Ethic 277

Ethic 277
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XXI
第21章

Antigone between two deaths
安提贡尼处于两次死亡之间

THE LAW OF EX NIH1LO
从空无中创造的法则

THE DEATH D R I V E ILLUSTRATED
举例说明死亡冲动

COMPLEMENT
补助

3
And it is to Antigone that we must now turn.

现在我们必须回到安提贡尼。

Is she, as the classic interpretation would have it, the servant of a sacred order, of respect for living matter? Is hers the image of charity? Perhaps, but only if we confer on the word charity a savage dimension. Yet the path from Antigone’s passion to her elevation is a long one.

依照古典的解释，她是神圣秩序的女儿，是对具有生命的物质的尊敬吗？她的意象是慈善的意象吗?　或许，只是我们要将慈善这个字词，赋予野蛮的维度。可是，从安提贡尼的激情到她的升华，是一条漫长的途径。

When she explains to Creon what she has done, Antigone affirms the advent
of the absolute individual with the phrase “That’s how it is because that’s
how it is.” But in the name of what? And to begin with on the basis of what?I must quote the text.

当她对克瑞恩解释她曾经做到事，安提贡尼肯定这个绝对的个人的来临，用这个词语：「那是它的样子，因为那就是它的样子。」但是以怎样的名义？首先，根据什么的基础？我必须引述原文。

She says clearly, “You made the laws.” But once again the sense is missed. Translated word for word, it means, “For Zeus is by no means the one who proclaimed those things to me.” Naturally, she is understood to have said -and I have always told you that it is important not to understand for the sake of understanding – “It’s not Zeus who gives you the right to say that.” But she doesn’t, in fact, say that. She denies that it is Zeus who ordered her to do it. Nor is it Δίκη, which is the companion or collaborator of the gods below. She pointedly distinguishes herself from Δίκη. “You have got that all mixed up,” she, in effect, says. “It may even be that you are wrong in the way you avoid the Δίκη. But I’m not going to get mixed up in it; I’m not concerned with all these gods below who have imposed laws on men.” ωρκσαν, όρίξω, ορός means precisely the image of an horizon, of a limit. Moreover, the limit in question is one on which she establishes herself, a place where she feels herself to be unassailable, a place where it is impossible for a mortal being to ύπβρδραμ&ν, to go beyond νόμιμα, the laws. These are no longer laws, νόμος, but a certain legality which is a consequence of the laws of the
gods that are said to be άγραπτα, which is translated as “unwritten,” because that is in effect what it means. Involved here is an invocation of something that is, in effect, of the order of law, but which is not developed in any signifying chain or in anything else.

她清楚地说，「你制定法律。」但是再一次，意义被失漏。逐字地翻译，它的意思是：「因为宙斯天神绝非是对我宣佈那些事情的人。」当然，我们理解她的意思是说—我总是告诉你们，这是很重要的，不要为了理解而理解—「宙斯天神并没有赋予你这个权力那样说。」但是事实上，她并没有那样说。她否认，宙斯天神命令她这样做。也不是世间的众神的同伴或是共谋者命令。她尖锐地区别她自己，跟同伴或共谋者。「你把所有那一切都搞混了。」实际上，她是这样说，「甚至你是错误，当你避开那个同伴或共谋。」但是我不要在里面被搞混。我跟世界的这些众神没有关系，他们赋加法则在人们身上。ωρκσαν, όρίξω, ορός 确实是意味着地平线的意象，限制的意象。而且，受到质疑的这个限制是她用来作为自己基础的限制，在那个地方，她感觉自己是不会被攻击得了。在那个地方，作为人的生物，无法超越法则。这些不再是法则，而是有某种的合法性，作为众神的法则的结果。这些众神据说是άγραπτα,，可翻译成为「不成文法」。因为那就是它实际上的意涵。在此被牵涉的是某种东西的召唤，实际上，就是法律秩序的东西。但是它并没有被发展，在能指化的锁链或是任何其他东西。

Involved is an horizon determined by a structural relation; it only exists on the basis of the language of words, but it reveals their unsurpassable consequence. The point is from the moment when words and language and the signifier enter into play, something may be said, and it is said in the following way: “My brother may be whatever you say he is, a criminal. He wanted to destroy the walls of his city, lead his compatriots away in slavery. He led our enemies on to the territory of our city, but he is nevertheless what he is, and he must be granted his funeral rites. He doubtless doesn’t have the same rights as the other. You can, in fact, tell me whatever you want, tell me that one is a hero and a friend, that the other is an enemy. But I answer that it is
of no significance that the latter doesn’t have the same value below. As far as I am concerned, the order that you dare refer me to doesn’t mean anything, for from my point of view, my brother is my brother.”

被牵涉到的是一个结构关系所决定的地平线。它仅是存在于文字的语言的基础。但是它显示它们无法被克服的结果。重点是，从文字与语言跟能指进入运作的时刻，某件东西可能被说，据说是以底下的方式：「我的兄长可能是任何你所说的样子，是个罪犯。他想要毁灭他的城邦的墙壁，引导他的同胞脱离奴隶。他引导敌人前来我们城邦的领土。可是他仍然是他本来的样子。他必须被给予葬礼的仪式。无可置疑地，他并没有获的另外一位兄长相同的权利。事实上，你能够告诉我，任何你想要说的，告诉我，其中一位是英雄与朋友，另外一位是敌人。但是我的回答是，后者并没有拥有相同的价值这点，并不重要。就我而言，你胆敢跟我提到的那个命令，并没有任何意义。因为从我的观点，我的兄长就是我的兄长。」

That’s the paradox encountered by Goethe’s thought and he vacillates. My brother is what he is, and it’s because he is what he is and only he can be what he is, that I move forward toward the fatal limit. If it were anyone else with whom I might enter into a human relationship, my husband or my children for example, they are replaceable; I have relations with them. But this brother who is άθατττος, who has in common with me the fact of having been born in the same womb – the etymology of the word αδελφός embodies an allusion to the womb – and having been related to the same father – that criminal father the consequences of whose crimes Antigone is still suffering from – this brother is something unique. And it is this alone which motivates me to oppose your edicts.

那就是歌德的思想遭遇的悖论，他摇摆不定。我的兄长就是那个样子。因为他就是他那个样子，仅有他能够成为他那个样子。我向前移动，朝向那个致命的限制。假如那是某位其他的人，我可能跟他有人际的关系，譬如，我的丈夫或我的小孩，他们是可替换的。我跟他们有关系。但是这位兄长跟我有共通的关系，是这个事实：我们是同一位母亲的子宫所生。这个字词αδελφός 的字源具体地提到子宫，跟相同的父亲有关联。由于那个罪犯的父亲的结果，他的罪恶，安提贡尼依旧遭受痛苦。兄长是某件独特的东西。仅有这个，引起我的动机要反对你们的宣称。

Antigone invokes no other right than that one, a right that emerges in the language of the ineffaceable character of what is – ineffaceable, that is, from the moment when the emergent signifier freezes it like a fixed object in spite of the flood of possible transformations. What is, is, and it is to this, to this surface, that the unshakeable, unyielding position of Antigone is fixed.

安提贡尼没有召唤别的权利，除了那个权利。这个权利出现在这个无法抹除掉特性的语言里，对于所无法抹除的东西。也就是说，从这个出现的能指将它冻结的时刻开始，就像是一件固定的东西，尽管可能转变的血亲。所存在的就是存在，安提贡尼的无法动摇，无法屈服的立场，就是被固定在这个，在这个表面。

She rejects everything else. The stance of the-race-is-run is nowhere better illustrated than here. And whatever else one relates it to, is only a way of causing uncertainty or disguising the absolutely radical character of the position of the problem in the text.

她拒绝每一件其他的东西。这个「競赛被进行」的态度，在这个地方表现得最为淋漓尽致。不管我们将它跟任何其他东西连接一块，那仅是一种方法引起不确定，或伪装文本里，这个问题的立场具有这个绝对强烈的特性。

The fact that it is man who invented the sepulchre is evoked discretely.
One cannot finish off someone who is a man as if he were a dog. One cannot
be finished with his remains simply by forgetting that the register of being of someone who was identified by a name has to be preserved by funeral rites.

事实上，发明这个坟墓的这个人谨慎地被召唤。我们无法完全毁灭一个人，好像他是一条狗。我们无法完全毁灭他的尸体，仅是凭借忘记，根据名字辨认的某个人的生命实存的铭记，必须用丧礼的仪式来保存。

No doubt all kinds of things may be added to that. All the clouds of the imaginary come to be accumulated around it as well as the influences that are released by the ghosts who multiply in the vicinity of death. But at bottom the affair concerns the refusal to grant Polynices a funeral. Because he is abandoned to the dogs and the birds and will end his appearance on earth in impurity, with his scattered limbs an offense to heaven and earth, it can be seen that Antigone’s position represents the radical limit that affirms the unique value of his being without reference to any content, to whatever good or evil Polynices may have done, or to whatever he may be subjected to.

