拉康論移情 0419b

拉康論移情 0419b


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 16; Wednesday 19 April 1961

Here this bouquet covers the precise point of an absent presence, of a presentified absence.


The technical history of the painting of the epoch invites us, not by my voice but by the voice of critics who started from premises quite different to those which on this occasion guide me here.


They have underlined the kinship there is because of the very fact of the probable collaborator who is the one who especially made the flowers.


Certain things indicate to us that it is not, probably, the same artist who at work in the two parts of the painting and that it is a different person, Francesco, a brother or cousin of the artist, instead of Jacopo who, by reason of his technical skill, was asked to be the one to produce this piece of bravura of the flowers in their vase at the appropriate


This is related by the critics to something which I hope a certain number of you know, namely the technique of Arcimboldo which, a few months ago, was brought to the knowledge of those who inform themselves a little about the different returns to the present of aspects which are sometimes elided, veiled or forgotten in the history of art.


This Arcimboldo is distinguished by this singular technique which
produced its latest off-shoot in the work for example of my old friend Salvador Dali, which consists in what Dali has called paranoiac drawing.


In the case of Arcimboldo, it is to represent the face for example of the librarian (he worked mainly at the court of the famous Rudolph II of Bohemia who also left many other traces in the tradition of the rare object) of Rudolph II by a clever putting together of the primary implements
of the librarian’s function, namely a certain fashion of (3) arranging books in such a way that the image of a face, of a visage is here much more than suggested, really imposes itself.

在阿西姆伯德的情況, 它是要呈現這個臉孔,譬如,圖書館員的臉孔 (他主要是從事波西米亞的著名的魯道夫二世的宮廷,那裡留下許多其它的遺跡,在稀有客體的傳統),他繪製魯道夫二世的圖書館員,巧妙地使用圖書館員的功用的基本要素的拼貼。 換句話說, 使用各種安排書籍的方法,讓一個臉孔,一個外貌的意象,在此不僅是被建議,確實是賦加它自己。

In the same way the symbolic theme of a season incarnated in the form of a human face will be materialised by all the fruits of this season whose assemblage will itself be realised so that the suggestion of a face also imposes itself in the form produced.

同樣地, 一個季節的象徵的主題,以人類臉孔的形式具體表現,將會具體化,根據這個季節所有的水果,這些水果的彙集本身將會被實現,這樣一個臉孔的暗示也賦加它自己,以被產生的形式。

In short this production of that which in its essential shape presents itself as the human image, the image of another, will be realised in the Mannerist method by the coalescence, combination, the accumulation of a pile of objects the total of which will be charged with representing what henceforth manifests itself at once as substance and illusion because, at the same time as the appearance of the human image is sustained, something is suggested which can be imagined in the disaggregation of objects which, by presenting in a way the function of the mask, show at the same time the problematic of this mask.

總之, 這個作品在它的基本的形狀,呈現它自己,作為人的意象,另外一個人的臉孔的意象, 將會以格調主義的方式被實現,使用接合,連接,累積一大堆東西。這些東西的總合將會被賦予代表因此展現它自己的東西,既當作材料,也當作幻覺。因為當人類的意象的外表被維持的同時,某件東西被建議。這個東西在客體崩潰時被想像。當這些客體以面具的功用呈現時,它們同時顯示這個面具的難題。

That with which in short we always have to deal every time we see coming into play this so essential function of the person, in so far as we see it all the time in the foreground in the economy of human presence,
is the following: if there is a need for a persona it is because behind, perhaps, every form slips away and vanishes.

總之,我們總是必須處理,每一次我們看到人的這個如此基本的功用運作時。我們始終看到它在前景裡, 在人的存在的活動裡,那就是以下: 假如有需要一個角色面具,因為在背後,或許,每個形式會溜走並且消失。

And undoubtedly, if it is from a complex assemblage that the persona results, it is indeed in effect here that there lies at once the lure and the fragility of its subsistence and that, behind, we know nothing about what can be sustained, because a reduplicated appearance is imposed on us or suggests itself essentially as reduplicated appearance, namely something which when questioned leaves a vacuum, the question of knowing what there is behind in the final analysis.

無可置疑的,假如角色面具來自一個複雜的彙集,實際上, 確實是在這裡, 它的生存的陷阱及脆弱性就在這裡。 而在背後,我們什麼都不知道, 關於什麼能夠被維持, 因為一個複製的外表被賦加在我們之上,或建議它自己,基本上作為被複製的外表。也就是說, 某件東西,當它被質疑時,它會留下一個真空。總歸到底,問題是要知道,背後是什麼。

It is indeed therefore in this register that there is affirmed, in the composition of the painting, the maintaining of the question of knowing (because this is what we should now maintain, sustain essentially before our minds) what is happening in the act of Psyche.

因此確實是在這個銘記,維持想要知道的問題被肯定, 在圖畫的繪製結構,( 因為這是我們現在應該維持,基本上維持在我們的心靈之前),要知道賽奇女神的動作,發生什麼事。

The fulfilled Psyche questions herself about what she is dealing with and it is this moment, this precise, privileged instant that Zucchi has held onto, perhaps well beyond what he himself could, would have been able to articulate about it in a discourse – there is a discourse on the antique gods by this personage, I was careful to consult it, without any great
illusion, there is nothing much to be drawn from this discourse – but the work speaks sufficiently for itself.

這個被實現的賽奇女神詢問她自己,關於她正在處理的東西。就在這個時刻,這個明確的特權的瞬間, 朱奇曾經掌握, 或許遠超越他自己能夠,或本來能夠用論述來表達它—這個人物有一個對於古代眾神的論述,我很仔細地參照它,不帶任何幻想,從這個論述裡,根本沒有東西能夠被獲得—但是作品本身已經足夠替它自己說話。

And the artist has in this image grasped this something instantaneous which I called the last time this moment of the apparition, of the birth of Psyche, this sort of exchange of powers which ensures that she
becomes embodied, and with all this cortege of misfortunes which will be her’s in order that she should loop a loop, in order that she should rediscover in this instant this something which, for her, is going to disappear the instant after, precisely what she had wanted to grasp, what she had wanted to unveil: the face of desire.

藝術家在這個意象曾經掌握這個某件瞬間的東西,上一次我稱它為魅影的這個時刻,賽奇女神誕生的時刻。權力的這種的交換保證,她會變得具體化,帶著一大堆屬於她的不幸,這樣她才能環環相扣,這樣她才會在這個瞬間重新發現這個某件東西。對於她而言, 這個東西將會消失,在她曾經想要揭露的瞬間: 欲望的臉孔。 這確實是她曾經想要掌握的。

What justifies the introduction of the symbol ^> (phi) as such, since I put it forward as that which comes in place of the missing signifier? What does it mean that a signifier should be lacking?


How many times have I told you that once given the battery of signifiers beyond a certain minimum which remains to be determined – regarding which I told you that at the limit four should be enough for all significations – there is no tongue, however primitive it may be, where finally everything cannot be expressed, except of course for the fact that, as the Vaudois proverb puts it: “Everything is possible for man, what he cannot do he leaves undone”, that what cannot be expressed in the aforesaid tongue, well quite simply it will not be felt.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: