拉康論移情 1130c

拉康論移情 1130c

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 3; Wednesday 30 November 1960

Is everything not already better situated at the start (there is no need to play hide-and-seek)？Can we not see immediately in such a gathering what characterises the erastes, the lover, for all those who have questioned him, who approach him, is it not essentially what he is lacking?

每一樣東西定位在開始的地方，難道不是更好（沒有必要捉迷藏）？我們難道沒有馬上看出，在這樣的彙集，表現愛者的特徵是什麼？對於所有質疑他的人，接近他的人，這難道不是基本上是他所欠缺的？

And we for our part can immediately add, that he does not know what he is lacking, with this particular accent of unknowing which is that of the
unconscious.

就我們而言，我們能夠立即補充說，他並不知道他正在欠缺什麼？我們特別強調這個「不知道」，那是對於無意識的「不知道」。

And on the other hand the eromenos, the beloved object, is he not always situated as the one who does not know what he has, the hidden thing he has, what gives him his attraction?

在另一方面，被愛者，這個被愛的客體，他難道不是總是被定位作為不知道他擁有什麼，他擁有隱藏的東西。是什麼給予他的吸引力？

Because is not this “what he has” that which in the love relation is called on not only to reveal itself, [but] to become, to be, to presentify, that which up to then is only possible?

因為難道不就是這個「他所擁有的東西」，在愛的關係上，被要求不但要顯現它自己，而且要變成，要成為，要具體表現，直到當時是勉為其難的東西？

In short with the analytic accent, or without this accent, he also does not know. And it is something else that is in question. He does not know what he has.

總之，對於精神分析師的強調，或是沒有這個強調，他也不知道。那是某件受到質疑的其他東西。他並不知道他擁有什麼。

Between these two terms which constitute, as I might say, in their essence, the lover and the beloved, you should notice that there is no coinciding. What is lacking to the one is not this “what he has”, hidden in the other. And this is the whole problem of love.

組成愛者與被愛者的這兩個術語，在其本質上，我不妨這樣說。你們應該注意到，彼此並沒有巧合的地方。前者所欠缺的東西，並不是隱藏在後者身上的這個「他所擁有」。這是愛的全部難題所在。

Whether one knows this or not is of no (5) importance. One encounters at every step in the phenomenon, its splitting apart, its discordance and a person has no need for all that to dialogue, to engage in dialectics, dialektikeuesthai about love, it is enough for him to be involved, to love, in order to be caught up in this gap, in this discord.

我們知道與否，並無關緊要。我們在現象的每一步驟會遭遇它的分開，它的不協調。我們沒有需要這一切，為了要從事愛的對話，愛的辯證法。他只要介入，只要愛，就足夠陷入這個差距，這個不協調。

Is that all there is to say? Is it sufficient? I cannot do any more here. I am doing a lot in doing what I am doing, I am exposing myself to the risk of a certain immediate incomprehension, but I assure you, I have no intention here of leading you on, I am putting my cards on the table immediately.

這難道不是我們所要說的嗎？這難道還不足夠嗎？我在此不能再多說了，我正在做太多我正在做的事情。我過分揭露我自己，冒著當下不被人瞭解的危險。但是，我告訴你們，我在此沒有意圖要欺瞞你們。我馬上將所有的底牌都攤開在桌上。

Things go further than that. We can propose, in the terms that we use, that which the analysis of the creation of meaning in the signifier-signified relationship already indicated (we will see,
provided we see how it is to be handled, the truth in what follows) already indicated about the question, namely that precisely love as signification, (because for us it is one and it is only that), is a metaphor, in the measure that we have learned to articulate metaphor as substitution, and this is where we enter into obscurity and that I would ask you for the moment
simply to admit, and to keep what I am here putting forward as what it is in your hands: an algebraic formula.

事情進展得比那個還要深入。我們能夠建議，以我們使用的術語，在能指與所指的關係，意義的創造的分析所已經指示的東西，（我們將會看出，隨之而來的真相是什麼，只要我們看出它應該如何被處理。）所已經指示燈關於這個問題。換句話說，確實是，愛作為意義，（因為對於我們而言，這是一種意義，僅是那個意義），是一種比喻，隨著我們已經學習到表達比喻，作為替代。這就是我們進入隱晦不清的地方。我目前要求你們，僅是承認，將我正在提出的東西，當作是你們手中的東西：一個代數的公式。

30.11.60 III 34
It is in so far as the function where it occurs of the erastes, of the loving one, who is the subject of lack, takes the place of, substitutes itself for the function of the eromenos who is the object, the beloved object, that there is produced the signification of love. We will spend a certain time perhaps in clarifying this formula. We have the time to do it in the year before us.

因為發生在愛者的功用，愛者是欠缺的生命主體，他代替，他取代它自己，充當作為客體的被愛者，被愛的客體的功用。愛的意義就在那裏被產生。我們或許會花費某些時間澄清這個公式。我們目前這一年，我們有時間這樣做。

At least I will not have failed to give you from the beginning this reference point which may serve, not as a riddle, at least as a point of reference to avoid certain ambiguities (when I will have developed it).

至少，從一開始，我一定會給你們這個指稱點，它可以充當，不是充當一種謎團，至少是充當一個指稱點，可以避免某些的曖昧（當我已經將它推展開來）。

And now let us enter into this Symposium of which in a way the last time I gave you the setting, presented the personages, the personages who have nothing primitive about them as regards the simplification of the problem that they present to us.

現在，讓我們探討這個「饗宴」。上一次，以某種的方式，我給予你們這個背景，呈現這些人物。這些人物並沒有什麼原創的地方，關於他們呈現給予我們的這個難題的簡化。

We must really admit that they are extremely sophisticated personages!
And here, to retrace one of the aspects of what I spent my time telling you the last time, I will resume it in a few words, because I think it important that its provocative character should be expressed, articulated.

我們必須確實承認，他們是極端複雜的人物。在此，為了要追蹤我上一次花費我的時間告訴你們的一個層面。我將會用幾句話，重新描繪一下，因為我認為這是很重要多，挑釁的特性應該被表達，被表明。

There is all the same something rather humorous [after] twenty four
centuries of religious meditation (because there is not a single reflection on love throughout these twenty-four centuries, either among free-thinkers or among priests, there is not a (6) single meditation on love which has not referred to this inaugural text) [this text] after all (taken in its external aspect) for someone who enters into it without being warned, represents all the same a sort of tonicity, as they say, between
people who we must all the same remind ourselves (for the peasant who emerges there from his little garden around Athens) are a collection of old queens.

依舊有某件相當詼諧的東西，經過2400年的宗教的沉思（因為在2400年當中，沒有一個有關愛的反思，無論是在自由思想家，或是在僧侶，沒有一個有關愛的反思，而不提到這個開始的文本。）畢竟，這個文本，從外在的層面來看，對於某位探討它的人，他一定會被警告，它仍然代表某種的強壯，如他們所說，處於那些深宮怨婦的人們之間。這是我們仍然必須提醒我們自己的（對於在雅典附近，從他的小花園出現在那裏的那位農夫而言。）

Socrates is fifty-three, Alcibiades still handsome it appears, is thirty-six and Agathon himself in whose house they are gathered, is thirty. He had just won the prize of the competition for tragedies; this is what allows us to date the Symposium exactly.

蘇格拉底五十三歲，阿西比底斯是三十六歲，似乎依舊帥俊。阿加封自己，是三十歲，他們聚集在他的家中。他剛贏得悲劇寫作的競賽，這就是我們為何能夠確認，「饗宴」舉行的確實時間。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1130b

拉康論移情 1130b

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 3; Wednesday 30 November 1960

What there should be, what there may be, what there is supposed
to be, of this something, in the analyst, is indeed what our
question will tend towards, but right at the end.

在精神分析師，這個某件東西，應該是什們，可能有什們，被認為是什們，確實是我們的問題傾向的東西，但是在結束的時候。

In approaching this problem of this relationship which is that of
the analysand to the analyst, which manifests itself by this very
curious phenomenon of transference which I am trying to approach
in a fashion which circumscribes it more closely, which evades as
little as possible its forms (at once known to all, and which
people try more or less to make into abstractions, to avoid their
proper weight), I believe that we cannot do better than begin
(3) from a questioning of what this phenomenon is supposed to
imitate to the highest degree, or even to become confused with.
There is as you know a text of Freud, celebrated in this sense.

當我們接觸這個關係的問題，那就是受分析者與分析師的關係。這個關係證明它自己，以移情這個耐人尋味的現象。我正在嘗試接近這個現象，以更加仔細限定它的方式。這個方式盡可能逃避它的形式（立刻被大家所知道，並且人們嘗試進入抽象化，以避免它們的適當重量，）我相信，我們最好從質疑這個現象應該高度模仿什麼開始，甚至是跟什麼混淆在一塊。如你們所知，有一篇佛洛伊德的文本，在這個意義上，非常著名。

30.11.60 III 32
which is found in what are usually called The papers on technique, with that to which it is closely linked, namely let us say that something has ever since always remained suspended to something in the problem of love – an internal discord, some duplicity or other which is precisely what we should circumscribe more closely namely perhaps clarify by this ambiguity of this other thing, this substitution en route which after some time of the seminar here you should know to be all the same what happens
in analytic action, and which I can summarise in this way.