无可置疑的，各种的事情必须被增加到那里。所有的想象的浮云渐渐被累积环绕着它，以及在死亡附近活动的鬼魂释放出来的影响。但是追根究底，这个事情这个拒绝有关系，拒绝给予波利尼西斯的葬礼。因为他不抛弃给野狗与群鸟吃，他将会不纯净地结束他在大地的出现，肢体零散，这是对天庭与大地的冒犯。我们能够看出，安提贡尼的立场代表这个强烈的限制，肯定他的生命实存的价值，而没有提到任何内容，提到波利尼西斯可能做过的任何的善行与邪恶，或是提到任何他可能被隶属于的东西。

The unique value involved is essentially that of language. Outside of language it is inconceivable, and the being of him who has lived cannot be detached from all he bears with him in the nature of good and evil, of destiny, of consequences for others, or of feelings for himself. That purity, that separation of being from the characteristics of the historical drama he has lived through, is precisely the limit or the ex nihilo to which Antigone is attached. It is nothing more than the break that the very presence of language inaugurates in the life of man.

所牵涉到独特的价值，基本上是语言的价值。在语言的外贸，这是无法被构想的，他曾经活过的生命实存，无法跟他身上所具有的东西隔离，无论是善行与邪恶的特性，命运的特性，对别人举足轻重的特性，或自怜自艾的特性。那种纯净，那种生命实存的分离，跟他曾经生活过得历史的戏剧的各种特性分离。那确实就是跟安提贡尼紧密相连的那个限制，或从「空无中创造」。仅仅就是这个中断，语言的存在引发的断裂，在人的生命里。

That break is manifested at every moment in the fact that language punctuates everything that occurs in the movement of life. Αυτόνομος is the word the Chorus uses to situate Antigone; it tells her, “You are going off toward death without knowing your own law.” Antigone knows what she is condemned to, that is, to take part, so to speak, in a game whose outcome is known in advance- It is, in effect, posited as a game by Creon. She is condemned to the sealed chamber of the tomb in which she will be put to the test, namely, that of knowing if the gods below will come to her aid. It is at this point in her ordeal that Creon pronounces his condemnation, when he says, “We’ll see how useful your loyalty to the gods below will be. You will have the food that is always placed next to the dead by way of an offering, and we’ll see just how long you last with that.”

那种断裂被表现在发生于生命的动作的每个时刻。Αυτόνομος 就是这个字词，合唱队用来定位安提贡尼的字词。合唱队告诉她，「你将会离开朝向死亡，而不知道你自己的法则。」安提贡尼知道她被判处什么徒刑。换句话说，参与事先就知道结果的遊戏。实际上，它被提出作为是克瑞恩的遊戏。她被判处被囚禁于封闭的墓室的房间。她将在那里接受考验，也就说，要知道世界的众神是否会来帮助她。就在她接受考验的这个时刻，克瑞恩宣佈对她的判刑，当他说，「我们将会看看，你对于世间谍众神的忠诚将会有多大用途。你将会拥有总是被放置在亡者旁边作为祭品的这些食物。我们倒要看看，你用那些食物能够支持多久。」

It is at that moment that the tragedy is illuminated with a new light, in the form of Antigone’s κομμός, her complaint or lamentation. And it is significant that certain commentators have been scandalized by it.

就在这个时刻，悲剧被新的光辉照亮，以安提贡尼的抱怨或哀悼的形式。这是很重要的，某些的评论家曾经因为它而被毁谤。

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

Ethic 273

Ethic 273
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XXI
第21章

Antigone between two deaths
安提贡尼处于两次死亡之间

SOPHOCLES’S ANTI-HUMANISM
索福克利斯的反人本主义

THE LAW OF EX NIH1LO
从空无中创造的法则

THE DEATH D R I V E ILLUSTRATED
举例说明死亡冲动

COMPLEMENT
补助

2
From then on things move fast. The guard comes and announces that the
brother has been buried. At this point I am going to draw your attention to something that reveals the importance of Sophocles’s work for us.
Some people have said, and I seem to remember that it is the name of one
of the many works that I consulted, that Sophocles is a humanist. He is found to be human since he gives the idea of a properly human measure between a rootedness in archaic ideals represented by Aeschylus and a move toward bathos, sentimentality, criticism, and sophistry that Aristotle had already reproached Euripides with.

从那时开始，事情发展很快。卫兵前来宣佈，兄长已经被埋葬。在这个时刻，我想要吸引你们注意某件事情，显露索福克利斯的著作对于我们的重要性。有些人们曾经说过，索福克利斯是人本主义者，我似乎记得，那是我参考的许多著作之一。他被发现是人本主义，因为他给予这个观念：一个合适于人本的衡量，处于过时的理想的根源，那是阿斯奇利士所代表，以及朝向虚情，善感，批评，与诡辩的动作。亚里斯多德已经谴责尤利披底斯，具有这些特色。

I don’t disagree with the notion that Sophocles is in that median position,
but as far as finding in him some relationship to humanism is concerned, that would be to give a wholly new meaning to the word. As for us, we consider ourselves to be at the end of the vein of humanist thought. From our point of view man is in the process of splitting apart, as if as a result of a spectral analysis, an example of which I have engaged in here in moving along the joint between the imaginary and the symbolic in which we seek out the relationship of man to the signifier, and the “splitting” it gives rise to in him. Claude Levi-Strauss is looking for something similar when he attempts to formalize the move from nature to culture or more exactly the gap between nature and culture.

我同意这个观念; 索福克利斯处于那个中间位置。但是就在他身上找到跟人本主义的关系而言，那是给予这个字词完全崭新的意义。至于我们，我们认为我们自己处于人本主义的思想的脉络的末端。从我们的观念，人是处于分裂的过程，好像由于魅影分析的结果，其中一个例子，我曾经在此探讨，沿着想象界与象征界之间的结合前进。我们在那里找出人与能指的关系，它在他身上产生这种「分裂」。克劳德、列文、史特劳斯正在寻找某件类似的东西，当他企图要正常化这个动作，从自然到文化，或者更贴切地说，处于自然与文化之间的这个差距。

It is curious to note that on the edge of humanism it is also in this analysis, in this gap of analysis, of limits, in this attitude that the race is run, that the images rise up that turn out to be the most fascinating of that whole period of history which can be dubbed humanist.

耐人寻味的，要注意到，在人本主义的边缘，它也是在这个精神分析里，处于精神分析的这个差距，限制的这个精神分析。在这个态度，競赛被进行。这些意象出现，成为是那整个历史的时期最迷人的意象，它能够被称为是人本主义。

I find for example the point in the text that you have in your hands, lines
360-375, very striking; it concerns the moment when the Chorus bursts forth just after the departure of the messenger whose comic responses and shuffling movements, when he comes to announce the news that may cost him dearly, I referred to earlier. It is really terrible, the Chorus says, to see someone so obstinate about believing he believes. Believing he believes what? Something that no one for the moment has the right to imagine, that is the play of SOKGI δοκήν. That’s the element I sought to emphasize in that line along with the other response: “You’re playing the fool with your stories about the δόξα.”

譬如，我在你们手中拥有的这个文本里发现这个点非常引人注意，在360-375行。它跟这个时刻有关系，当合唱队突然出现，在信差离开之后。信差的滑稽的反应与疾走的动作，当他前来宣佈可能让他付出代价的这个消息。我早先提到的消息。这确实是可怕的，合唱队说，看见某个如此固执的人，相信他相信。相信他相信什么？某件东西，目前没有人拥有权力想象，那就是δοκήν.的戏剧。那就是我尝试要强调的因素，在那一行，以及另外一个其他反应：「你们正在扮演那个傻瓜，用你们关于δόξα 的故事。」

That’s an obvious allusion to the philosophical games of the time that focused on a theme. The scene itself is quite ridiculous, for we are not really interested in whether the guard will be skinned alive or not on account of the bad news he bears, and he in any case gets out of it with a flourish. Immediately afterwards in line 332 the Chorus breaks out in the chant that I said the other day was a celebration of mankind. It begins as follows:

那显而易见是提到专注于主题的时刻的哲学的遊戏。那个场景本身是相当可荒谬的。因为我们并没有确实感到興趣，对于卫兵是否将会被活活剥皮，因为他带来的这个坏消息。无论如何，他得意洋洋地逃避这个处罚。随后马上在332行，合唱队突然开始咏唱。我前天说过，这种咏唱是人类的庆祝。它开始如下：

πολλά τά δανό κ’ ουδέν αν-
θρώπου δανότΐρον πέλβί•

The lines mean literally: “There are a lot of wonders in the world, but there is nothing more wonderful than man.”

这两行的实质的意思是：「在世界有许多的惊奇，但是没有一样东西比起人更加惊奇。」

As far as LeVi-Strauss is concerned, what the Chorus says about man here
is really the definition of culture as opposed to nature: man cultivates speech and the sublime sciences; he knows how to protect his dwelling place from winter frosts and from the blasts of a storm; he knows how to avoid getting wet. Yet there is a slippage here; there is, it seems to me, an undeniable irony in what follows, in the famous phrase ποντοπόρος άπορος, which has given rise to a debate on the subject of its punctuation. The accepted punctuation seems to be the following: ποντοπόρος, άπορος έπ’ ουδέν ίρχ^ται το μάλλον. Ποντοπόρος means “he who knows all kinds of tricks” – man knows a lot of tricks. “Απορος is the opposite; it means when one has no resources or defenses against something. You are, I suppose, familiar with the term aporia. Άπορος means one that is “screwed.” As the proverb from the Vaud region has it, “Nothing is impossible for man; what he can’t do, he ignores.” That’s the tone of the text.

就列文、史特劳斯而言 合唱队所说的关于人，在此确是文化的定义，作为跟自然对立：人培养言说与令人敬畏的科学。他知道如何保护他的住所，免于冬天的霜雪，免除暴风雨的侵袭。他知道如何避免被雨淋湿。可是，我觉得，在此有一个失误，有一个无可否认的反讽，在后面跟随的东西，在那个著名的ποντοπόρος άπορος,。它曾经产生一场争辩，对于它的强调的主题。这个被接受的强调似乎是以下; ποντοπόρος, άπορος έπ’ ουδέν ίρχ^ται το μάλλον. Ποντοπόρος .。意思是：「他知道各种的巧计」–人知道各种的巧计。”Απορος 的意思是相反。它意味着，当我们没有资源或防卫，对抗某件东西。我认为，你们对于aporia 这个术语耳熟能详。Άπορος的意思是「凭巧计赢人」。如同瓦德地区的谚语所表达，「对于人，没有一样事情是不可能的；他无法做到事前，他忽视。」那是文本的语调。

Next we have – έπ’ ουδέν epxerai το μέλλον.
Έρχεται means “he advances.” Έπ’ ουδέν means “toward nothing.” To
μέλλον can be translated quite innocently as “the future”; it also means “that which must happen,” but at other moments it signifies μέλλβιν, “to delay.” As a result, TO μέλλον opens up a semantic field that isn’t easy to identify precisely with a corresponding French term. The problem is usually solved by saying, “Since he is highly resourceful, he will never be without resources whatever he has to face.” The thought strikes me as a little petty bourgeois. It’s not clear that it was the poet’s intention to emit such a platitude.

然后，我们拥有έπ’ ουδέν epxerai το μέλλον.
Έρχεται 的意思是「他前进」。Έπ’ ουδέν 的意思是「朝向空无」。Μέλλον 则是能够相当纯真地被翻译成为「未来」。它也意味着：「必须发生的事情」，但是在其他时刻，它意味着μέλλβιν, 「拖延」。结果，TO μέλλον 展开一个语意学的领域。这领域并不容易确实地认同对应的法文术语。这个问题通常这样说来解决：「因为他聪慧过人，他将永远不会欠缺机智，无论他必须面对什么。」这个思想让我印象深刻，作为是有点小布尔乔亚阶级。 诗人的意图是否要发泄陈腔滥调，则是不得而知。

In the first place, it is difficult to disconnect the two terms that are joined at the beginning of the sentence, ποντοπόρος άπορος. I also note that later on in line 370 we find another conjunction, ύφίπολις άπολις, that is to say “he who is both above and outside the city.” And this is the definition of a character generally identified, as I will explain later, with Creon, with his deformation. At the same time I am not sure that άπορος έπ’ ουδέν έρχεται can be translated as “because he doesn’t approach anything without resources.”

首先，很困难中断句子开头被连接的这两个术语，ποντοπόρος άπορος.。我后来也注意到，在370行，我们发现另外一个连接，ύφίπολις άπολις,。换句话说，「他既是在城邦的上方，也是在外面。」这就是通常被辨认的特性的这个定义，如同我以后将会解说，用克瑞恩，用他的扭曲。同时，我并不确定，άπορος έπ’ ουδέν έρχεται能够被翻译成为「因为他没有接近任何东西，而不带机智。」

It isn’t at all in conformity with the genius of the Greek language in this case. Έρχεται requires that έπΌύδέν be attached to it. Έπ’ agrees with έρχεται, not with άπορος. We are the ones who find there someone who is ready for everything, whereas it is literally a question of the following: “He advances toward nothing that is likely to happen, he advances and he is ποντοπόρος, “artful,” but he is άπορος, always “screwed.” He knows what he’s doing. He always manages to cause things to come crashing down on his head.

这跟希腊语言的天才根本就不相一致。在这个情况，Έρχεται 要求，έπΌύδέν 应该被跟它连接。Έπ’ agrees 跟 έρχεται, 而不是 άπορος.连接。我们发现有某个人准备接受一切事情。虽然它实质上是以下的问题：「他前进朝向可能会发生的空无，他前进，并且是有机巧的ποντοπόρος」，但是他总是「凭借机智赢人 άπορος,」。他知道，他正在做的事情。他总是成功地引起事情崩塌在他头上。

You should respond to this turning point as to something in the style of Prevert. And I will confirm that such is the case. Just afterwards one finds the line Αΐδα μόνου ψεΰζιν ουκ έπάζεται, which means that there is only
one thing he can’t come to terms with and that has to do with Hades. Dying
is something he doesn’t know how to come to terms with. The important
point occurs in what follows, – νότων δ’άμηχάνων φυγάς. Having said that
there is one thing that man hasn’t managed to come to terms with, and that
is death, the Chorus says that he has come up with an absolutely marvelous
gimmick, namely, translated literally, “an escape into impossible sicknesses.”

你们应该回应这个转捩点，关于某件东西，以普瑞博的风格。我将会证实情况是如此。就在以后，我们发现这行Αΐδα μόνου ψεΰζιν ουκ έπάζεται,。它的意思是：仅有一件事情，他无法妥协，他跟阴府息息相关。死亡是某件他不知道如何跟它妥协的东西。重点发生在以下的事情–νότων δ’άμηχάνων φυγάς。当人说完那个，他并没有成功地妥协的一件东西。那就是死亡。合唱队说，他曾构想出一个绝对神奇的机智的设计，也就是，实质上翻译成为「逃避到不可能的疾病里。」

There is no way of ascribing another meaning to that phrase than the one I ascribe. The translations usually attempt to say that man even manages to come to deal with sickness, but that’s not what it means at all. He hasn’t managed to come to terms with death but he invents marvelous gimmicks in the form of sicknesses he himself fabricates. There is something extraordinary about finding that notion expressed in 441 B.C. as one of mankind’s essential dimensions. It wouldn’t make any sense to translate that as “an escape from sicknesses.” Sickness is involved here μηχανόεν. That’s quite a gimmick he has invented; make of it what you will.

我们不可能归属另外一个意义，到那个词语，除了我归属的那个意义。这些翻译通常企图要说，人甚至成功地跟疾病妥协。但是那根本并不是它的意思。他并没有成功于跟死亡妥协，而是发明神奇的机智设计，以他自己构想的疾病的形式。有某件特别的东西，关于发现那个被表达的观念，在纪元前441年。作为是人类的基本维度之一。假如我们将它翻译成为「从疾病逃避出来」，将不会有任何意义。疾病在此牵涉到μηχανόεν.。那完全是他发明的机智设计。端看你们怎么去解释它。

In any case, the text repeats that man has failed relative to Hades, and we enter immediately afterwards into μηχανό^ν. There is something related to σοφόν in that, a term that isn’t so simple. I would just remind you of the analysis of the Heraclitean sense of σοφόν, “wise,” and όμολο-γβϊν, “to say the same thing,” that is to be found in the Heidegger text I translated for the first issue of La Psychanalyse. That σοφόν still has all of its primitive vigor.

无论如何，这个文本重复，相对应这个阴府，人曾经失败。随后我们立即进入μηχανό^ν 。有某件东西跟σοφόν息息相关。因为，一个术语并没有那么单纯。我仅是提醒你们，赫拉克利恩对σοφό「 智慧」与όμολο-γβϊν,「说同样的事情」的分析，应该在海德格的文本里能够被找到，我曾翻译这个文本，在La Psychanalyse.。那个 σοφόν 依旧拥有所有它的原始的活力。

There is something of sopkos in the mechanism, μηχανόβν. There is something imep έλπίδ’Ζχων, which transcends all hope and which ipirei. It’s this that directs him sometimes toward evil and sometimes toward the good. That is to say that this power or mandate, as I translated the word sopkos in the article I was talking about, which is laid upon him by this good, is an eminently ambiguous one.

在这个机械结构μηχανόβν. 存在着某件 sopkos ,某件imep έλπίδ’Ζχων。它超越所有的希望，它ipirei.。就是这个有时引导他朝向邪恶，有时朝向善。换句话说，在我谈论的那篇文章。mandate的这个力量，如同我翻译这个字词sopkos，受到善行的安排，意思很明显是暧昧的。

Right afterwards we find the passage beginning νόμους παρβίρων, etc.,
upon which the whole of the play is going to turn. For irapeipoiv means
undeniably “to arrange the laws wrongly, to weave them together wrongly,
to get them all mixed up.” Χθονός is “the earth,” and Beat» τ’ένορκον δίκαν
is “that which is formulated or told in the law.” That’s the thing we appeal
to in the silence of the analysand. We don’t say “Speak.” We don’t say
“Enunciate” or “Recount,” but “Tell.” But that’s exactly what we shouldn’t
do. That Δίκη is essential and constitutes the dimension of enunciation or evopKov, confirmed by an oath of the gods.

