne abandoned
in his last period, after 1890, when he no longer filled his canvases with
colors and when he gave up the closely woven texture of his still lifes.
因此，我們無論如何都不能說這些翹曲乃塞尚任意獨斷之作，況且，塞尚在一八九○年以後－－他的最後一個時期，放棄了這種有名的構圖法，同時，不再將畫布上滿顏料，也放棄了靜物的細密構織的畫法。
The drawing must therefore result from the colors, if one wants the
world to be rendered in its thickness.
因此，如果要呈現出世界的真實厚度，輪廓就必須由色彩來完成。
For the world is a mass without gaps,
an organism of colors across which the receding perspective, the contours,
the angles, and the curves are set up as lines of force; the spatial
frame is constituted by vibrating.
由於世界如同一個沒有區隔的團塊，一個色彩的系統，上面交錯鐫刻著隱藏的觀點、輪廓線、角度和曲線，當空間結構成形的時候，它本身會顫動。
“The drawing and the color are no
longer distinct. Gradually as you paint, you draw; the more the colors harmonize,
the more the drawing becomes precise. . . . When the color is at
its richest, the form is at its fullest.”
「輪廓和色彩彼此再也不相區分，只要我們去畫，輪廓之勾勒就在其中，而且，色彩愈諧調，輪廓就愈明確……當色彩的豐富性達到飽和時，形體就獲致了充實性。」
Cézanne does not try to use color to
suggest the tactile sensations which would give form and depth. These distinctions
between touch and sight are unknown in primordial perception.
It is only as a result of a science of the human body that we finally learn to
distinguish between our senses.
塞尚並不是想以色彩來提示觸覺，藉之強化形狀和深度，觸覺和視覺的這些區別，在始初的知覺中並沒有分別。我們之所以學會區分五官，只是由於人體科學的影響。
The lived object is not rediscovered or
constructed on the basis of the data of the senses; rather, it presents itself
to us from the start as the center from which the data radiate.
生活的對象並非以我們感官贊助為基礎，它其實從一開始就將自己呈現給我們，而感官的贊助是以它為中心才傳達出來的。
We see the
depth, the smoothness, the softness, the hardness of objects; Cézanne
even claimed that we see their odor.
我們看到對象的深度、平滑度、柔軟度和堅硬度，塞尚甚至認為我們看到對象的氣味。
If the painter wants to express the
world, the arrangement of his colors must bear within this arrangement
this indivisible Whole, or else his painting will only be an allusion to the
things and will not give them in the imperious unity, the presence, the insurpassable
fullness which is for us the definition of the real.
如果畫家要表達世界，他的色彩調度中必須帶有這不可分的整體，否則他的畫將只是在暗示事物，而未能給事物以緊密的統一、臨場、無以凌越的充實，也就是我們定義中的真實。
That is why
each brushstroke must satisfy an infinite number of conditions; that is why
Cézanne sometimes meditated for an hour before putting down a certain
stroke, for, as Bernard said, each stroke must “contain the air, the light,
the object, the composition, the character, the drawing, and the style.” Expressing
what exists is an endless task.
這就是為什麼每一筆觸都必須滿足無限的條件。塞尚有時在下手畫某一筆之前會左思右想好幾個小時，誠如勃納爾所言，是因為每一筆都必須「包含有空氣、光線、對象、構圖、形質、輪廓、和風格。」表達存在的事物是一件永無止境的工作。
Nor did Cézanne neglect the physiognomy of objects and faces: he
simply wanted to capture it emerging from the color.
塞尚也沒有忽視物體和臉孔的樣貌，他只是希望由色彩中掌握正在浮現的對象樣貌。
Painting a face “as
an object” is not to strip it of its “thought.” “I agree that the painter must
interpret it,” said Cézanne, “the painter is not an imbecile.”
把一張臉「當作物體」來畫，並不是要剝除它的「思想」，塞尚說：「我真正瞭解到畫家是在詮釋它」，「畫家並不是低能」。
But this interpretation
must not be a thought separated from vision. “If I paint all the
little blues and all the little browns, I make it gaze as he gazes.
這種詮釋不應是一種反省，而與看的動作有什麼不同。「如果我以密織的藍色和栗紅色來畫，我就能恰如其分地捉住他的一瞥。
雄伯
但是这种解释一定不要是跟视象分开的思想。「假如我画所有的细密蓝色与所有的细密粟红色，我会让视象凝视，如同他在凝视。
Who gives
a damn if they have any idea how one can sadden a mouth or make a cheek
smile by wedding a shaded green to a red.”
有些人對此很不以為然，他們覺得這無異於將暗綠色和紅色配對，來顯示一張悲傷的嘴或微笑的臉頰一樣的荒謬。」
雄伯
根本没有人在乎，即使他们知道画家是如何凭借将渐层的绿色跟红色搭配一块，才让嘴巴显出悲伤样子，或是让脸颊显出微笑样子。
The mind is seen and read in
the gazes, which are, however, only colored wholes. Other minds are given
to us only as incarnate, as belonging to faces and gestures.
人物的性格在他的一瞥眼神中被看見和把抓到，然而，這一瞥卻不過是色彩的組合。他人的心靈對我們而言只能以肉身來呈現，就好像其心靈寄寓在臉龐和表情姿態中。
雄伯
心灵在各种凝视里被看见与被阅读。可是这些凝视仅是彩色的整体。其他的心灵被给予我们，仅是作为一个化身，作为属于脸孔与姿态。
It serves no
purpose to oppose here the distinctions between the soul and the body,
thought and vision, since Cézanne returns to just that primordial experience
out of which these notions are pulled and which gives them to us as
inseparable.
由於塞尚回到了吾人的原初經驗，使得身體與靈魂、思想與視見間的矛盾和區分變得沒有必要，它們是一同來自於原本混同不分的原初經驗。
雄伯
在此将灵魂与身体，思想与视见之间的区别作为对立，并没有任何目的。因为塞尚回到仅是这些观念从那里被抽离出来的那种原初经验。那种原初经验将这些观念给予我们，作为是无法分开的经验。
The painter who thinks and seeks the expression first misses
the mystery—renewed every time we gaze at someone—of a person’s appearing
in nature.
那些尋求表現又將表現加以概念化的畫家，首先就錯失了一大奧祕－－人出現於自然中，其表象在我們注視下無時無刻不在更新。
雄伯
思想而且寻求表达的画家，首先错过的就是人出现在自然中的这个奥秘。每当我们凝视某个人时，这个奥秘就在更新。
In The Wild Ass’s Skin Balzac describes a “tablecloth
white as a layer of fresh-fallen snow, upon which the place settings rose
symmetrically, crowned with blond rolls.”
巴爾札克(Balzac)在『憂鬱人生』(La Peau de chagrin)中描述，「桌布白得如同一層新雪，桌面上的擺設對稱地捲起，像鑲上了一些起伏縐摺。」塞尚說：
雄伯
巴尔扎克在「驴皮记」描述「一块桌巾洁白如新降的一层初雪，在桌巾上面，餐具均称地隆起，顶端摆放的是棕色的面包。」
“All through my youth,” said
Cézanne, “I wanted to paint that, that tablecloth of fresh-fallen snow. . . . Now I know that one must only want to paint ‘rose, symmetrically, the place settings’ and ‘blond rolls.’
“All through youth, ” said Cézanne, “I wanted to paint that, that tablecloth of new snow… Now I know that one must will only to paint the place-settings rising symmetrically and the blond rolls.