這個文本被發現，在通常所謂的「精神分析技術論文集」，跟它密切相關。換句話說，讓我們說，從此以後，關於愛的問題，總是有某件東西被懸置—-一種內在的不協調，某種的複製，確實就是我們應該仔細限制的，換句話說，或許澄清這個其他東西的曖昧，這種途中的替代。經過在此的演講會的一段時間後，你們仍然應該知道，精神分析行動發生的事情，我以這種方式總結如下。

The person who comes to see us in principle with this supposition
that he does not know what is wrong with him (there is already
there a whole implication of the unconscious, of the fundamental
“he does not know” and it is through this that there is established the bridge which can link our new science to the whole tradition of “know thyself”; of course there is a fundamental difference, the accent of this “he does not know” is completely displaced) – and I think that I have already said enough about this to you for me not to have to do any more than indicate the difference in passing …….. but what is it?

原則上帶著這個假設，前來看我們的這個人，他並不知道，他的問題出在哪里，（在那裏，已經有無意識的整個暗示，作為基本的「他並不知道」。就是透過這個，連接我們的新科學，跟「瞭解你自己」的整個傳統，這個橋樑被建立。當然，有一個基本的差異，對於「他並不知道」的強調，完全被更換了）–我認為，關於這一點，我已經說得很充分，所以我僅是偶爾需要跟你們提示一下這個差異、、、但是，那個差異是什麼？

What he truly has in himself, what he is demanding to be, not only
formed, educated, released, cultivated according to the method of
all the traditional pedagogies, (he puts himself under the mantle
of the fundamentally revelatory power of some dialectics which
are the offspring, the offshoots of the inaugural step taken by
Socrates in so far as it is a philosophical one) is it towards
this that we are going, in analysis, to lead whoever comes to see
us as an analyst?

他本身真實的樣子，他要求成為的樣子，不但被形成，被教育，被釋放，被教養，依照所有傳統的教學方法。（他將自己放置在某種辯證法的基本的啟示力量。這些辯證法是蘇格拉底採取的開始的步驟的遺緒及分枝，就哲學的辯證法而言）。我們精神分析正在進行的，不就是朝向這個？我們要引導任何前來視我們為精神分析師的人？

Simply as readers of Freud, you should all the same already know
something of that which in its first appearance at least may
present itself as the paradox of what presents itself to us as
end, telos, as the completion, the termination of analysis.

僅是作為佛洛伊德的讀者，你們應該仍然已經知道某件，在其最初的外表，至少呈現它自己，作為呈現給予我們作為目標的矛盾，作為目的論，作為完結，作為精神分析的終結的矛盾。

What does Freud tell us if not when all is said and done that
what the one who follows this path will find at the end is
nothing other essentially than a lack?

佛洛伊德告訴我們的，難道不是：當一切都說都做了，追尋這條途徑的這個人，最後發現的，道道地地基本上是一個欠缺？

Whether you call this lack castration or whether you call it Penisneid this is the sign, the metaphor. But if this is really what analysis comes
up against, is there not there already some …………. ?

無論你們稱這個欠缺是閹割，或是否你們稱它是陽物嫉妒，這是這個訊息，這個比喻。但是假如這確實是精神分析遭遇的東西，難道不是還有、、、？

In short by recalling this ambiguity to you, this sort of double
register between what in principle is the beginning and the starting point and this end (at first sight it may appear so (4) necessarily disappointing) a whole development is inscribed, this development, is properly speaking this revelation of something entire in its text which is called the unconscious Other.

總之，我跟你們提醒這個曖昧，這種雙重的銘記，處於原則上是開始點與這個目標之間（乍然一看，它可能看起來令人失望），整個的發展被銘記，這個發展，適當地說，這個在其文本是某個完整的東西的啟示。那就是被稱為「無意識的大它者」。

Of course all of this, for someone who hears it spoken about for the first time – I do not believe that this is the case for anybody here – cannot be understood except as an enigma.

當然，所有這一切，對於某個第一次聽到它被談論的人—我並不相信，對於在此的任何人是如此—-他無法被瞭解，除了作為一個謎團。

This is not at all the way in which I am presenting it to you, but as
the collecting together of terms in which our action as such is inscribed.

這根本不是我正在呈現給予你們的方式，而是作為術語的彙集，因為我們的行動本身被銘記在這些術語裏。

It is also to illuminate right away what I could call, if you wish, the general plan according to which our journey is going to unfold, when it is a question after all of nothing other than immediately apprehending, of seeing there in fact the analogy there is between this development and these terms and the fundamental starting point of love.

這也是要立刻啟明我所謂的一般的計畫，容我這樣說。依照這個計畫，我們的旅行將要被展開。畢竟，問題道道地地就是立即要理解，要看出這個類比，事實上，這個類比存在於這個發展與這些術語，與愛的基本的開始點之間。

[This situation] even though it is after all evident, has never been,
as far as I know, also, situated in any terms, placed at the starting point in these terms that I am proposing to you to articulate immediately, these two terms from which we are beginning: erastes, the lover, or again eron, the loving one and eromenos, the one who is loved.

據我所知，這個情境，即使它畢竟是顯而易見，從來沒有被用任何術語定位，從來沒有被放置在我正在跟你們建議的這些術語的開始點，為了立即表達這兩個術語。我們正從這兩個術語開始：愛人與被愛者。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1130a

拉康論移情 1130a

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 3; Wednesday 30 November 1960

We stopped the last day at the position of the erastes and the
eromenos, of the lover and the beloved, as the dialectic of the
Symposium will allow us to introduce it as what I have called the
basis, the turning point, the essential articulation of the problem of love. The problem of love interests us in so far as it is going to allow us to understand what happens in transference, and I would say up to a certain point, because of transference.

我們上一次，在愛人與被愛者的地方暫告一個段落，因為「饗宴」的辯證法容許巍們介紹它，作為我所謂的基礎，轉捩點，愛的問題的基本表達。我們對於愛的問題感到興趣，因為它容許巍們瞭解移情所發生的事情。我不妨說，直到某個時刻，因為移情所發生的事情。

To justify such a long detour as this one which may appear to those of you who are newly come this year to this seminar and which may after all appear to you as a superfluous detour, I will try to give you the grounds, to presentify to you the meaning, which you should immediately apprehend, of what our research involves.

為了證明我迂回說明的理由，因為這種迂回，對於今年才參加演講會的人，畢境可能顯得是多餘的迂回，我將嘗試給予你們理由，呈現給與你們能夠馬上理解的這個意義，對於我們的研究牽涉到什麼。

It seems to me that at whatever level of his formation he may be,
something should be present to the psychoanalyst as such, which may strike him, catch him by the coat-tails at many a turning point (and is not the most simple the one which it seems to me is difficult to avoid after a certain age and which for you it seems must already involve in a very live way just by itself what the problem of love is).

我覺得，無論他處於他的形成的什麼層次，某件東西應該會出現在精神分析師面前，可能給他印象，在許多轉捩點，卡住他（我覺得，在某個年紀之後，很難避們的這一點，並不是最簡單的。它已經以很生動的方式，本身就牽涉到愛的問題是什麼。）

Have you never been struck at this turning point by the fact that, in what you have given – I mean to those who are closest to you – there was something
missing, and which not only was missing, but which has left those
mentioned, those closest to you irremediably lost to you?

在你們給予的東西，在這個轉捩點，你們對於這個事實，難道不感覺印象深刻？–我的意思是，對於那些跟你們親近的人—會有某件東西漏失，它不但是漏失，而且留下那些被提到的東西，跟你們最親近的人，無可挽回地永久失去？

And what is it? …. it is that precisely those closest to you (with them) one does nothing but turn around the phantasy whose satisfaction you have more or less sought for (in them), which (for them) has more or less substituted its images or its colours.

那是什麼？、、、那確實是跟你們最親近的人（跟他們）。我們僅是環繞1這個幻見旋轉，你們曾經追求這種幻見的滿足。對於他們，這種滿足相當地取代它的意象或它的顏色。

This being of which you may suddenly be reminded by some accident whose resonance can be best understood by death, this veritable being, which is what I am evoking for you, already distances itself and is already eternally lost.

某個意外可能會突然提醒你們的這個生命實存，它的迴響憑藉死亡最能夠被瞭解，這個可驗證的生命的實存。這是我正在跟你們召喚的。它本身已經拉開距離，已經永久地失落。

Now this being is all the same the very one that you are trying to rejoin along the paths of your desire. Only that being is yours, and as
analysts you know well that it is, in some way or other, because of not wanting it, that you have also more or less missed it.

現在這個生命實存，仍然是你們正在嘗試加入的生命實存，沿著你們欲望的途徑。只有那個生命實存是你們的。作為精神分析師，你們很清楚地知道，以某種的方式，因為你們不想要它，你們也已經算是失落它。

30.11.60 III 31
But at least here at the level of your sin and your failure you
are exactly the measure.

但是至少，在此，在你們原罪感及失敗的層次，你們確實是這個衡量者。

(2) And those others whom you have cared for so badly, is it because you have made of them as people say simply your objects?

那些其餘的人，你們如此強烈關愛的人，難道不是因為您們解釋他們，如同人們所說的，僅是當著你們的客體？

Would to God that if you had treated them as objects whose weight, whose taste, whose substance is appreciated, you would today be less disturbed by their memory, you would have done them justice, rendered them homage and love, you would at least have loved them like yourself, except for the fact that you love badly (but it is not even the fate of the unloved that we have had our share of) you would have made of them no doubt as they say, subjects as if this was the end of the respect that they merited,
the respect as it is said of their dignity, the respect owed to our fellows (nos semblables).