后来，我们发现这个段落开始νόμους παρβίρων,等等。整个的戏剧就是绕着它打转。因为irapeipoiv无可否认地「错误地安排法则，错误地将它们编织在一块，将它们都混淆一块。」irapeipoiv 就是大地；Beat» τ’ένορκον δίκαν 就是「在法则里被说明或被告诉的东西」。那就是我们诉诸于的东西，在分析者的沉默当中。」我们并没有「言说吧」。我们并没有是「请表达」或「请叙述」，而是说「请告诉」。那确实是我们不应该说做到。那个Δίκη是重要的，并且构成表达的维度，或是众神的誓言证实的evopKov。

There are two obvious dimensions that may be distinguished without difficulty: on the one hand, the laws of the earth and, on the other, the commandments of the gods. But they may be confused. They don’t belong to the same order, and if one mixes them up, there will be trouble. There will be so much trouble that the Chorus, which in spite of its vacillations does cleave to a fixed line, affirms, “In any case, we don’t want to be associated with so and so.” The point is to proceed in that direction is properly speaking τό μη καλόν or something that isn’t “beautiful,” and not, as it is translated, because of the very audacity of the idea, something that isn’t “good.” Thus the Chorus doesn’t want the character in question as its πάρεδρος, that is as its companion or immediate neighbor. The Chorus doesn’t want to be with him in the same central point we are talking about. It doesn’t want to have close relations with him, nor does it want to ίσον φρονών, to have the same desire. It separates its own desire from the desire of the other. And I don’t think I am forcing the issue when I find here an echo of certain formulas that I have given you.

有两个明显的维度可能轻易地被区别：一方面，大地的法则，另一方面，众神的命令。但是它们可能会被混淆。它们并不属于相同的秩序。假如我们混淆它们，将会有麻烦。将会有那么多的麻烦。合唱队尽管它的摇摆态度，并没有裂开到一条固定的线，肯定地说：「无论如何，我们并不想要跟某某有所关联。」重点是要继续朝那个方向前进，适当来说，那个方向并不是某件「美丽的」东西。如同它被翻译的，这并不是因为这个观念的大胆，某将并不是「善行」的东西。因此，合唱队并不想要受到质疑的这个特性，作为它的πάρεδρος 。也就是，作为它的同伴，或是它的近邻。合唱队并不想要跟它在一块在相同的中央的点，我们正在谈论的点。它并不想要跟他有密切的关系。它也并不想要有相同的欲望。它分开它自己的欲望，跟他者的欲望。我并不认为，我正在强迫这个问题，当我在此发现我曾经给予你们的公式，有某些的迴响。

Does Creon confuse νόμους χθονός with the Δίκη of the gods? The classical interpretation is clear: Creon represents the laws of the city and identifies them with the decrees of the gods. But it’s not as obvious as that, for it cannot be denied that Antigone is after all concerned with the chthonic laws, the laws of the earth. I haven’t stopped emphasizing the fact that it is for the sake of her brother who has descended into the subterranean world that she opposes κήρνγμα, that she resists Creon’s order; it is in the name of the most radically chthonian of relations that are blood relations. In brief, she is in a position to place the Δίκη of the gods on her side. In any case the ambiguity is obvious. And this is something that we will shortly see confirmed.

克瑞恩混淆νόμους χθονός 跟众神的the Δίκη吗？古典的解释是清楚的：克瑞恩代表城邦的法则，并且将它们认同时众神的命令。但是并没有那样明显。因为无法否认的，安提贡尼毕竟就是关心到心灵净化的法则，大地的法则。我并没有停止强调这个事实; 为了她的兄长已经沉沦到地下世界的缘故，她反对κήρνγμα，她抗拒克瑞恩的秩序。就是以这个名义，具有血缘关系的最强烈的心灵净化，总之，她处于这个立场，将众神的这个Δίκη，放置她的旁边。无论如何，这个暧昧是明显的。这就是某件我们不久将看见被证实的东西。

I have already pointed out how, after the condemnation of Antigone, the
Chorus emphasizes the fact that she went in search of her Ate. In a similar
vein, Electra says, “Why do you always plunge yourself into the Ati of your
house, why do you persist in referring to the fatal murder in front of Aegisthus and your mother? Aren’t you the one who brings down all kinds of evil on your head as a result?” To which the other responds, “I agree but I can’t help it.”

我曾经指出，经过安提贡尼的被判刑后，合唱队如何强调这个事实：她前去寻找她的悲惨命运Ate。以相同的情感，伊蕾克特拉说，「为什么你将你自己投掷进入你家庭的的悲惨命运Ate？为什么你们持续提到致命的谋杀，在阿基萨士与你的母亲之前？你难道不是将各种的邪恶结果灌输到你的脑海这个人？对此，另外一个人回答，「我同意，但是我身不由己。」

It is because she goes toward Até here, because it is even a question of going έκτος άτα?, of going beyond the limit of Até, that Antigone interests the Chorus. It says that she’s the one who violates the limits of Ati through her desire. The lines I referred to above concern this and especially those that end with the formula έκτος άτας, to go beyond the limit of Ate. Ate is not αμαρτία, that is to say a mistake or error; it’s got nothing to do with doing something stupid.

那是因为她朝向这里的悲惨命运Ate前进。因为问题甚至是要去έκτος άτα，去到超越悲惨命运Ate的限制，安提贡尼让合唱队感到興趣。合唱队说，她凭借她的欲望，违背悲惨命运的限制。我以上提到的这几行，跟这个有关。特别是跟έκτος άτας 这个公式结尾的那几行，超越悲惨命运Ate；那并不是αμαρτία，也就是错误或是失误。它跟做某件愚蠢的事情有关系。

When at the end Creon returns bearing something in his arms, lines 1259-
1260, and, as the Chorus tells us, it seems to be nothing other than the body of his son who has committed suicide, the Chorus then says, “If we may say so, it is not a misfortune that is external to him; it is αυτός άμαρτών, his own mistake. He’s the one who made the mistake of getting himself into the mess.” ‘Αμαρτία is the word used, that is “mistake” or “blunder.”

最后，克瑞恩回来，手臂抱著某件东西。在1259-1260行，当合唱队告诉我们，这实实在在就是他的自杀的儿子的尸体。合唱队因此说：「假如我们可以这样说，这并不是外在于他的命运。那是他自己的αυτός άμαρτών，他自己的错误。他是犯下让自己混乱的错误的这个人。」’Αμαρτία 就是被使用的这个字词，意思是错误或是失误。

That’s the meaning Aristotle insists on, and to my mind he’s wrong, for that is not the quality which leads the tragic hero to his death. It’s only true for Creon the counter- or secondary hero, who is indeed άμαρτών. At the moment when Eurydice commits suicide, the messenger uses the word
άμαρτάνβιν. He hopes, we are told, that she isn’t going to do something
stupid. And naturally he and the Coryphaeus stiffen in anticipation because no noise is heard. The Coryphaeus says, “That’s a bad sign.” The mortal fruit that Creon harvests through his obstinacy and his insane orders is the dead son he carries in his arms. He has been άμαρτών, he has made a mistake. It’s not a question here of αλλότρια άτη. Ati concerns the Other, the field of the Other, and it doesn’t belong to Creon. It is, on the other hand, the place where Antigone is situated.

那就是亚里斯多德坚持的这个意义。依我之见，他是错误，因为那并不是导致悲剧英雄死亡的特质。仅有针对克瑞恩，这位反英雄，或次要的英雄，才是真实的。他确实就是错误άμαρτών。在尤瑞迪斯自杀的那个时刻，信差使用这个字词「错误άμαρτάνβιν」。我们被告诉，他希望，她将不会做某件愚蠢的事情。当然，信差和科瑞费斯都惊吓呆了，因为没有噪音被听见。科瑞费斯说「那是不祥之兆」。克瑞恩由于他的固执与其疯狂的命令，收获导致死亡的结果，那就是他抱在手臂里的儿子。他曾经是错误άμαρτών，他曾经犯错误。在此的问题并不是αλλότρια άτη。悲惨命运Ate 跟大他者，大他者的领域息息相关，那个领域并不属于克瑞恩。在另一方面，那是安提贡尼被定位的地方。

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

Ethic 270

Ethic 270
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XXI
第21章

Antigone between two deaths
安提贡尼处于两次死亡之间

THE-RACE-IS-RUN
被从事的競赛

SOPHOCLES’S ANTI-HUMANISM
索福克利斯的反人本主义

THE LAW OF EX NIH1LO
从空无中创造的法则

THE DEATH D R I V E ILLUSTRATED
举例说明死亡冲动

COMPLEMENT
补助

I did recommend an interlinear edition of Antigone to those of you who know
enough Greek to get by, but it’s not available. Use the Gamier translation
instead, since it’s not bad at all.

我确实推荐阅读「安提贡尼」原文的字里行间，你们懂得希腊文的那些人若是拿得到的话。但是找不到这样的版本。就请採用甘密尔的翻译作为代替，因为它毕竟还不错。

The following lines of the Greek text are the ones that concern us: 4-7,
323-325, 332-333, 360-375, 450-470, 559-560, 581-584, 611-614, 620-
625, 648-650, 780-805, 839-841, 852-862, 875, 916-924, 1259-1260.