「整個青年時代，我盼望著能夠畫出那如新雪的桌布……現在我明瞭，我們只能夠盼望畫出那對稱地捲起桌面擺設和起伏縐摺。
雄伯
「在我整个青春时期，」巴尔扎克说，「我想要画出那个，那个洁白如新降的初雪的桌巾….现在我明瞭，一个人必须仅是意愿要绘画出那些餐具均称地隆起，以及那些棕色的面包。」
If I painted ‘crowned’ I’m done for, you
understand? But if I really balance and shade my place settings and rolls
as they are in nature, you can be sure the crowns, the snow and the whole
shebang will be there.”
如果我把「鑲嵌了的」感覺畫出來，我就算辦到了，你了解嗎？而如果我按照這些擺飾物和縐摺在自然中的狀態，加以平衡並畫出陰影，我保證你連那些鑲嵌、白雪和其他的刺激物都會呈現出來。」
If I paint
‘crowned’ I’ve had it, you understand? But if I really balance and shade my place settings and rolls as they are in nature, then you can be sure that the crowns, the snow, and all the excitement will be there too. ”
假如我画出「顶端放置」，那我就完蛋了，你们了解吗？但是假如我确实平衡并画出餐具与面包的阴影，如同它们在自然当中，你们能够确定，这些顶端，雪，与整个系统都会呈现出来。）
We live in the midst of man-made objects, among tools, in houses,
streets, cities, and most of the time we see them only through the human
actions which put them to use. We become used to thinking that all of
this exists necessarily and unshakably
我們生活在人造物的氛圍當中，在工具間、在房舍中、在街道、城市裡面，大多數時間，我們只將這些人造物置於人文活動的使用角度來看它們，我們變得慣於認定這種物的存在是必然而無可動搖的。
. Cézanne’s painting suspends these
habits and reveals the base of inhuman nature upon which man has installed
himself.
塞尚的繪事將這些思考習慣置於質疑中，而揭露了非人文性的自然，它是人類安身立命的基礎。
雄伯
塞尚的图画悬置这些习惯，并且揭露出人类置身其上的非人类的自然的基础。
This is why Cézanne’s people are strange, as if viewed by a
creature of another species. Nature itself is stripped of the attributes
which make it ready for animistic communions: there is no wind in the
landscape, no movement on the Lac d’Annecy, the frozen objects hesitate
as at the beginning of the world. It is an unfamiliar world in which one
is uncomfortable and which forbids all human effusiveness.
這也就是為何塞尚筆下的人顯得奇怪，好像是不同族群生物眼光下的產物；自然本身被剝卻了所有可用以聯結定形的屬性，地景裡沒有風，安西湖(Lac d’Annecy)面沒有任何波瀾，凝固的對象就如同在世界之始初般的猶豫不安。這樣一個不熟悉的世界，令人覺得不適，也禁止任何人文的情思。
雄伯
这就是为什么塞尚的人物显得怪异，好像是由非人类的生物在观看。自然本身被剥夺掉让它准备从事万物有灵的沟通的属性：风景里没有风，安西湖没有波动，冰冻的各种物体犹豫不安，好像在世界的开始。这样的熟悉的世界，人在里面感到不自在，并且让所有人性的情怀无法舒展。
Animism—the doctrine that all natural objects and the universe itself have souls 所有的自然的物体与宇宙本身具有灵魂的信念
Communion—The sharing of personal thoughts and feelings 个人的思想与感觉到分享沟通
If one looks at the work of other painters after seeing Cézanne’s paintings, one feels
somehow relaxed, just as conversations resumed after a period of mourning
mask the absolute change and restore to the survivors their solidity.
如果我們在看過了塞尚的畫之後，再去看其他畫家的作品，我們會感到大大的鬆了一口氣，就像是在遽變中隨之而來的悲傷退去，對話重新開始，生存者在對話中重拾其固存性。
雄伯
假如我们观看塞尚的图画之后，再观看其他的画家的作品，我们感觉相当地轻松。就像悼亡的时期过后，重新开始的对谈交流，用来掩饰绝对的生死无常，并且让依旧存活的家人恢复他们的凝聚团结。
But indeed only a human being is capable of such a vision, which penetrates
right to the root of things beneath constituted humanity. All indications
are that animals cannot gaze at [regarder] things, cannot penetrate
them in expectation of nothing but the truth.