我但願，假如你們曾經對待他們，當著客體，客體的價值，客體的品味，客體的物質，曾經受到你們重視，今天回想起他們，你們將比較不會受到困擾。你們本來會對他們公平而論，對他們表示尊敬及愛。你們至少本來會愛他們如同你們自己，除了這個事實：你們迫切地愛（但是這甚至並不是我們大家所分享的，沒有被愛者的命運）。無可置疑的，你們本來會解釋他們，如同他們所說，作為生命的主體，好像這是他們獲得的尊敬的目的，據說是他們尊嚴的尊敬，應該歸屬于我們同胞的尊敬。

I am afraid that this neutralised use of the term our fellows, is indeed something different to what we are dealing with in the question of love
and, as regards these fellows that the respect that you give them may go too rapidly towards respect for the similar, leaving them to their quirks of resistance, to their stubborn ideas, to their congenital stupidity, indeed to their own concerns… let them sort it out for themselves! This is, I believe, the foundation of this coming to a halt before their liberty which often directs your behaviour, the liberty of indifference it is said, but not so much of theirs as of yours.

我恐怕，這個中立化地使用「我們同胞」這個術語，確實是某件不同的東西，跟我們正在處理的有關愛的問題。關於你們給予他們尊敬的這些人，你們的尊敬他可能迅速地轉向尊敬類似的人，讓他們留在他們抗拒的轉變，他們頑固的觀念，他們天生的愚笨，的確，留在他們各自的關心、、、讓他們自己各自力救濟！我相信，這就是這個在他們自由之前的突然停頓，時常引導你們的行為，據說這是漠不關心的自由，但並不是他們的行為，而是你們的行為。

And it is indeed here that the question is posed for an analyst,
namely what is our relation to this being of our patient?

確實就是在這裏，精神分析師被提出這個問題，換句話說，對於我們病人的這個生命實存，我們的關係是什麼？

Nevertheless we know well all the same that this is what is in
question in analysis. Is our access to this being one of love
or not?

可是，我們仍然知道得很清楚，這是精神分析受到質疑的東西。我們接近這個生命實存，算是愛的一種？或不是？

Has our access some relation with what we know about the point we place ourselves at as regards the nature of love?

我們的接近，擁有跟我們知道的東西關於愛的特性，我們將自己放置的位置，我們跟它具有某種的關係嗎？

This as you will see will lead us rather far, precisely to know
that which – if I may express myself in this way by using a
metaphor – is in the Symposium when Alcibiades compares Socrates
to some of these tiny objects which it seems really existed at
the time, to little Russian dolls for example, these things which
fitted into one another; it appears that there were images whose
outside represented a satyr or a Silenus, and, within we do not
really know what but undoubtedly some precious things.

你們看出，這會引導我們探討更加深遠，確實要知道—容我以使用比喻的這種方式表達我自己—在「饗宴」裏，阿西比底斯將蘇格拉底比喻為這些小東西，似乎那是當時存在的東西，例如，蘇聯娃娃玩具。這些玩具娃娃大小互套。似乎就是這些意象，它們的外面代表了色欲之神。它們的內在，我們並沒有真的知道是什們，但是無可置疑的，是某些珍貴的東西。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1123j

拉康論移情 1123j

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

There is one reason why there is no reason to begin again, because of which it is even impossible to begin again, and one of the reasons which will astonish you perhaps if I put it forward before you is that, for us, at the point that we are at, even if you have not realised it yet you will realise it if you reflect a little bit, love and its phenomenon and its culture and its dimension has for some time become disengaged from beauty.
That may astonish you, but that is the way it is.

有一個理由為什麼沒有理由重新開始，因為這個理由，甚至沒有理由重新開始。其中一個理由可能會令你們大吃一驚，假如我跟你們提出。對於我們而言，在我們所處的這一點，即使我們還沒有體會到，你們也會體會到，假如你們稍微沉思一下。愛及其現象，及其文化，及其維度，有段時間來跟美脫離。你們可能會大吃一驚，但事情的狀態就是如此

You can verify that from both sides. From the side of beautiful works of art on the one hand, from the side of love also, and you will see that it is true. It is in any case a condition which renders difficult… and it is precisely for this reason that I make this whole detour to accustom you to what is in question… we return to the function of beauty, to the tragic function of beauty because this is what I put forward last year – the dimension – and this is what gives its veritable meaning to what Plato is going to tell us about love.

你們能夠從兩邊驗證。一方面，從藝術的美的作品，另一方嗎，從愛這一邊，你們將會看出，這是真實的。無論如何，這是一種變得困難的情況、、、確實是因為這個理由，我繞了這麼大的圈子，為了讓你們漸漸能夠接受質疑的問題、、、我們回到美的功用，回到美的悲劇功用，因為這是我去年提出、、、這個維度、、、這就是給予它可驗證的意義的東西，對於柏拉圖告訴我們的有關愛。

On the other hand, it is quite clear that at the present time it is not at all at the level of tragedy, nor at another level of which I will speak in a moment that love is bestowed, it is at the level of what in the Symposium is called, in Agathon’s discourse, the level of Polymnie.

在另一方面，顯而易見，在目前它根本不在悲劇的層次，也不在另外一個層次，等一下我會談論的，愛被賜予的層次。就在「饗宴」，在阿加封的論述所謂的「慶宴」的層次。

It is at the level of lyricism, and in the order of artistic creations, at the level of what presents itself indeed as the most vivid materialisation of fiction as essential, namely what we call the cinema. Plato would have been delighted by this invention.

就在抒情性的層次，在藝術創造的層次，在呈現自己作為幻想的最生動具體表現，最根本的東西。也就是說，我們所謂的電影，柏拉圖當時若是知道這個發明，當時很樂意接受。

There is no better illustration for the arts of what Plato put at the origin of his vision of the world, than this “something” which is expressed in the myth of the cave that we see illustrated every day by those (16) dancing rays which are able to manifest on the screen all our feelings in a shadowy way.

對於柏拉圖擺放在他構想的世界的幻想的起源的藝術，以洞穴的神話所表達的「某件東西」，顯現得最為生動淋漓。我們每一天看到這個洞穴被那些跳舞的陽光顯現。這些陽光能夠在螢幕上，透過陰影的方式。顯現我們所有的感覺。

It is indeed to this dimension that there belongs most outstandingly in the art of our day the defence and the illustration of love. This indeed is the reason that one of the things that I told you – which will nevertheless be the one around which we are going to centre our progress – one of the things I told you and which does not fail to arouse a certain
reticence, because I said it quite incidentally: love is a comic sentiment.

在我們時代的藝術，愛的防衛與顯現，顯而易見地，確實屬於這個維度。這確實是這個理由為什麼我告訴你們的其中一件事—可是我們要繞著這件事進展—這件事，我告訴你們，它一定會讓你們目瞪口呆，因為我不經意地說出來：愛是一種喜劇。

All the same, an effort is required for us to come back to the proper point of adaptation which gives it its import.

可是，我們還需要經過一番努力，才能回到這個觀點的意義，讓人合宜地接納。

There are two things which I noted in my former discourse about love and I recall them. The first is that love is a comic sentiment, and you will see what will illustrate it in our investigation. We will complete in this connection the loop which will allow us to bring forward what is essential: the true nature of comedy.

在我先前關於愛的論述，我注意到有兩件事情，我要提醒。第一件是：愛是喜劇的情感，你們將會看出，在我們的研究裏，什麼可以顯現它。關於這一點，我們將完成這個圈套，它容許我們提出最基本的東西，喜劇的真實特性。

And it is so essential and indispensable that it is for this reason that there is in the Symposium, something which since that time the commentators have never been able to explain, namely, the presence of Aristophanes. He was, historically speaking the sworn enemy of Socrates; nevertheless he is there.

它是如此基本，而且不可免除。因為這個理由，在「饗宴」，自從那個時代以來，評論者始終不能解釋，譬如，亞力斯多芬的存在。從歷史上來說，他是蘇格拉底宣稱的敵人，可是他在那裏。

The second thing that I wanted to say – as you will see – that we
rediscover at every moment, which will serve us as a guide, is
that love is to give what one does not have. This you will also
see arriving at one of the essential hinges of what we will have
to encounter in our commentary.

我想要說的第二件事—你們將會看出—我們隨時都會重新發現—它可以充當我們的引導。那就是，愛就是給予我們沒有的東西。你們也會看出，這到達一個基本的關鍵，在我們評論時，我們將必須遭遇的。

In any case, to enter into this subject, into this dismantling
through which this discourse of Socrates about Greek love will be
something illuminating for us, let us say that Greek love allows
us to separate out in the love relationship the two partners in a
neutral way (I mean at this something pure which is actually
expressed in the masculine gender), it is to allow there to be
articulated at first what happens at the level of this couple who
are respectively the lover and the beloved, erastes and eromenos.

無論如何，探討這個議題，探討這種分析，透過這種分析，蘇格拉底有關古希臘的愛的這個論述，對於我們將會有所啟明。容我們說，古希臘之愛容許我們在愛的關係，以中立的方式，分開兩位元伴侶，（我的意思是指，在男性這邊，確實被表達的純潔的東西）。它容許伴侶層次發生的事情被表達。這對伴侶個別是愛人與被愛者。

What I will tell you the next time consists in showing you how, around these two functions of lover and beloved, the process of what unfolds in the Symposium is such that we are going to be able to attribute respectively, with all the rigour that analytic experience is capable of, what is in question ………

下一次我將告訴你們，跟你們顯示，環繞愛人與被愛者的這兩個功用，在「饗宴」展開的內容，我們將能夠帶著精神分析經驗能夠做到的嚴謹，個別給予歸屬受到質疑的東西、、、

in other words we will see there articulated clearly, at a time when analytic experience as such was lacking, when the unconscious in its proper function with respect to the subject is undoubtedly a dimension which is not even suspected, and therefore with the limitation that this involves, you will see articulated in the(17) clearest fashion this something which comes to meet the summit of our experience;

換句話說，我們將會看出清楚被表達，當精神分析經驗本身是一種欠缺，當無意識的適當的功用，關於這個議題，無可置疑地，是一種甚至無法被懷疑的維度。因此，帶著這個牽涉到的限制，你們將會看到這個東西被表達，以清楚的方式。在我們精神分析經驗登峰造極時，這個東西會前來會合。

that which I tried throughout all these years to unfold before you under the double rubric, the first year of Object Relations, the year which followed, of Desire and its interpretation …. you will see clearly appearing and in formulae which are probably those to which we have come: the lover as subject of desire (and taking into account all the weight that we give to the word desire) the eromenos, the beloved, as being the one who in this couple is the only one to have something.

這些年來，我嘗試要在你們面前，以這雙重的架構展開。第一年是「客體關係」，第二年是「欲望及其解釋」、、、你們將會清楚地看出，它們的展現及可能我們已經獲得的公式：愛人作為欲望的生命主體，（考慮到我們賦予欲望這個字的價值），被愛者，在這對伴侶當中，作為是唯一具有某件東西的人。

The question of knowing whether “what he has” (because it is the
beloved who has it) has a relationship I would say even any
relationship whatsoever with that which the other, the subject of
the desire lacks.

問題是要知道，是否「他擁有的東西」，（因為是被愛者擁有它），跟伴侶，跟欲望的生命主體欠缺的東西，甚至有任何的關係，我不妨這麼說。

I would say the following, the question of the relationships between desire and the one before whom desire is fixed – as you know – has already led us around the notion of desire qua desire for something else.

容我說出以下的話，欲望與欲望在其面前被固定的伴侶之間的關係—如同你們知道—這個關係已經引導我們繞著這個欲望的觀念，作為對於某件其他東西的欲望。

We arrived at it by means of an analysis of the effects of language on the subject.

我們到達它，憑藉著語言對於生命主體的影響，產生的精神分析。

It is strange that a dialectic of love, that of Socrates, which is
precisely made up entirely by means of dialectic, by a testing of
the imperative effects of questioning as such, does not lead us
to the same crossroads.

奇怪的是，愛的辯證法，蘇格拉底的辯證法，確實是完全憑藉辯證組成，憑藉測試受到質疑的命令效果，它並沒有引導我們來到相同等十字路口。

You will see that indeed far from leading us to the same crossroads it will allow us to go beyond, namely, to grasp the moment of tipping over, the moment of reversal where from the conjunction of desire with its object qua inadequate, there must emerge the signification which is called
love.

你們將會看出，它確實沒有引導我們來到相同的十字路口，它將容許我們超越。換句話說，容許我們理解傾覆的時刻，倒轉的時刻，所謂愛的意義必須要出現。

It is impossible, without having grasped this articulation, the
conditions it involves in the symbolic, the imaginary and the real… not to grasp what is in question, namely in this effect so strange in its automatism which is called transference, to measure, to compare what is the part, the proportion between this transference and love, what there must be attributed to each one of them and reciprocally, in terms of illusion or of truth.

這是不可能，假如沒有理解這個表達，它在象徵界，想像界與真實界牽涉的情況、、、不理解受到質疑的東西，換句話說，在這個如此奇怪的效應，被稱為移情的自動現象，去測量，去比較這個部分，這個比率，處於移情跟愛之間，它們各別要互相歸屬的東西，使用真理的幻覺。

In this the path and the investigation that I introduced to you
today is going to prove to be of inaugural importance for us.
30.11.60 III 30

今天我跟你們介紹的這條途徑及研究，將會證明對於我們，具有震聾啟聵的重要性。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1123i

拉康論移情 1123i

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

Here, schoolboys are acneed and cretinised by the education they receive and these conditions are not really favourable for them to become the
object of our homage; it seems that one has to go searching for objects in out of the way places, the gutter, that is the whole difference.

在此，學童形同被他們接受的教育制式化及矮化。這種的情況對於他們變成我們尊重的客體，並不見得有利。似乎，我們必須尋求客體，從遙遠的地方，貧民區。那才是差異所在。

But there is no difference in the structure itself. (14) Naturally this causes scandal, given the outstanding dignity with which we have invested the Greek message.

在結構的本身，並沒有什麼差異。當然，這會引起醜聞，假如考慮到，我們曾經給予古希臘的訊息投注令人尊敬的威望。

And then there are the fine sentiments with which one surrounds oneself for this purpose, namely that we are told: all the same you must not
believe that for all that women did not receive appropriate homage.

因此為了這個目標，我們替自己環繞高貴的情感。換句話說，我們被告訴：同樣的，你們一定不要相信：儘管那樣，女人並沒有接受適當的尊重。

Thus Socrates, do not forget, precisely in the Symposium, where, as I told you, he says very little in his own name – but what he speaks is extraordinary – only he makes a woman speak in his place: Diotima.

因此，蘇格拉底，不要忘記，確實就在「饗宴」，如同我告訴你們的。他很少以自己的名義說話—但是他所言說的是很特別—他僅是讓一位女人代替他說話：帝奧提瑪。

Do you not see that the testimony, that the supreme homage comes back, even in the mouth of Socrates, to the woman?

你們看出嗎？這個證詞，從蘇格拉底的嘴中，最高的尊重回到這個女人？

Here at any rate is what right thinking people never fail at this point to highlight for us; and in addition, you know that from time to time he would go to visit Lais, Aspasia – historians collect all sorts of gossip – Theodota who was Alcibiades’ mistress.

無論如何，此時此刻，人們一定會跟我們強調適當的思想。除外，你們知道，有時他常常去探訪萊斯、阿帕西亞—-歷史學家們收集各種的八卦傳聞—希奧德達是阿西比底斯的情婦。

And as regards the famous Xanthippes, about whom I spoke to you the other day, she was there the day he died as you know, and she even gave out the most deafening cries.

關於著名的冉希匹斯，我前天跟你們提到他，你們知道阿西比底斯死亡時，她在現場，她甚至發出最震耳欲聾的哀哭聲。

There is only one problem… this is attested for us in the Phaedo, in any case, Socrates suggests that she should be put to bed immediately, that she should be got out at quickly as possible so that they can talk calmly, there are only a few hours left.

只有一個問題、、、在「費德」章節，我們獲得證實。無論如何，蘇格拉底建議，應該趕她去睡覺，她應該儘快被被驅出，這樣他們才能安靜地談話，僅剩幾個小時而已

Except for this, the function of the dignity of women will be preserved. I have no doubt in fact about the importance of women in antique Greek society, I would say even more, it is something very serious whose import you will subsequently see.

除了這一點，女人的尊嚴的功用將會被保持。事實上，關於古希臘社會，女人的重要性，我沒有懷疑。我甚至會說，這是某件嚴肅的事情，它的意義，你們隨後會看出。

It is that they had what I would call their true place. Not alone did they have their true place, but this means that they had a quite outstanding weight in love relationships and we have all sorts of testimonies of this.

他們擁有我所謂的他們真實的位置。他們不但擁有他們真實的位置，而且這意味著，他們在愛的關係，擁有傑出的地位。我們對於這一點，擁有各種的證詞。

It appears in fact, provided always that one knows how to read – one must not read the antique authors with wire netting on one’s glasses – that they had this role which is veiled for us but nevertheless is very
outstandingly their own in love: simply the active role, namely that the differences between the antique woman and the modern woman is that she demanded her due, that she attacked the man.

事實上，只有我們如何閱讀—我們一定不要用有色眼光，閱讀古代的作者—他們扮演他們我們無法理解的角色，可是這個角色，顯見就是她們自己在愛的的角色。換句話說，在古代女人與現代女人的差異，就是古代女人要求她應得的角色，她攻擊男人。

This is something that you can, I believe, put your finger on in
many cases. In any case when you have woken up to this point of
view on the question you will notice many things which otherwise,
in ancient history, seem strange. In any case Aristophanes who
was a very good music-hall producer, did not dissimulate from us
how the women of his time behaved.

這是某件你們做得到的事情。我相信，無論如何，請你們理解。無論如何，當你們醒悟到對於這個問題的這一個觀點，你們將不會注意到許多事情，在古代歷史，那些事情否則會很奇怪。無論如何，亞力斯多芬是一位很好的音樂廳的製作人，他並沒有跟我們掩飾，他當代的女人是如何行為。

There has never been anything more characteristic and more crude concerning the enterprises – as I might say – of women. And it is precisely
for that reason that learned love – as I might call it – took refuge elsewhere.

關於女人的表現，我不妨說，當時的表現是最具有特色而且粗曠。確實是因為這個理由，學習獲得的愛躲避到別的地方–容我如此稱呼。

We have here in any case one of the keys for the question which
should not astonish psychoanalysts too much.

無論如何，對於這個問題，我們在此所擁有的，精神分析師們不應該太過吃驚。

(15) This may appear perhaps quite a long detour to excuse the fact that in our enterprise (which is to analyse a text whose object is to know what it means to know about love) we take something obviously, we take what we know, that it refers to the time of Greek love, this love as I might say of the school, I mean of schoolboys.

為了解釋這個事情，我可能看起來繞了一大圈子。我們精神分析的努力，（那就是要分析一個文本，目的是要知道：愛是什麼意思），我們顯而易見地採取某件東西，我們接受我們知道的東西，它提到古希臘人的愛。我不妨說，這是學園之愛，我的意思是學生之愛。

Well, it is for technical reasons of simplification, of example, of a model which allows to be seen an articulation that otherwise is always elided in what is too complicated in love with women, it is because of this that this love of the school can be of use to us, can legitimately be of use to all (for our object) as a school for love.

呵呵，為了讓專業術語簡化，我舉個例子，舉個模式，容許大家明白這種表達。否則對於女人的愛，問題會太複雜而閃爍。因為這樣，這個學園之愛，對於我們會有點用途，作為我們的客體，它理當會有點用途，作為愛的學園。

This of course does not mean, that this is something to be relaunched. I would like to avoid any misunderstanding, because soon people will be saying that I am setting myself up here as a proponent of Platonic love.

當然，這並不意味著，這是可以重新再開張的事情。我想要避免任何的誤解，因我不久人們將會說，我正在這裏大張旗鼓，充當柏拉圖式的愛的宣導者。

There are many reasons why this can no longer serve as a school for love. If I were to tell you about them, this would again be a question of giving great sword thrusts through curtains when one does not know what there is behind – believe me – in general I avoid it.

有很多理由為什麼這不再充當愛的學園。若是我想要告訴你們這些，那將是把劍戮穿簾幕，我們不知道後面是什麼—請相信我—通常我避免這樣幹。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1123h

拉康論移情 1123h

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

Greek love, you have to get used to this idea, is the love of
beautiful boys. And then, hyphen, nothing else. It is quite
clear that when one speaks about love one is not speaking about
something else. All the efforts that we make to put this in its
place are destined to fail in advance. I mean that in order to
see exactly what it is we are obliged to move the furniture
around in a certain way, to reestablish certain perspectives, to
put ourselves in a certain more or less oblique position, to say
that this was not necessarily all there was… obviously…. of
course…

古希臘人的愛，你們必須習慣這個觀念，就是于美少年的愛。因此，中間加個連接等號，沒有別的。顯而易見，當我們談論到愛，我們並沒有談論別的東西。所有我們所做要取代它的的努力，預先都註定失敗。我的意思是，為了確實看出，是我們自己不得不以某種方式搬動傢俱，重新建立某種觀點，將我們自己放置在某個相當曖昧的立場，去說這未必是全部的內涵、、、明顯地、、、當然。

It nevertheless remains that on the plane of love there was nothing but that. But then on the other hand, if one says that, you are going to tell me that love for boys is something which was universally accepted.

可是問題仍然是，在愛的層次，道道地地就是這個。在另一方面，假如我們說，你們將要告訴我，對於美少年的愛，是普遍被接受的事情。

Well no! Even when one says that it nevertheless remains that in a whole part of Greece a very poor view was taken of it, that in a whole other part of Greece – Pausanias underlines it for us in the Symposium – it was very well regarded, and since it was the totalitarian part of Greece,
the Boeotians, the Spartans who belonged to the totalitarians (everything that is not forbidden is obligatory) not alone was it very well regarded, it was what was commanded.

呵呵，才不是！甚至當我們說，問題仍然是，在整個古希臘，對它採取貶抑的觀點，在整個古希臘的另一部分—保撒尼亞斯在「饗宴」跟我們強調它—它很受到關心，因為古希臘的集權的部分，伯奧汀人，斯巴達人屬於集權主義（並不是被禁止的事情，都具有強迫性，）對於美少年之愛不但受到仔細關切，而且廣受要求。

One could not stand apart from it. And Pausanias says: there are people who are much better. Among us, Athenians, it is well regarded but
it is prohibited all the same, and naturally that reinforces the
value of the thing. This is more or less what Pausanias tells us.

我們無法抽身事外。保撒尼亞斯說：有些人們狀況好些。至於我們，雅典人，少少年之愛仔細被關切，但是仍然被禁止。當然，那強調事情的價值。這是保撒尼亞斯告訴我們的。

All of this, of course, fundamentally, does not teach us very much, except that it was more credible on a single condition, that we should understand more or less what it corresponds to.

當然，所有這一切，基本上，並沒有教導我們什麼，除了在各別的情況，更為可信。我們應該有點瞭解，它所對應的東西。

To have an idea of it, you must refer to what I said last year about courtly love. It is not of course the same thing, but it occupies an analogous function.

為了瞭解它，你們必須提到我去年所說的，關於騎士之愛。這當然並不一樣，但是它具有一種類比的功用。

I mean that it is quite obviously of the order and of the function of sublimation, in the sense that I tried last year to contribute to this subject a slight rectification in your minds about what is really involved
in the function of sublimation.

我的意思是，顯而易見，它屬於昇華的秩序與功用。對於這個主題，我去年嘗試貢獻某種的修正，對於你們心裏構想的，昇華的功用真正牽涉的東西。

(13) Let us say that there is nothing involved here which we [cannot] put under the register of a kind of regression on a collective scale. I mean that this something which analytic doctrine indicates to us as being the support of the social bond as such, of fraternity among men, homosexuality, attaches it to the neutralisation of the bond. .

讓我們說，在此牽涉的東西，依照集體的形態，每一樣都能放置在倒退的狀態。我的意思是，精神分析信條跟我們指示的這個東西，作為社會默契本身的支援，屬於人際的博愛，同性戀之愛，將它連繫到默契的中立化、、、

It is not a question of dissolving this social bond, of returning to the innate form, it is quite obviously something else.

問題並不是要瓦解這種社會的默契，回轉到天生的形式。這顯而易見是別的東西。

It is a cultural happening and it is also clear that it is in the milieu of the masters of Greece, amongst people of a certain class, at the level at which there reigns and at which there is elaborated culture, that this
love is put into practice.

這是一種文化的事件，也是顯而易見，就在古希臘的主人的氛圍裏，在某種階級的人們當中，處於這個層次，這種被建構的文化很盛行，這種少年之愛被實行。

It is obviously the major centre for the elaboration of interhuman relationships.

顯而易見，這是人際關係的建構的主要中心。

I recall in a different form, the thing that I already indicated at the end of the last seminar, the schema of the relationship of perversion with culture in so far as it is distinguished from society.

我以不同的方式提到，我去年的演講結束時指示的東西。文化的這種變態的關係的基模，它從社會中被突顯出來。

If society brings with it by its censoring effect a form of disintegration which is called neurosis, it is in a contrary sense of development, of construction, of sublimation – let us say the word – that perversion can be conceived when it is produced by culture.

假如社會使用它的檢查效果，隨之帶來一種瓦解的形態，被稱為是神經症。這是發展、建構及昇華的相反意義—讓我們說這個字—變態能夠被構想，當它被文化產生時。

And if you wish, the circle closes in on itself: perversion contributing elements which torment society, neurosis favouring the creation of new elements of culture.

假如你們願意，這種迴圈自成一體：變態的促成因素苦惱著社會，神經症贊同新的文化因素。

However much a sublimation it may be, this does not prevent Greek
love from being a perversion. No culturalist point of view should predominate here. We cannot tell ourselves on the pretext that it was an accepted, approved, even celebrated perversion… homosexuality remains nevertheless what it was: a perversion.

無論它多麼的昇華，這並沒有阻止古希臘的少年之愛，不成為變態。沒有任何文化的觀點在此佔優勢。我們能夠告訴我們自己，理由是：它是被接受，被認同，甚至是被讚賞的變態、、、可是，同性戀始終是以前的樣子：一種變態。

That to want to tell us in order to arrange things that if, we, for our part, treat homosexuality, it is because in our day homosexuality is something quite different, it is no longer the fashion, and that in the time of the Greeks on the contrary it played its cultural function and as such is worthy of all our respect, this really is to evade what is properly speaking the problem.

為了要告訴我們，為老安排事情，就我們而言，假如我們對待同性戀，那是因為在我們的時代，同性戀是某件不同的東西。它不再是時髦，相反的，在古希臘的時代，它扮演它的文化的功用，它本身是值得我們尊敬。適當來說，這確實是要逃避問題。

The only thing which differentiates the contemporary homosexuality with which we have to deal and the Greek perversion, God knows, I believe that one can scarcely find it elsewhere than in the quality of objects.

唯一區別我們必須處理的當代的同性戀，古希臘的變態，天曉得，我相信，我們幾乎無法在別的地方找到，除了就在客體的特質。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1123g

拉康論移情 1123g

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

This “almost nothing” I will tell you if we have time today, it is important.
[Line missing in Master Copy]
to tell you, almost without nothing, is no doubt the essential.
And it is around this “almost nothing” that the stage really
turns, namely that people begin to really speak about the subject
in a way that one would have expected.