希腊文本的底下几行，是我们关心的几行：4-7, 323-325, 332-333, 360-375, 450-470, 559-560, 581-584, 611-614, 620-625, 648-650, 780-805, 839-841, 852-862, 875, 916-924, 1259-1260.

Lines 559-560 give us Antigone’s attitude toward life. She tells us that her soul died long ago and that she is destined to give help, ώγελεν, to the dead- we spoke about the same word in connection with Ophelia.

559-560行给予我们安提贡尼对待生命的态度。她告诉我们，她的灵魂很久以前就死掉，她注定要给予帮助，ώγελεν 给死者。我们谈论到相同的字词，跟奥菲莉亚。

Lines 611-614 and 620-625 have to do with the Chorus’s statements on the
limit that is Αύ、, and it is around this that what Antigone wants is played out.

611-614 行，跟 620-625行跟合唱队的陈述有关系，探讨悲惨命运Ate的限制。环绕着这个，安提贡尼想要的东西被扮演出来。

I already pointed out last time the importance of the term that ends both
of these passages, έκτος άτας. Έκτος signifies an outside or what happens
once the limit of Ati has been crossed. When, for example, the guard comes
and tells of the event that challenges Creon’s authority, he says at the end that he is έκτος ελπίδος, outside or beyond all hope; he no longer hopes to be saved. Έκτο? άτας has the meaning of going beyond a limit in the text.

我上次已经指出这个术语的重要性。这个术语用这两个段落作为结束 έκτος άτας. Έκτος 指示著外在，或是悲惨命运Ate 的限制被跨越所发生的事情。譬如，当卫兵前来告诉这个挑战克瑞恩的权威的事件，他在结尾时说，他是έκτος ελπίδος ，外在于，或超越于所有的希望。他不再希望被拯救。Έκτο? Άτας 拥有这个意义，超越文本的限制之外。

And it is around this notion that the Chorus’s song is developed at that moment, in the same way that it says that man goes toward προς άταν, that is, toward Ate. In this business the whole prepositional system of the Greeks is so vital and suggestive. It is because man mistakes evil for the good, because something beyond the limits of Ate has become Antigone’s good, namely, a good that is different from everyone else’s, that she goes toward, προς άταν.

就是环绕这个观念，合唱队的歌咏在那个时刻被发展。如同它说：人朝向προς άταν 前进。也就是，朝向悲惨命运Ate 前进。在这件事情，希腊人的整个的介系词系统非常重要而且具有暗示。因为人们将邪恶误认为是善行。因为某件超越悲惨命运Ate的限制的东西，成为安提贡尼的善行。换句话说，一件善行跟每一位其他人的善行不同。

So as to take up the problem in a way that allows me to bring my comments
together, I must return to a simple, clean, unencumbered view of the tragic
hero, and in particular of the one who concerns us, Antigone.

为了要探讨这个问题，让我能够总结我的一些评论，我必须回到悲剧人物的简单清楚，免除负担的观点。特别是我们关心的那个悲剧人物。安提贡尼。

1
One thing has struck a commentator on Sophocles – commentator in the
singular, for I have been surprised to find that it is only in a relatively recent book on Sophocles by Karl Reinhardt that something important has been brought out, namely, the special solitude of Sophoclean heroes, μονσύμενοι,, which is a nice term used by Sophocles, along with άφιλοι and φρενος οίοβώται, that is to say, those who lead their thoughts to graze far off. But it is nevertheless certain that it is not this that is involved here, for in the end tragic heroes are always isolated, they are always beyond established limits, always in an exposed position and, as a result, separated in one way or another from the structure.

有一件事情让探讨索福克利斯的评论家感到印象深刻，具有独特见解的评论家。因为我曾经大为惊奇地发现，最近出版的卡尔、瑞哈德论索福克利斯，某件重要的事情被显露出来。换句话说，索福克利斯的英雄人物的特别的孤独μονσύμενοι。这是索福克利斯使用的一个很好的术语，再加上άφιλοι 跟 φρενος οίοβώται。换句话说，那些让他们的思想高飞远飏的英雄人物。可是，这是确定的，在此牵涉到的并不是这个。因为最后，悲剧的英雄人物总是孤独的，他们总是超越现状的限制，总是处于被暴露的立场。结果，他们以某种的方式跟结构分开。

It is strange that something very obvious has been overlooked. Let us
examine the seven plays of Sophocles that are extant of the twenty-five which he is said to have produced during a life of ninety years, sixty of which he devoted to tragedy. They are Ajax, Antigone, Electra, Oedipus Rex, The Trachiniae, Philoctetes, and Oedipus at Colonus.

这是奇怪的，某件非常明显的东西曾经被忽视。让我们检视一下索福克利斯的二十五个剧本，残存的七个剧本。据说他在九十岁的一生里，写作这二十五个剧本。其中六十年，他专注于悲剧。那些剧本是阿杰克，安提贡尼，伊雷克特拉，伊狄浦斯，特拉奇尼亚，费罗特忒斯，伊狄浦斯在科伦那斯。

A certain number of these plays remain familiar to us, but you are not
perhaps aware that Ajax is a very odd piece of work. It begins with the massacre of the Greeks’ flock by Ajax. Because Athena doesn’t wish him well, he goes crazy. He imagines he is massacring the Greek army, but it is their flock instead. Afterwards he awakens from his craziness, is overcome with shame, and goes and kills himself in a corner. There is absolutely nothing else in the play but that, which is, after all, rather peculiar. As I was saying the other day, there isn’t even the suggestion of a perepetia. Everything is there from the beginning; the trajectories that are set in motion have only to come crashing down one on top of the other as best they can.

我们对于某些的这些剧本耳熟能详。但是你们或许并不知道，阿杰克是非常古怪的一部作品。它开始时描述希腊的牛群被阿杰克屠杀。因为雅典娜天神并没有祝福他。他发疯了。他想象他正在屠杀希腊的军队，但是代替的，他屠杀的是他们的牛群。后来，他从疯狂中苏醒过来，羞愧得无地自容，就去到角落里自杀。剧本里面绝对没有别的，除了这个。毕竟，这是相当奇特的。如同我前天正在说，甚至连「逆转」的暗示都没有。每样东西从一开始就在那里。投射的途径被触动，结果尽可能地崩塌在另外一个投射途径上面。

We will leave Antigone aside for one moment, since we are discussing it.
Electra, too, is an odd play of Sophocles. In Aeschylus we find the Choephoroe and the Eumenides, where the death of Agamemnon gives rise to all kinds of things. And once his murder has been avenged, Orestes then has to deal with the avenging divinities who protect the maternal blood.

我们将暂时将安提贡尼放置一边。因为我们正在讨论它。伊雷克特拉也是索福克利斯蒂古怪剧本。在亚斯奇拉斯，我们发现周佛罗与尤门尼底斯两个剧本。在那里，阿伽曼隆产生各种的事情。一旦他的谋杀获得报复，奥瑞提斯就必须处理那些报复的神祗，他们保护母系这边的血脉。

There is nothing comparable in Sophocles. Electra is in certain ways the very double of Antigone – “Dead in life,” she says, “I am already dead to everything.”

索福克利斯则是无与伦比。伊雷克特拉在某些方面可跟安提贡尼相提并论，「生命中的死亡」，她说，「我已经死了，对于每样东西。」

Moreover, at that climactic moment when Orestes is making Aegisthus jump
for it, he says to him, “Do you realize you are talking to people who are just like the dead? You are not talking to the living.” It is an extremely odd note and the whole thing ends abruptly just like that. There isn’t the least trace of anything superfluous. Everything ends abruptly. The end of Electra involves an execution in the proper sense of the word.

而且，在那个高潮的时刻，当奥瑞特斯正逼迫阿基萨斯扑向他时，他对他说：「你体会到，你正在跟那些就像死人的人们说话？你并不是正在跟活的人谈话。」这是极端古怪的语气，整个事情突然就像那样结束。丝毫没有多馀的东西的痕迹。每样事情都突然结束。「伊雷克特拉」的结局，牵涉这个字词的适当意义的实践。

We can leave aside Oedipus Rex, given the perspective I am adopting here.
In any case, I am not claiming to promulgate a general law, since we know
nothing of the greater part of Sophocles’s work.

我们能够将「伊狄浦斯悲剧」放置一边，假如考虑到我在此正在採用的观点。无论如何，我并没有正在

The Trachiniae has to do with the end of Hercules. Hercules has come to
the end of his labors, and he knows it. He is told he will be able to go and rest, that his work is over. Unfortunately, he mixed up the last of his labors with the desire for a female captive, and because she loves him, his wife sends him the delightful tunic that she has been keeping since the beginning in case of need, as a kind of weapon to be reserved for the right moment. She sends it to him and you know what happens. The whole end of the play is taken up with Hercules’s groans and roars of pain as he is consumed by the burning cloth.