但是，事實上只有人類才能運用這樣的觀點，穿透對事物的人文性編納秩序，而直達事物之根柢。所有的跡象顯示，動物無法注視事物，無法以僅為企求真相的方式來透視事物。
雄伯
但是，的确，仅有人类能够从事这样的视象。这样的视象直接贯穿到被形成的人性底下的各种物象的根柢。一切迹象显示，动物无法「凝视」物象，无法仅是企求真相地贯穿物象。
Gaze at （regarder）英译gaze at 用斜体字，又括弧附法文，强调「凝视」的意涵不仅是一般的注视或观看。而是，仅是企求真相地注视，才叫凝视。这是具有其他意图性的动物或人的眼睛无法做到的。
Émile Bernard’s statement
that a realistic painter is only an ape is therefore precisely the opposite of
the truth, and one sees how Cézanne was able to revive the classical definition
of art: man added to nature.
因此，勃納爾認為一個真正寫實的畫家必須像一隻猿猴，恰好是說到了真理的反面，而我們看到了塞尚如何以其才份恢復了藝術的古典定義：人類對自然的附言。
雄伯
勃纳尔说「写实的画家仅是人猿」，这句陈述跟真理恰恰背道而驰。我们看见塞尚是如何地复興艺术的古典定义：艺术是被增添到自然的人。
added to nature不是过去式，而是过去分词片语，修饰man，整句的定义是Art is man who is added to nature的省略。
庞蒂并不认同勃纳尔艺术模拟自然的「写实的画家仅是人猿」。庞蒂赞赏塞尚的「艺术是被增添到自然的人」。也就是，艺术家凭借艺术，融入自然，与永恒的自然同在，成为自然的部分。
Cézanne’s painting denies neither science nor tradition. He went to
the Louvre every day when he was in Paris. He believed that one must
learn how to paint and that the geometric study of planes and forms is necessary.
塞尚的繪事未排斥科學，亦未排斥傳統。他在巴黎時每天都去羅浮宮。他認為要會畫畫必須學習，而學習過程中的必要部分，是對平面和圖形的幾何學研究。
He inquired about the geological structure of his landscapes.
These abstract relationships must be operative in the act of painting, but
ruled over by the visible world. Anatomy and design are present in each
stroke of his brush just as the rules of the game underlie each stroke of a
tennis match.
他鑽研所繪地景的地質學結構，相信這些由可見世界所表現出來的抽象關係，必會影響到繪畫行動。解剖和設計的規則呈現在他的每一筆觸之中，好比網球賽中每一次觸擊都蘊含了遊戲規則。
雄伯
他鑽研所繪地景的地質學結構。地景结构的这些抽象关系必须运作在绘画的行动过程，但是却必须受到可见世界的统辖。解剖与设计呈现在他的画笔的每一笔触当中。正如遊戏规则作为网球赛的每一触击的基础。
What motivates the painter’s movement can never be perspective
alone or geometry alone or the laws governing the breakdown
of colors, or, for that matter, any particular knowledge.
但是，讓畫家積極畫將起來的，絕不僅是視點、幾何學、色彩規則或任何特定的知識。
雄伯
激发画家绘画动作的动机，永远不会仅是视景，或仅是几何学，或统辖颜色的散佈，或有关绘画的任何特殊的知识。
Motivating all the
movements from which a picture gradually emerges there can be only one
motif: the landscape in its totality and in its absolute fullness, precisely
what Cézanne called a “motif.”
只有一件事情能夠讓畫家積極動手作畫：地景的整體性和它絕對的充實性，也就是塞尚所稱的「主題」(motif)。
雄伯
激发图画逐渐成形的所有的动作的动机，仅可能是一个母题：处于完整状态与绝对充实的地景。这确实就是塞尚所谓的「母题」。
He would start by discovering the geological
foundation of the landscape; then, according to Mme Cézanne, he
would halt and gaze, eyes dilated; he “germinated” with the countryside.