這個「幾乎一無所有」，假如我今天時間夠，我會告訴你們。這是很重要的。
（中間原稿脫頁）
無可置疑，告訴你們，何謂「幾乎一無所有」是很重要的。環繞著這個「一無所有」，舞臺轉變。換句話說，人們開始談論到主題，以出乎我們意料之外的方式。

Let us say right away that when all is said and done, in the type
of adjustment, of arranging the level at which things are to be
taken, you will see that when all is said and done Socrates does
not set it particularly high with respect to what the others say:
(11) it consists rather in centring things, in adjusting the lights so that one can properly see what is the average height.

讓我們立刻說，當一切都說都做了，以調整的方式，安排層次的方式，事情應該被採取，你們將會看出：當一切都說都做了，蘇格拉底並沒有特別重視別人說的話：相反的，它將焦點集中，調整光線，這樣我們才能適當地看出，平均的高度是什麼。

If Socrates tells us something it is, undoubtedly, that love is not something divine. He does not rate it very highly, but that is what he loves, he only loves that.

假如蘇格拉底告訴我們某件事，無可置疑的，那就是：愛並不是某件神聖的東西。他並沒有將它評估得很高，但那是他所愛的東西，他僅是愛那樣。

That having been said, the moment at which he begins to speak is also worthwhile underlining, it is just after Agathon.

說完那個之後，他開始談話的時刻，也是值得強調的。那就是在「阿加封」舉辦「饗宴」之後。

I am obliged to bring them in one after another, in accordance with the rhythm of my discourse, instead of bringing them all in from the beginning namely Phaidros, Pausanias, Aristodemos who had come there I should say as a toothpick, namely that he met Agathon, Socrates, and Socrates brought him; there is also Eryximachos who is a colleague of most of you, who is a doctor; there is Agathon who is the host, Socrates (who brought Aristodemos) who arrives very late because on the way he had what we could call an attack.

為了跟我的論述的節奏相配合，我不得不將他們一個接著一個帶進來，而不是從一開頭全部集合。換句話說，費得羅斯、保撒尼阿司，亞力斯多芬，他們在這裏，我應該說，是充當牙籤，他遇見阿加封及蘇格拉底。是蘇格拉底帶他來。還有一位阿瑞西馬周斯，他跟各位是同行，他是一位醫生。阿加封是饗宴主人，帶亞瑞斯多得摩斯來的蘇格拉底，很晚才到達，因為在途中，他遭受我們所謂的攻擊。

The attacks of Socrates consist in coming to a sudden halt, and
standing on one leg in a corner. He stops in the house next door where he has no business. He is planted in the hallway between the umbrella stand and the coatstand and there is no way of waking him up.

蘇格拉底遭受的攻擊在於突然被阻擋，隻腳站在角落。他停在隔壁房屋，無所事事。他被安頓在雨傘架與外衣架之間的穿堂，不可能喚醒他。

You have to give a little bit of atmosphere to these things. They are not as you will see the boring stories that you thought they were at secondary school. I would like one day to give a discourse in which I would take my examples precisely in the Phaidros, or again in a certain play of
Aristophanes, on something absolutely essential without which there is all the same no way of understanding how there is situated, what I would call in everything that is proposed to us by antiquity, the enlightened circle of Greece.

對於這樣的事情，你們必須添加一點氣氛。它們並不像你們看到的那麼無聊故事。你們以為他們懵懂的中學生！有一天我想要發表一種論述，確實就是以「費得洛斯」這個章節當例子。而且，儘管亞力斯多芬對於絕對是根本的東西的加油添醋，
我們仍然無法理解，當時的情況是怎樣。古代跟我們建議的一切，我所謂希臘的開明分子圈。

We ourselves live all the time in the midst of light. The night is in short carried on a stream of neon. But imagine all the same that up to an epoch which there is no need to refer to the time of Plato, a relatively recent epoch, night was night.

我們自己始終生活在開明的氣氛裏。總之，夜晚在尼虹燈的照耀下過去。但是請想像一下，一直到這個時代，我們還不需要提到柏拉圖的時代，就在比較最近的時代，夜晚就是夜晚。
、
When someone comes to knock, at the beginning of the Phaidros, to wake up Socrates, because he has to get up a little bit before daybreak (I hope that it is in the Phaidros but it does not matter, it is at the start of one of Plato’s dialogues) it is quite a business.

在費得洛斯章節開始時，有人來敲門，喚醒蘇格拉底，因為他必須在黎明之前起床（我希望這是在費得洛斯章節，不過沒有多大關係，它總是在柏拉圖對話錄的其中一個開頭），精彩的在那裏。

He gets up, and he is really in the dark, namely that he knocks things over if he tries to take a step.

他起床，實際上是在黑暗中。換句話說，他碰翻東西，假如他嘗試走動。

At the beginning of a play by Aristophanes to which I also alluded, when one is in the dark one is really in the dark, it is here that one does not recognise the person who touches your hand.

就在亞力斯多芬的戲劇的開始，我也提到，有一個人在黑暗中，那真的黑漆漆，你認不出是誰碰觸到你的手。

To take up what was still happening at the time of Marguerite de Navarre, the stories of the Heptameron are full of stories of this sort.

為了探討瑪格麗特時代，還依舊經常發生的事情，「瑪格麗特文集」裏的故事，就充滿了諸如其類。

Their possibility rests on the fact that at that time, that when one slipped into a woman’s bed at night, it is considered to be one of the things that is most possible, provided you keep your mouth shut, to have oneself taken for her (12) husband or for her lover. And this it appears was frequently practised.

它們的可能性依靠這個事實。在當時，當我們在夜晚偷溜到一個女人的床上，這被認為是很有可能的事，只要你不要開口說話，讓自己被誤認為是她的丈夫，或她的情人。這是司空見慣的事情。

This completely changes the dimension of relationships between human beings. And obviously what I would call in a quite different sense the diffusion of lights changes many things because of the fact that night is no longer for us a consistent reality, the fact that you can no longer pour it from a ladle, make of blackness something dense, removes certain
things, many things from us.

這完全改變人際之間的關係的維度。顯而易見的，我所謂的光線的彌漫，會以完全不同的意義，改變許多事情。事實上，對於我們而言，夜晚不再是那麼一貫地黑漆漆，你們不再能夠摸黑幹點事情，很多事情就不能有機可乘了。

All of this to come back to our subject which is the one that we must come back to, namely what is signified by this illuminated circle in which we are, and what is in question as regards love when one speaks about it in Greece. When one speaks about it, well… as M. de la Palisse would say, we are dealing with Greek love.

所有這一切回到我們的主題。我們必須回到主題，也就是在這些開明分子圈的所作所為，我們是其中有分子。受到置疑的是當我們談論到希臘時代的事。當我們談論到它，、、、如巴立色所說，我們是在處理古希臘的愛的問題。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康论移情 1123f

拉康論移情 1123f

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

Since things can be written down, the things that must be remembered are for us in what I have called kilograms of language namely, piles of books and heaps of papers.

因為事情能夠被寫下來，必須被記住的事情，對於我們而言，在於所謂的「幾公斤的語言」，也就是一大堆的書跟一大堆的論文。

But when paper was rarer, and books much more difficult to fabricate and to diffuse, it was an extremely important thing to have a good memory, and – as I might say – to experience everything that had been heard in the register of the memory which conserves it.

但是當論文較罕見，書籍更加困難建構及散播時，擁有好的記憶就極端重要—我不妨說—要經驗每一樣曾經聽過的事情，銘記在保存它的記憶裏。

And it is not only at the beginning of the Symposium but in all the traditions that we know that we can see the testimony that the oral transmission of science and of wisdom is absolutely essential there.

這不僅是「饗宴」的開始，而且是所有的傳統的開始。我們知道，我們能夠看見這個證詞，科學與智慧的口耳相傳，在那裏是絕對重要的。

It is because of this moreover that we still know something about it, it is in the measure that writing does not exist that oral tradition functions as a support.

而且，因為這個，我們依舊知道某件關於它的事情。在書寫並不存在之時，口耳傳遞的傳統充當一種支持。

And it is indeed to this that Plato referred in the mode in which he presents to us…. in which the text of the Symposium comes to us. He has it recounted by someone who is called Apollodorus.

柏拉圖的確提到這個，在呈現給我們的模式裏。在裏面，「饗宴」的文本來到我們這裏。他要求某位名叫阿保洛得拉斯的人，將它講述下來。

We are aware of the existence of this personage. He exists historically and this Apollodorus who is made to speak by Plato (because Apollodorus speaks) is supposed to come at a time dated at about a little more than thirty years before the appearance of the Symposium if one takes the date of about 370 for the publication of the Symposium.

我們知道這個名人的存在。他存在於歷史上，這位阿保洛得拉斯，柏拉圖要求他言說，（因為阿保洛得拉斯言說）。他出現的時間應該是在「饗宴」出現前三十幾年，假如我們從「饗宴」的出版，大約是370年來推算日期。

It is before the death of Socrates that there is placed what Plato tells us is said at that moment that there is to be transmitted by
Apollodorus this account about what happened, again fifteen years
earlier than the moment when he is supposed to have received it
because we have reasons for thinking that it was in 416 that there took place this so called sumposion at which he assisted.