「特拉奇尼亚」跟赫丘勒斯的结局有关系。赫丘勒斯已经接近他的受罚劳工的结束，他知道。他被告诉，他将能够去休息。他的工作已经做完。不幸地，他将他最后一项的劳工，跟对于一位女性俘虏的欲望混淆一块。因为她爱他，他的妻子送他那件她从开始就一直保存的舒适的衣袍，以备不时之需。作为是一种武器，保留给适当的时刻。她将它送给他，你们知道发生什么事。这部戏剧的整个结局发生时，赫丘勒斯的呻呤与痛苦的嚎叫，因为那件热烫的布让他消受不了。

Then there is Philoctetes. Philoctetes is a character who has been exiled on an island. He has been rotting away there for ten years, and then he is asked to render the community a service. All kinds of things happen, including the moving struggle with his conscience of the young Neoptolemes, who is dispatched to serve as bait in an attempt to deceive the hero.
Finally, there is Oedipus at Colonus.

然后就是「费罗特忒斯」。他这个人物曾经被放逐到一个岛上。他曾经在那里意志消磨有十年。然后他被要求提供对社会的服务。各种的事情发生，包括跟他的良心的感人的奋斗，他对这位年轻的尼奥拓列密斯的良性。后者被派遣去充当诱饵，为了欺骗这位英雄。最后，就是「伊狄浦斯在科伦纳斯」。

You have no doubt noted the following. If there is a distinguishing characteristic to everything we ascribe to Sophocles, with the exception of Oedipus Rex, it is that for all his heroes the race is run. They are at a limit that is not accounted for by their solitude relative to others. There is something more; they are characters who find themselves right away in a limit zone, find themselves between life and death. The theme of between-life-and-death is moreover formulated as such in the text, but it is also manifest in the situations themselves.

无可置疑，你们已经注意到以下。假如有一个显著的特征，作为我们归属于索福克利斯的每件事情的特色。除了「伊狄浦斯悲剧」。那就是，尽管他的各种英雄人物，这个競赛被进行。他们作为无法被解释的限制，由于相对于别人的他们的孤独。还有某件东山；他们这些人物发现他们自己立即处于一个极限的地区。他们发现自己处于生命与死亡之间。而且，这个生命与死亡之间的主题本身在文本里解释，但是这也是显而易见，在情境的本身。

One could even fit Oedipus Rex into this context. The hero has a characteristic that is both unique to him and paradoxical in relation to others. At the beginning of the drama he has attained the height of happiness. Yet Sophocles represents him as driven to bring about his own ruin through his obstinacy in wanting to solve an enigma, to know the truth. Everyone tries to prevent him, including especially Jocasta, who is always saying, “That’s enough; we already know enough.” Still he wants to know and in the end he does know. Yet I do grant that Oedipus Rex is an exception; it doesn’t fit the general formula of the Sophoclean hero, who is marked by a stance of the race-is-run.

我们甚至能够将「伊狄浦斯王」放进这个文本。这位英雄拥有一个特性，自己独立特行，跟别人矛盾重重。在戏剧的开始，他幸福得无与伦比。可是，索福克利斯表现他，作为是被迫导致他自己的毁灭，由于他固执想要解答一个谜团，为了知道真理。每个人尝试阻止他，包括特别是妻子乔卡斯塔，她总是说，「那足够了；我们已经知道够了。」可是，他想要知道，最后，他确实知道。可是，我确实承认，「伊狄浦斯王」是一个例外。它并不适合索福克利斯英雄的一般公式。他被标示的态度是：競赛被进行。

Let us now return to Antigone, whose race is run in the most obvious of
ways.

让我们现在回到安提贡尼。她的競赛被进行，以最为明显的方式。

On one occasion I showed you an anamorphosis; it was the finest I could
find for our purpose, and it is indeed exemplary, far beyond anything one
could have hoped for. Do you remember the cylinder from which this strange
phenomenon rises up? It cannot properly speaking be said that from an optical point of view there is an image as such. Without going into the optical definition of the phenomenon, one can say that it is because an infinitesimal fragment of image is produced on each surface of the cylinder that we see a series of screens superimposed; and it is as a result of these that a marvelous illusion in the form of a beautiful image of the passion appears beyond the mirror, whereas something decomposed and disgusting spreads out around it.

在某个场合，我跟你们显示一种变形。那是我能够找到的最精致的变形，充当我的目的。它确实是典范，远超过任何我们本来能够希望的东西。你们还记得那个圆筒吗？这个奇怪的现象出于那里的圆筒？适当来说，它不能说是从某个视觉的观点，有一个意象的本身。我们没有探究现象的视觉的定义，我们能够说，那是因1意象的微细碎片被产生，在圆筒的每个表面。我们看见一连串的帘幕被赋加在上面。由于这些的结果，激情的美丽意象的形式的神奇的幻景出现在镜子的外面，而某件被瓦解于令人厌恶的东西，

That’s the kind of thing that is involved here. What is the surface that
allows the image of Antigone to rise up as an image of passion? The other
day I evoked in connection with her the phrase, “Father, why hast thou
abandoned me?” which is literally expressed in one line. Tragedy is that which spreads itself out in front so that that image may be produced. When analyzing it, we follow an inverse procedure; we study how the image had to be constructed in order to produce the desired effect. So let’s begin.

那就是在此牵涉的事情。那个让安提贡尼的意象能够起来，作为是激情的意象的表面是什么？前天，关于她，我召唤这个术语，「父亲，为什么你遗弃我？」它实质上用一行来表达。悲剧是在前台扩展它自己的东西，为了产生那个意象。当我们分析它时，我们遵照一个倒转的秩序。我们研究这个意象如何必须被建构，为了产生欲望中的效果。所以，让我们开始。

I have already emphasized the implacable side of Antigone; the side that
shows neither fear nor pity is apparent at every point. Somewhere in order
to deplore this, the Chorus calls her, line 875, αύτόγνωτο•;. That should be heard alongside the γνώθι aeaxnov of the Delphic oracle. One cannot ignore the meaning of the kind of self-knowledge attributed to her.
I have already indicated her extreme harshness when she tells Ismene of
her purpose at the beginning. “Do you realize what is happening?” she asks.
Creon has just promulgated what is called a κήρυγμα – a term that plays an important role in modern protestant theology as a dimension of the revelation.

我已经强调安提贡尼的无法缓和的一面。这一面显示：在每个时刻既没有恐惧，也没有同情是明显的。在某个地方，为了要哀叹这个αύτόγνωτο•，，合唱队呼唤他，在875行。那应该被听见，沿着德菲克预言的γνώθι aeaxnov。 我们无法忽视归属于她的那种自我知识的意义。我已经指示她的极端的严酷，当她告诉艾斯门，她在开始的目的。「你体会到正在发生什么事情？」她问道。克瑞恩刚刚宣佈所谓的κήρυγμα—这一个术语扮演一个重要的角色，在现代的基督教的神学，作为是启示的维度。

Her manner is as follows: “Here’s the situation then. This is what he
has proclaimed for you and me.” Then she adds in the lively style of the text:”I speak for me.” And she goes on to affirm that she will bury her brother.

她的方式如下：「在此就是这个情境。这就是他曾经跟你们与我宣佈的东西。」然后，她补充说，以文本的生动的风格：「我替我言说。」她继续肯定，她将会埋葬她的兄长。

We will see what that means.
我们将会看出那是什么意思。

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

Ethic 266

Ethic 266
The Ethics of Psychoanalysia
精神分析学的伦理学

Jacques lacan
雅克、拉康

XX
The articulations of the play
戏剧的表达

3
Creon arrives and makes a long speech justifying his actions. But in reality
there is only a docile Chorus there to hear him, a collection of yes-men. There
follows a dialogue between Creon and the Chorus. The Chorus itself hasn’t
altogether given up the idea that there is something excessive in Creon’s statements,
but at the very moment when it is about to express the thought, that
is when the messenger arrives and narrates what has happened, it gets told
off in no uncertain terms.

克瑞恩到达并且发表冗长的演说，替他的行动自圆其说。但是事实上，仅有一群温顺的合唱队在那里倾听，一群阿谀的人。随后就是克瑞恩与合唱队之间的对话。合唱队本身并没有完全放弃这个观念：在克瑞恩的陈述里，有某件过分的东西。但是就在这个时刻，当它即将表达这个思想。那就是当信差到达并且描述所发生的事情，它被斥责，用相对明确的术语。

The character of the messenger in this tragedy is a formidable one. He
turns up shuffling and mumbling, and he says, “You can’t imagine how much
I have been thinking things over on my way here, and how many times I
came close to taking off in a hurry. That’s how a short trip turns into a long
one.” He’s an impressive talker. He even goes so far as to say, “I am sorry to
see that you are of the opinion that it is your opinion that you believe in lies.”

在悲剧里，信差这个人物是一个令人畏惧的人物。他匆匆出现，侃侃而语。他说，「你们无法想象我来此地途中反思维事情。好几次我几乎要匆促出发。那就是为何简短的旅途会成为漫漫长途。他言说得令人动容。他甚至过分地说，「我很遗憾看到，你们认为，你们在谎言里相信你们自己的意见。」

In short, I am suspected of being suspicious. That style of δοκεϊ Ψευδή δοκέϊν
resonates with the discourse of the Sophists, since Creon answers him right
away, “You are in the process of making points on the subject of the δόξα.”