根據塞尚夫人所說，塞尚的地景畫的開始就是去弄明白地景的地質學基礎，然後他會以拓寬了的視野停留注視每一樣東西，和鄉野共同「吐芽成長」。
雄伯
他常常以发现地景的地质学的基础作为开始。依照塞尚夫人的说法，他常常停下来凝视，眼睛张得大大的，他跟乡野一块「滋长」。
What was at issue, all science forgotten, was to recapture, through these sciences,
the constitution of the landscape as an emerging organism.
他所必須要做到的事，首先是忘掉他由科學那兒所學來的一切；其次，要穿透這些科學去重新把抓地景的結構，把地景當作正在浮現的有機體。
雄伯
当浑然忘记所有的智慧时，具有争议的事情是如何凭借这些科学，重新捕捉地景的结构，作为正在浮现的有机体。
Science– Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain 智慧，解决难题的能力
Science– A particular branch of scientific knowledge 科学
All the partial views that the gaze catches sight of must be welded together; all
that the eye’s versatility disperses must be reunited; one must, as Gasquet
put it, “join the wandering hands of nature.”
要做到這種程度，所有視覺上的一偏之見都必須合而為一，所有眼睛之能事都必須重新整合，如同加斯奎(Gasquet)所言，必須「將自然所遊走出去的手結合在一起。」
雄伯
凝视瞥见的所有的部分视景必须衔接一块。眼睛的能力所驱散的一切东西，必须重新统合。如同加斯奎所言，我们必须将「自然的漫遊的手连接起来」。
“A minute of the world is
going by which must be painted in its full reality.
「世界所歷經的一瞬，繪畫必須窮盡其整全之實在。」
雄伯
某个时刻的这个世界必须保持在它的充实的现实里被绘画，它正在消逝当中。
” The meditation was suddenly complete: “I have a hold on my motif,” Cézanne would say, and
he explained that the landscape had to be tackled neither too high nor
too low, caught alive in a net which would let nothing escape.
他的冥想有時會達於極致，他會說：「我有我的主題」，而且他會解釋，地景要放在中間，不可太高或太低，要在沒有漏失掉任何東西的狀況下以網羅活捉。
雄伯说
冥想突然地成为完整：「我掌握我的母题」，塞尚经常说。他解释，地景必须被处理，不要太高，也不要太低，活生生地捕捉它，在没有任何疏漏的网络里。
Then he
attacked his picture from all sides at once, using patches of color to surround
his original charcoal sketch of the geological skeleton.
然後他就同時開始畫這幅畫的每一部分，用色彩圍繞嵌補著早先地質架構的炭筆素描。
雄伯
然后他同时从各个角度来描绘他的图画，使用块状的颜色围绕他原先的地质学轮廓的炭笔素描。
The image saturated itself, composed itself, drew itself, became balanced; it came to
maturity all at once. “The landscape thinks itself in me,” he said, “and I
am its consciousness.” Nothing could be farther from naturalism than this
intuitive science.
畫面帶著充實性和厚度，在結構和平衡中成長，最後似乎是在一瞬間趨於成熟。塞尚說：「地景透過我來思考自身，我即它的意識。」這種直觀的科學和自然主義是相去甚遠的。
雄伯译
画面饱满自身，组合自身，绘画自身，成为平衡，画面突然达到成熟。「地景在我身上思维自身，我就是地景的意识。」这种直觉的智慧绝非是自然主义。
Science– Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain 在某个困难的领域，产生解决的能力
Gay science –joyful wisdom 欢愉的智慧
Far from—by no means 绝非是，根本就不是
Nothing could be farther from my intention than to offend you.
=I have no intention at all of offending you.
我没有丝毫要冒犯你的意思。
Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste.
Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste.