在蘇格拉底死亡之前，柏拉圖告訴我們的話，被擺放在那裏，這個講述應該被阿保洛得拉斯傳遞，關於所發生的事情，比他應該接收它的這個時刻早十五年。因為我們有理由認為，那是416年，他幫助記錄的所謂「饗宴」被舉行。

It is therefore sixteen years after that a personage extracts from his memory the literal text of what is supposed to have been said.

因此是十六年以後，一位名人從他的記憶抽取，有關應該被說的實質的文本。

Therefore, the least that can be said, is that Plato takes all the measures necessary to make us believe at least in what was commonly practised and which is still practised in these phases of culture, namely what I called brain recording.

因此，至少能夠被說的是，柏拉圖採取所有必須要的措施，為了讓我們至少相信，在文化的這些部門，共同被做及依舊被做到。換句話說，腦筋記錄。

He underlines that this same personage, Aristodemus … that some of
(10) the tape had been damaged, that there may be gaps at certain
points.

他強調，這個相同的人物，亞力斯多芬、、、有些錄音帶已經被損壞，為了讓某些要點之間有空隙。

All of this obviously does not at all settle the question of historical veracity but has nonetheless a great verisimilitude.

所有這個顯而易見絲毫沒有解決歷史真實性的問題，可是它仍然非常逼真。

If it is a lie, it is a beautiful lie. Since on the other hand it is obviously the work of love, and that, perhaps we will come to see there being highlighted for us the notion that after all only liars can appropriately reply to love, even in this case the Symposium would respond certainly to something which is like (this on the contrary is bequeathed to us without ambiguity) the elective reference of the action of Socrates to love.

假如這是一個謊言，這是一個美麗的謊言。因為在另一方面，顯而易見，愛的工作，或許我們將會漸漸看出，它跟我們強調這個觀念：畢竟，僅有說謊者能夠適當地回答愛，即使在這個情況，「饗宴」確實會回應像是蘇格拉底選擇性地提到愛，（相反地，這件東西毫無曖美的留給我們）。

This indeed is why the Symposium is such an important testimony.

這的確是為什麼「饗宴」是如此重要的一個證詞。

We know that Socrates himself testifies, affirms that he really does not know anything (no doubt the Theages in which he says it is not one of Plato’s dialogues but it is all the same a dialogue of someone who wrote about what was known about Socrates and what remained of Socrates) and Socrates in the Theages is attested to have expressly said that he knew nothing in short except “this little bit of science, smikrou tinos mathematos” which is that of “ton erotikon, the things of love”. He repeats it in these very terms, in terms which are exactly the same at a point in the Symposium.

我們知道，蘇格拉底本人證實，肯定他確實一無所知（無可置疑，在「希吉」的章節，據說並不是柏拉圖的對話之一，但是它仍然是某個人的對話，裏面寫到蘇格拉底及其殘留的軼事。）在「希吉」章節，蘇格拉底被證實曾經令人動容地說：總之，他一無所知，除了「這一點智慧」，那就是說「愛的情事」。他重複它，用這些術語，這些術語跟「饗宴」裏的某一要點相同，

The subject then of the Symposium is this… the subject had been
proposed, put forward by a personage called neither more nor less
Phaidros.

「饗宴」的主題因此是這個、、、這個主題曾經被建議，但是被一位名人提出，他的名字道道地地就是費得洛斯。

Phaidros will also be the one who has given his name to another dialogue, the one to which I referred last year in connection with the beautiful and in which there is also question of love (the two are linked in Platonic thought).

費得洛斯也是這個人，另外一個對話錄的標題。這個標題我去年提到，關於美的事物。在裏面，也談到愛的問題（在柏拉圖思想裏，美與愛息息相關。）

Phaidros is said to be pater tou logou, “the father of the subject” (177d),
in connection with what is going to be dealt with in the Symposium, the subject is the following: in short what use is it to know about love? And we know that Socrates claims to know nothing about anything else.

費得洛斯據說是「這位元主題之創導者」，關於在「饗宴」裏將要被處理的東西，這個主題如下：總之，瞭解愛有什麼用途？我們知道，蘇格拉底宣稱關於愛以外的事情，一無所知。

It is all the more striking to make this remark which you will be able to appreciate with its proper value when you refer to the text: you will see that Socrates says almost nothing in his own name.

更加耐人尋味的是，發表這個談論。你們將會欣賞這個談論的適當價值，當你們參照文本時。你們將會看出：蘇格拉底幾乎沒有以自己名義說些什麼。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1123e

拉康論移情 1123e

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

This reserve after all deserves rather our respect. I mean that
it is all the same the feeling that there is here something which
poses questions.

這種保留畢竟應該獲得我們的尊敬。我的意思是，仍然是會有這種感覺，在此就是會有某件東西引起非議。

And I prefer that than to see it resolved by the singular hypotheses which frequently appear. The prettiest of them – this is one among thousands – Mr. Leon Robin sides with it (and this is astonishing) is that Plato here wanted to justify his master. The scholars have discovered that someone called Polycrates brought out [a pamphlet] some years after the death of Socrates.

我寧可它是這樣，而不願意看到它被後來出現的各種奇怪假設來詮釋。幾千種當中最奇特的一種詮釋，李昂、羅賓偏袒它，（真是令人驚奇）。那就是，柏拉圖在此想要證明他的老師是振振有理的。這些學者發現，某一位名叫波利拉特的人，在蘇格拉底死亡之後好幾年，出版一本小冊子。

You know that he was brought down under different accusations which were made by three personages one of whom was called Anytus a certain Polycrates is supposed to have effectively put that in the mouth of Anytus, an indictment the principal body of which was constituted by the fact that Socrates is supposed to have been responsible precisely for what I spoke
to you about above, namely for what one can call the scandal, the
sowing of corruption; he is supposed to have dragged Alcibiades
after him throughout his life, with all the procession of problems indeed of catastrophes which he brought with him.

你們知道，他被控訴好幾種罪名，有三位名人提出的控訴。其中一位名叫安塔士，作者波利拉特，被認為有效地安排有些話，由安塔士的口中說出。這種控訴的主要本體是根據這個事實構成：蘇格拉底應該要負起責任，對於我以上跟你們談論的東西。也就是，我們所謂的「醜聞」，傷風敗俗；他應該終其一生，跟阿西比底斯患難與共，紛至遝來的災難都跟他有關。

(8) It must be admitted that the idea that Plato justified the morals if not the influence of Socrates by confronting us with the scene of public confession by this character, is really a backhanded way of doing things. One must really ask what the people who produce such hypotheses are thinking about.

我們必須承認，柏拉圖證實道德的觀念，他通過這個人物，讓我們面對公共告白的場面。他若不是受到蘇格拉底的影響，那可是把事情弄巧成拙。我們必須真正地詢問：提出這些假設的人們，到底在想些什麼？

That Socrates should have resisted Alcibiades’ attempts, that this by
itself can justify this piece of the Symposium as something destined to elevate the sense of his mission in public opinion, is something which, as far as I am concerned, leaves me flabbergasted.

蘇格拉底本來應該抗拒阿西比底斯的誘惑，這件事的本身就能夠證明「饗宴」這一章節，是註定會提升他的使命感受到公共輿論。就我而言，這件事會使我無言以對。

It is all the same necessary that either we are confronted with the consequence of reasons that Plato does not tell us about or that this piece has in effect a function, I mean that this irruption of this personage who has all the same the closest relationship with what is in question: the question of love.

這仍然是需要的，我們要就面對柏拉圖沒有告訴我們的各種理由的後果，或是這篇章節實際上發揮功用的理由。我的意思是，這位名字的闖入，跟受到置疑的問題，仍然有密切的關係，那就是愛的問題。

To see then what is involved, and it is precisely because, what
is involved is precisely the point around which there turns everything that is in question in the Symposium, the point around which there is going to be clarified at the deepest level not so much the question of the nature of love as the question which interests us here, namely, of its relationship with transference.

為了明白牽涉的內容，確實是因為，牽涉的內容，確實是「饗宴」受過置疑的一切繞轉的那個點。繞轉的那個點，以最深刻層次，將會被澄清的，與其說是愛的特性的問題，不如說是我們在此感到興趣的問題：愛跟移情的關係。

It is because of this that I am going to focus the question on this articulation between the text which is reported to us of the discourses pronounced in the sumposion, (416BC) and the irruption of Alcibiades.

因為這個，我將把這個問題專注於：「饗宴」跟我們宣稱的論述報導的這個文本，與阿西比底斯的闖入之間的表達。

At this point I must outline for you at first something about the
meaning of these discourses, first of all the text of them that
is transmitted to us, the narrative. What in fact is this text?

在這一點，我必須跟你們描繪某件東西的輪廓，關於這些論述的意義。首先就是他們被傳遞給予我們的文本，這個描述。事實上，這個文本是什麼？

What does Plato tell us? First of all one can ask oneself that question. Is it a fiction, a fabrication, as many of his dialogues manifestly are
which are compositions which obey certain laws (and God know that
on this point there would be much to say)? Why this genre? Why
this law of dialogue? We are going to have to leave these things to one side; l a m only indicating to you that there is on this point a whole range of things to be known.

柏拉圖告訴我們什麼？首先，我們能夠詢問自己那個問題。它是一種幻想？一種虛構？如同他的許多對話錄明顯的樣子？這些著作都服從某些的法則？（天曉得，在這一點，就有很多可說。）為什麼他採取這種寫作藝術？為什麼他採取對話的這個法則？我們將必須把這些問題先擺一邊。我僅是要跟你們指示，在這一點，有一整套的問題有待探索。

But this has all the same a different character, a character moreover which is not altogether foreign to the mode in which we are shown certain
of these dialogues.