总之，我被怀疑是疑心病。那种δοκεϊ Ψευδή δοκέϊν的风格迴响着辩士的辞说。因为克瑞恩立刻回答他：「你正在表达这些观点，探讨δόξα.的主题。」

In brief, throughout a whole ridiculous scene the messenger engages in idle
speculations about what has happened, and in particular speculations about
their safety, in the course of which the guards are in a state of panic, in which
they nearly come to blows before they draw lots in order to decide which one
of them will be chosen to go as messenger. After having got it all out, he is
the object of a stream of threats from Creon, who is the person in power and
who on this occasion is excessively limited; Creon lets him know that they
can all expect the worst if the guilty person is not found in a hurry. “I’ve
come out of this in quite good shape,” the messenger comments, “since I
haven’t been strung up right away to the end of a branch. They won’t see me
again in a hurry.”

总之，在一整个荒谬的场景过程，信差从事推测，关于所发生的事情。特别是特测有关他们的安全。在这个过程，卫兵处于惊慌的状态。在惊慌中，他们几乎要吵起架来，然后他们抽签，为了决定哪一个人将被选择去当信差。在一切都搞定之后，他成为克瑞恩咆哮威胁的对象。克瑞恩是掌握权力的人，在这个场合，他过分地受到限制。克瑞恩让他知道，他们都做最后打算，假如犯罪的人没有快速地被找到。「我处理的动作俐落，」信差评论说，「因为我没有马上被吊上树端。他们短时间将不会再看见我。」

This scene is a bit like the entrance of the clowns. But the messenger is
quite subtle; he is very clever when he says to Creon, “What is offended just
now? Is it your heart or your ears?” He makes Creon turn around in circles;
Creon is forced to face the situation in spite of himself. The messenger then
explains, “If it is your heart, then it is the one who did the deed that offends
it; I only offend your ears.” We have already reached the height of cruelty
but we’re having fun.

这个场景有点像是小丑的进场。但是信差相当微妙。他聪明灵俐地对克瑞恩说，「现在什么事情被冒犯？你的心？还是你的耳朵？」他让克瑞恩绕著圈子转。克瑞恩不得不面对这个情况，尽管很不情愿。信差於是解释，「假如受到冒犯的是你的心，那是做这件事情的人冒犯你。我仅是冒犯你的耳朵。」我们已经到达残酷的高处，但是我们还幸灾乐祸。

And what happens immediately afterwards? A hymn of praise to mankind.
The Chorus sets out to praise mankind. I am constrained by the time, so I
can’t go on, but I will take up this praise of mankind next time.

随后立即发生什么事情呢？对于人类的赞美圣歌。合唱队出发赞美人类。我因为时间约束，无法继续谈论。但是下次，我将从事这个对人类的赞美。

Then right after the extraordinary tall tale that is this hymn of praise to
man, we see Antigone’s guard turn up without any concern for verisimilitude,
temporal verisimilitude at least. The guard is delighted. He’s had a rare
piece of luck; his responsibility in the case has been absolved once he has laid
hands on the guilty party. Then the Chorus sings its song on mankind’s
relation to Até. I’ll come back to that, too, another time.

就在这个特别的荒诞的故事之后，那就是对于人类的赞美圣歌。我们看见安提贡尼的卫兵出现，丝毫并不关心起伏变化，至少没有关心时间的起伏变化。卫兵很高兴。他难得有这么一次好运气。他对于这个案件的责任已经被免除，一旦他执行对于罪犯的惩处。然后，合唱队歌颂人类跟悲惨命运的关系。下一次，我将回头谈论它。

Next comes Hemon, who is Creon’s son and Antigone’s fiance. He begins
a dialogue with his father. The only confrontation between the father and son
causes the dimension to appear that I began to discuss concerning the relations
of man to his good; there is a moment of doubt, a hesitation. This point
is extremely important if we want to be clear about Creon’s stature. We will
see later what he is, that is, like all executioners and tyrants at bottom, a
human character. Only the martyrs know neither pity nor fear. Believe me,
the day when the martyrs are victorious will be the day of universal conflagration.
The play is calculated to demonstrate that fact.

然后赫门进来。他是克瑞恩的儿子，安提贡尼的未婚夫。他开始跟他的父亲对话。父亲跟儿子的仅有的冲突引起这个维度出现。我开始讨论，关于人跟他的善行的关系。有一个怀疑的时刻，一种犹豫。这点是极端重要，假如我们想要清楚关于克瑞恩的姿态。我们以后会看出他是什么样子。换句话说，就像所有的行政执行与暴君的，骨子里，他是一个人的性格。仅有烈士才不知道同情与恐惧。请相信我，当烈士胜利的那天，将会是普遍性的烈火燃烧的那天。这个戏剧被设计来证明这个事实。

Creon doesn’t lose his nerve, far from it; his son leaves to the sound of the
most terrible threats. And what bursts forth again at that very moment? The
Chorus once more, and what does it have to say? “Ερως άνικάτε μάχαν, “Invincible love of combat.” I suppose that even those who do not know Greek have heard at one time or other those three words that have come down through the centuries with a number of melodies in their wake.

克瑞恩并没有丧失他的勇气。根本没有丧失。他的儿子离开，带着最可怕的威胁的声音。在那个时刻，什么东西再次突然出现？再一次是合唱队，合唱队必须说些什么？”Ερως άνικάτε μάχαν, “「不屈不桡的博斗之爱」。我认为，即使那些不懂希腊文的人们，都曾经在某个时刻听过那三个字词，它们已经流传了好几个世纪，随后还有许多的音乐歌咏。

That song bursts forth at the very moment when Creon decrees the punishment
Antigone will be made to undergo: she will be placed alive in a tomb
– something that doesn’t suggest too tender an imagination. Let me remind
you that in Sade it is number seven or eight on the list of ordeals to which
the hero is submitted – the reference is a useful one for you to realize the
significance of what is involved here. It is precisely at this moment that the
Chorus says in so many words: “This story is driving us mad; we are losing
our grip; we are going out of our minds; as far as this child is concerned we
are moved to . . . ,” what the text, using a term whose appositeness I ask
you to remember, calls ϊμβρος εναργή•;.

那首歌就在那个时刻突然出现，当克瑞恩命令：安提贡尼将被迫经历的惩罚。她将会被活生生地关进坟墓里面。这种事情，想像起来就很狰狞。让我提醒你们，在萨德的书，这位英雄被迫承受的考验名单的第七或第八项。为了让你们体会到在此所牵涉的东西的重要性，提一下是很有用的。确实就是在这个时刻，合唱队详细叙述：「这个故事正让我们发狂，我们正丧失我们的掌握；我们将丧失我们的理智；就这个小孩而言，我们被感动、、、」这个文本所谓的ϊμβρος εναργή•，使用一个术语，这个术语的适当性，我要求你们记住。

“Ιμίρος is the same term that in the Phaedrus points to what I am trying
to grasp here as the reflection of desire of the kind by which even the gods
are bound. It is the term used by Jupiter to designate his relations with Ganymede.
“Ιμβρος εναργής is literally desire made visible. This is what appears
at the moment when the long scene that leads up to the punishment takes place.

“Ιμίρος” 是相同的术语，在「费德拉斯」，它指向我正在此尝试理解的东西，作为是那种欲望的省思。即使是众神都受到那种欲望约束。这就是邱比特使用的术语，用来指明他跟甘梅笛的关系。”Ιμβρος εναργής” 则是实质上显露可见的欲望。这是出现在那个时刻的东西，当冗长的场景促成惩罚的执行。

After Antigone’s speech, in which is to be found the passage discussed by
Goethe that I talked about the other day, the Chorus starts up again with a
mythological song in which at three different moments it evokes three especially
dramatic destinies that are all on the boundary between life and death,
the boundary of the still living corpse. Antigone herself even refers to the
image of Niobe, who is imprisoned in the narrow cavity of a rock and will be
exposed forever to the assault of rain and weather. It is around this image of
the limit that the whole play turns.

在安提贡尼的言说之后，在那儿，前天我谈论的歌德讨论的这个段落能够被发现。合唱队再次开始咏唱神话之歌。在歌里的三个不同的时刻，它召唤三个特别戏剧性的命运。这些命运都是处于生与死之间的边境。依旧还算是行尸走肉的边境。安提贡尼自己甚至提到成为奈奥北的意象。奈奥北被囚禁于狭窄的岩石空隙里，将永远被暴露于风吹雨淋的攻击。整个的戏剧就环绕这个囚禁的意象打转。

At the moment when it is moving more and more toward a kind of explosive
climax of divine delirium, the blind Tiresias appears. He doesn’t simply
announce the future, however, because the revelation of his prophecy has a
role to play in the preparation of that future. In his dialogue with Creon he
withholds what he has to say until the latter – in whose rigid mind everything
is political or, in other words, a question of interest – is foolish enough to say
a sufficient number of insulting things for Tiresias to come out with his
prophecy. The value attributed to the words of a seer is, as in all circumstances
where tradition counts, decisive enough for Creon to give in and resign
himself to countermanding his own orders, which, of course, proves catastrophic.