藝術並不是模擬(imitation)，也不是按照教養或各人興之所至成就的手工製品。
雄伯译
艺术并非模拟。艺术也不是依照本能的愿望或良好品味而制造的东西。
It is a process of expression. Just as the function of words is to name—that is, to grasp the nature of what appears to us in a confused way and to place it before us as a recognizable object—so it is up to the painter, said Gasquet, to “objectify,” “project,” and “arrest.”
It is a process of expression.
Just as words name—that is, grasp in its nature and place before us
as a recognizable object what appears in a confused way—the painter, said
Gasquet, “objectifies,” “projects,” and “fixes.”
它是一連串的表達過程。就像文字的功能是用來賦名，用來捕捉以混沌不明的方式呈現給我們的自然，使它安頓在我們面前，變成可理解的對象，所以加斯奎說畫家的職能是「對象化」(objectify)、「具體化」(project)、和「惹人心目」(arrest)。
雄伯译
艺术是表达的过程。正如文字的功能作为命名—也就是说，文字理解以混淆方式出现的东西，根据它的特性，并且将它摆放在我们面前，作为一个可体认的客体—加斯奎说，画家也在「具体表现」，「投射」，「固定」。
Just as words do not resemble
what they designate, a picture is not a trompe l’oeil.
Words do not took like the things they designate; and a picture is not a trompe-l’oeil.
文字看起來一點都不像它們所指涉的事物，一幅畫也不是要用來逼目以亂真。
雄伯
正如文字并没有类似它们指涉的东西，一幅图画也不是视觉陷阱。
Trompe-l’œil (French for “deceive the eye”, pronounced [tʁɔ̃p lœj]) is an art technique that uses realistic imagery to create the optical illusion that the depicted objects exist in three dimensions.
视觉陷阱作为「欺骗眼睛」，是一种艺术技巧，使用写实的意象来创造视觉的幻觉，被描绘的客体存在于三度空间里。
Cezanne, in his own words, “writes in painting what had never yet been painted, and turns it into painting once and for all.”We, forgetting the viscous, equivocal appearances, go through them straight to the things they present.
Cézanne, in his own words, “writes in painting what is not yet painted, and turns it into painting
absolutely.” We forget the viscous, equivocal appearances, and by means
of them we go straight to the things they present.
塞尚自己說：「在繪畫中寫下從沒有被畫過的東西，並使之一勞永逸地轉成繪畫。」忘掉那些黏不拉搭而模稜兩可的表象，我們穿過它們而直接到達它們所呈現的事物。
雄伯译
依照塞尚自己的说法，他「以绘画书写从未被绘画过的东西，并且将它断然地转变成为绘画。」当我们忘记那些胶著而暧昧的各种表象时，我们穿透这些表象，直接到达它们呈现的事物。」
The painter recaptures and converts into visible objects what would, without him, remain walled up in the separate life of each consciousness: the vibration of appearances which is the cradle of things. Only
one emotion is possible for this painter—the feeling of strangeness— and only one lyricism—that of the continual rebirth of existence.
The painter recaptures and converts into visible objects what would, without him, remain
closed up in the separate life of each consciousness: the vibration of appearances
which is the cradle of things. Only one emotion is possible for
this painter—the feeling of strangeness—and only one lyricism—that of
the continual rebirth of existence.
畫家將原本區隔不同之生活意識的高牆打倒，而重新把抓轉化為可見的對象－－表象的顫動即是事物的搖籃。這種畫家只可能有一種情緒：陌生感；只可能有一種抒情的主題：存在的不斷重生。
雄伯译
画家重新捕捉作为事物的摇篮的各种表象的悸动，并且将它们转化成为可见的客体。若是没有画家，这些表象的悸动原本将会始终被围隔于每个意识的区隔的生命里。对于画家，仅有一种情感是可能的—奇异感—仅有一种抒情—生命实存的不断重生的抒情。
Springhero's Weblog 