但是這仍然具有不同的特性。而且，這個特性對於這個模式而言，並不完全是陌生。在這個模式裏，我們被顯示這些對話錄的某些特性。

To make myself understood, I would say the following: if we can take the Symposium as we are going to take it, let us say as a sort of account of psychoanalytic sessions (because effectively it is something like this that is in question) because in the measure that there progress, that there succeed one another these contributions of the different participants in this sumposion something happens which is the successive clarification of each one of these flashes by the one which follows, then at the end
something which is really reported to us as the sort of raw even
inconvenient happening, the irruption of life into it, the presence of (9) Alcibiades.

為了讓我自己被人瞭解，我表達如下：假如我們能夠接受「饗宴」，依照我們將要接受的，充當是一種描述精神分析的諮商面談，（因為它有效地類似受到質疑的這個）。因為隨著進展，接續而來的，「饗宴」裏不同參與者的這些貢獻，會發生某件事情；那就是連續地澄清每個臨機的發揮。最後，有人跟我們報導某件事，當作是這種新發生，甚至是冒失的事情：生命力闖入「饗宴」，阿西比底斯的存在。

And it is for us to understand the meaning precisely of this discourse of Alcibiades.

我們確實應該瞭解阿西比底斯的這個論述的意義。

So then, if this is what is in question, we would have according
to Plato a sort of recording of it.

所以，假如這是受到質疑的東西，依照柏拉圖，我們應該對它有個記錄。

Since there was no tape recorder, we will say that it is a brain recording. Brain recording is an extremely old practice, which sustained – I would even say – the way of listening for long centuries of people who participated in serious matters, as long as writing had not taken on this function of a dominant factor in the culture which is the one it has in our day.

因為沒有答錄機，我們將會說，他是用腦筋錄音。腦筋錄音是極端古老的做法，漫長世紀來，它維持傾聽參與重要事物的人們，只要寫作尚未擔負起文化這個重要因素的功用，它在我們時代擁有的功用。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

拉康論移情 1123d

拉康論移情 1123d

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN BOOK VIII
拉康研討班第八冊

Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

But he was all the same a rather special one. Imagine that it is somebody like Mr. Massignon and who at the same time is Henry Miller. That would
produce a certain effect. It would lead to some difficulties for Jean-Jacques Pauvert who would have published this work.

但是他仍然是一位相當特別的教授。想像某位像是馬西倫及同時又是亨利、密勒的人，那會產生某種的影響，引起雅克、保波特某些的困難，他本來想出版這本著作。

Let us recall this at the moment when it is a question of noting
that this astonishing work has been transmitted to us throughout
the centuries by the hands of what we should call in different ways different kinds of benighted friars, which means that we have without any doubt the complete text.

讓我們提醒這一點，問題是要注意到，這種令人驚奇的著作，經過好幾世紀，傳遞給我們，以不同方式，經由我們所謂的不同種類欠缺知識的僧侶手中。這意味著，無可置疑地，我們擁有完整的文本。

Well! That is what I thought, not without a certain admiration,
in leafing through this admirable edition which Henri Estienne
gave us of it in a Latin translation.

呵呵！這就是我所想的，不無帶著某些崇拜之情，當我在翻閱這個令人崇拜的版本，亨利、耶提尼給予我們，從拉丁文翻譯。

And this edition is definitive enough for there still to be now, in all the different learned, critical editions, it is already, this edition, the perfect critical one whose pagination is given to us.

這版本足夠明確讓不同學者的批評版本，現在依舊出現這裏。我們被給予這個版本，完美的批評版本的頁碼。

Those who are coming to this for the first time, should know that the
little 272a or others, by which you see noted the pages to which
you should refer, is only the pagination of Henri Estienne (1578).

那些第一次來這裏的那些人應該知道：在272頁左右，你們看到有頁數被注明，你們應該參照一下。這是亨利 耶提尼的唯一頁碼。

Henri Estienne was certainly not benighted, but one finds it difficult to believe that someone who was capable (this was not all he did) of devoting himself to producing such monumental editions [had an] openness to life such that he could fully appreciate the contents of what there is in this text, I mean in so far as it is above all a text about love.

亨利 耶提尼確定並不是欠缺知識，但是我們發現我們很難相信：能夠專注精力來產生這部钜作版本的人（未必是他一人之功），會公開接受這樣的生活，他才能夠欣賞這個文本裏面的內容。我的意思，這尤其是有關愛的文本。

At the same epoch – that of Henri Estienne – other people were interested in love and I can tell you quite frankly: when I spoke to you last year at length about the sublimation of the love of women, the hand which I was holding invisibly was not that of Plato nor of some erudite person, but that of Marguerite of Navarre.

在相同的時代—亨利 耶提尼的時代—還有其他人對於愛感到興趣，我相當坦白地告訴你們：當我去年跟你們詳細地談論有關女人的愛的昇華，我手裏隱形握著的，並不是柏拉圖的版本，也不是某位博學之士的版本，而是瑪格麗特的版本。

I alluded to it without insisting. You should know, for this sort of banquet, of sumposion also which her Heptameron is, she carefully excluded these sort of people with dirty nails who were emerging at the time and renewing the content of the libraries.

我提到它，但是可有可無。你們應該知道，對於這種的宴會，也是一種饗宴，她的短篇小說文集，她小心排除當時出席手指甲骯髒的人，然後再重新按排圖書的內容。

She only wants knights, lords, personages who, in speaking about love speak about something that they had time to live.

她只接納騎士、貴族、名人。當談論到愛時，這些人談到他們有時間去生活的事情。

And also in all the commentaries which have been given about the Symposium it is indeed this dimension which often seems to be lacking that we thirst after. It does not matter.

而且，關於這種「饗宴」，所被給予所有的評注，確實就是我們渴望的這個維度，往往似乎是欠缺的。這無關緊要。

(7) Among those people who never doubt that their understanding – as Jaspers says – attains the limits of the concrete-tangible comprehensible, the story of Alcibiades and Socrates has always been difficult to swallow.

那些人從來沒有懷疑，他們的理解力—如同哲學家亞斯培所說—他們的理解力遭遇具體明白才可理解的這些限制。阿西比底斯與蘇格拉底的故事，總是讓他們很難接受。

As testimony I will only take the following: that Louis le Roy, Ludovicus rejus, who is the first translator into French of these texts which were just emerging from the orient for western culture, quite simply stopped there, at the entry of Alcibiades. He translated nothing after that.

作為證詞，我僅是接受以下：路易士 雷羅是第一位將這些文本翻譯成法文的翻譯者。這些文本剛剛從東方出現在西方文化，就是停頓在那兒，在阿西比底斯進入饗宴的地方。後面部分，他根本就不翻譯了。

It seemed to him that enough beautiful discourses had been made
before Alcibiades entered. Which indeed is in fact the case
moreover.

他覺得，在阿西比底斯進入饗宴之前，那些論述已經足夠優美。而且，事實上，情況確實如此。

Alcibiades appeared to him as something added on, apocryphal, and he is not the only one to have behaved in this way. I will spare you the details. But Racine received one day from a lady who had been working on a translation of the Symposium a manuscript to look over. Racine who was a sensitive man had considered that as untranslatable and not alone the story of Alcibiades but all the Symposium.

他覺得，阿西比底斯是某件被增添的東西，是偽造的。他並不是唯一以這種方式表現的人。細節我就不再多說了。但是有一天，拉辛從一位從事翻譯「饗宴」的女士那裏，收到要審閱的原稿。拉辛是一位敏感的人，他認為，不但是阿西比底斯，而且整部「饗宴」是不可翻譯的。

We have his notes which prove that he had looked very closely at the manuscript which had been sent to him; but as regards redoing it, because it was a question of nothing less than redoing it (it needed somebody like
Racine to translate the Greek), he refused.

我們擁有他的注釋證明，他曾經很仔細閱讀寄給他的原稿。但是關於修正它，因為問題道道地地就是要修正它，（要翻譯拉丁文，當非拉辛莫屬），他拒絕了。

A small thing for him. Third reference. I have the good luck to have found a long time ago, in a corner, handwritten notes from the course given by Brochard on Plato.

對他，這是小事。第三個資料。我很幸運很久以前就已經找到，在一個角落，用手書寫的注釋，從研究柏拉圖的布羅查教授所開的課程。

It is very remarkable, these notes are very well taken, the writing is exquisite. In connection with the theory of love, Brochard of course refers to all the appropriate things: the Lysis, the Phaedrus, the Symposium.

非常引人注意的，這些注釋小心從事，書寫精美。關於愛的理論，布羅查當然會提到各種適當的事情：柏拉圖的「論友誼」「論愛情」及「饗宴」。

Above all the Symposium. There is a very well done operation of
substitution when one arrives at the Alcibiades affair. He links up, he switches things onto the Phaedrus which, at that moment takes up the baton. He does not take responsibility for the story of Alcibiades.

尤其是「饗宴」。當我們談到阿西比底斯的情事，他巧妙地掩飾。他連接，他轉接到菲德拉斯的「論愛情」。就在那個時刻，他侃侃而談。他不負責阿西比底斯的故事。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com