在这个时刻，当它越来越朝向某种神性的狂喜的爆炸性高潮。盲眼的泰瑞西亚斯出现。可是，他不仅宣佈未来，因为他的预言的启示扮演一个角色，替那个未来做准备。在他跟克瑞恩的对话，他保留他必须说的话，留到后来。在克瑞恩的严酷的心里，每样东西都是政治。或换句话说，利益的问题。为了让泰瑞西亚斯讲出他的预言，而说出许多的侮辱的言辞，并非是明智之举。归属于预言家的文词的价值，如同在传统举足轻重的所有的环境里。这个价值足够重要，让克瑞恩屈服，并且顺从于正式撤销他自己的命令。当然，那些命令证明是灾难性。

The situation is heightened even further. In its penultimate appearance the
Chorus breaks out in a hymn to the most hidden and supreme god, Dionysos.
The spectators imagine that this is once again a hymn of liberation, that
everyone is comforted, everything will work out all right. Those, on the other
hand, who knew what Dionysos and his savage followers represent realize
that the hymn breaks out because the limits of the field of the conflagration
have been breached

这个情况更进一步被强化。在合唱队倒数第二次出现，它们突然唱出圣歌，赞美最隐秘及崇高的神，戴奥尼修斯。观众想象，这再次是解放自由的圣歌。每个人都感到欣慰。每件事情结局都美好。在另一方面，知道戴奥尼修斯与跟随他的野蛮民族代表什么的那些人们体会到，这首圣歌突然咏唱，因为烈火的领域的限制已经被突破。

After that there is hardly room for the final twist of the action, the one in
which the deluded Creon goes and knocks in desperation at the doors of the
tomb within which Antigone has hanged herself. Hemon kisses her and emits
a few final groans, but we do not know what happened in the sepulcre any
more than we know what goes on when Hamlet goes down into the sepulcre.
Antigone was after all walled in at the limit of Ate, and one is justified in
wondering at which moment Hemon entered the tomb. As when the actors turns their faces away from the spot where Oedipus disappears, we don’t know
what happened in Antigone’s tomb.

在此之后，行动的最后的转变几乎没有空间。在个行动里面，虚情假意的克瑞恩前去绝望地敲打坟墓的门。安提贡尼已经在里面上吊而死。赫门吻着她，发出几句最后的哀嚎。但是我们并不知道在坟墓里发生什么事。正如我们并不知道正在进行什么事，当哈姆雷特走进坟墓。安提贡尼毕竟被囚禁于悲惨命运Ate 的限制里面。我们很有理由想要知道，在什么时刻赫门进入坟墓。如同在伊狄浦斯消失的地点，演员们转过头，我们并不知道在安提贡尼的坟墓里，发生什么事情。

In any case, when Hemon emerges, he is possessed by divine μανία. He
shows all the signs of someone who has lost his reason. He attacks his father,
misses him, and kills himself. And when Creon returns to the palace where
a messenger has already preceded him, he discovers his wife is dead.

无论如何，当赫门出现。他被神圣的μανία.附身。他显示所有的迹象：某个已经丧失他的理智。他攻击他的父亲，没有击中，然后杀死他自己。当克瑞恩回到宫殿，一位信差早先于他到达，他发现他的妻子死掉。

At that point the text shows us, in terms that are calculated to remind us
where the limit is situated, a Creon who is out of his mind demanding that
he be carried off – “Drag me out by my feet.” And the Coryphaeus manages
to find the strength to engage in a play of words in saying, “You’re right to
say that: the pain that one feels in one’s feet is the best kind of pain; unlike
other kinds, it doesn’t last long.”

在那个时刻，文本跟我们显示，用被精心计算的术语提醒我们，这个限制的位置所在，克瑞恩已经发疯了，他要求他应该被带走。「将我的脚拖出来。」科利费伊斯成功地找到力量，来参与文字的遊戏说：「你这样说是正确的：我们在脚感觉的痛苦，是那种痛苦；不像其他的痛苦，它没有延续很久。」

Sophocles is no pedantic schoolmaster, but unfortunately he has been
translated by pedants. In any case, that’s how the corrida ends. Have the
arena raked over, the bull removed, and cut off his you-know-what, if there
is any left. That’s the style in which he has been rendered. May he go off to
the bright sound of little bells.

索福克利斯并不是爱卖弄学问的学校老师。但是不幸地，翻译他的人都是一些书呆子。无论如何，这场情爱斗牛戏就这样结束了。让斗牛场重新整理，公牛被移走，被切除他的什么，假如还有任何东西剩下的话。那就是他曾经被摆弄的这种风格。但愿他带着牛铃的铃铛响声离去。

It is more or less in these terms that the play of Antigone has been translated.
Next time I will take a little time to point out a few essential points
that will enable you to link my interpretation directly to the very terms used
by Sophocles.

安提贡尼的这个戏剧曾经被翻译，就是用这些术语。下次，我将花费一些时间，指出一些基本的要点。那会让你们将我的解释直接连接到索福克利斯使用的术语。

I hope that that will take no more than half of my time, and that I will be
able to speak afterwards about what Kant has to say on the subject of the
beautiful.
June I, I960

我希望那仅会花费我一半的时间。以后，我将能够谈论有关康德所必需说的话，有关美的主题。
1960年 6月1日

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

Ethic 262

Ethic 262
The Ethics of Psychoanalysia
精神分析学的伦理学

Jacques lacan
雅克、拉康

XX
The articulations of the play
戏剧的表达

2
Antigone is the heroine. She’s the one who shows the way of the gods. She’s
the one, according to the Greek, who is made for love rather than for hate.
In short, she is a really tender and charming little thing, if one is to believe
the bidet-water commentary that is typical of the style used by those virtuous
writers who write about her.

安提贡尼是在位女英雄。她是显示众神之道的人。依照希腊人的说法，她是为爱而生，而不是为恨而生的。总之，她确实是一位温柔而迷人的尤物，假如我们想要相信那些品德的作家写到关于她所用的浮浅的评论的典型风格。

By way of introduction, I would just like to make a few remarks. And I
will come right to the point in stating the term that is at the center of Antigone’s
whole drama, a term that is repeated twenty times, and that given the
shortness of the text, sounds like forty – which, of course, does not prevent
its not being read – άτη.

作为介绍，我仅是想要发表一些谈论。我将直接谈论这点，陈述作为安提贡尼的戏剧的中心的术语，这个术语曾经被重复二十次。考虑到文本的简短，它听起来像是四十次。当然，这并没有阻止它没有被阅读– άτη.

It is an irreplaceable word. It designates the limit that human life can only briefly cross. The text of the Chorus is significant and insistent – εκτος άτας.
Beyond this Ate, one can only spend a brief period of time, and that’s where
Antigone wants to go. It’s not a moving little journey at all. One learns from
Antigone’s own mouth testimony on the point she has reached: she literally
cannot stand it anymore. Her life is not worth living. She lives with the
memory of the intolerable drama of the one whose descendence has just been
destroyed in the figures of her two brothers. She lives in the house of Creon;
she is subject to his law; and that is something she cannot bear.

这是一个无可替代的字词。它指明这个限制，人类的生命仅能够简短地跨越。合唱队的文本很重要而是坚持–εκτος άτας。 超越这个法则之外，我们仅能够渡过一段简短的时期。那就是安提贡尼想要去的地方。那并不是感动人的小旅途。我们从安提贡尼到达的始刻，自己的嘴中证词获知：她实质上无法忍受它。她的生命是不值得活下去。她生活带着这个无法承受的戏剧的记忆，因为她的家族刚刚以她的两位兄弟的榜样被毁灭。她生活在克瑞恩的家中，她隶属于这个法则；那就是她无法忍受的东西。

She cannot bear, you tell yourselves, to live with someone whom she abhors.
But why not after all? She is fed and housed, and in Sophocles, she isn’t
married off like Giraudoux’s Electra. Don’t imagine by the way that Giraudoux
invented that. It was Euripides, but in his play she isn’t married off to
the gardener. So that’s the situation: Antigone cannot bear it, and it weighs
down on her in such a way as to explain the resolution, which is affirmed
from the beginning in her dialogue with Ismene.

她无法承受。你告诉你自己，跟某位她憎恶的人生活在一块。但是毕竟有何不可呢？她养尊处优。在索福克利斯笔下，她并没有像基拉道的伊列克脱拉那样嫁出去。请你们不要顺便想象，基拉道杜撰那件事。那是尤里披底斯写的。但是在他的戏剧里，她并没有嫁给那个园丁。所以，就是那个情况。安提贡尼无法承受它。它沉重地压在她身上，以这样一种方式，以致于解释这个解决。从她开头跟艾斯民的对话，这种解决被证实。

This dialogue is of an exceptional harshness. Ismene points out that “Really,
given our situation, we don’t have much room to maneuver, so let’s not make
things worse.” Antigone jumps on her right away, saying, “Especially now,
don’t ever say that again, for even if you wanted to, I won’t have anything to
do with you.” And the term εχϋρα, emnity, is used in connection with her
relationship with her sister and what she will find in the other life when she
finds her dead brother again. She who later on will say, “I am made for love
rather than hate,” is immediately introduced with the word emnity.
In the course of events, when her sister comes back to her to share her
fate, and even though she hasn’t committed the forbidden deed, Atigone
will reject her also with a cruelty and a scorn that are consciously calculated.
She says to Ismene, “Go back to your Creon, since you love him so.”

这个对话属于特别的严酷。艾斯民指出，「确实地，假如考虑我们的情境，我们并没有很多可运作的空间。所以让我们不要将事情弄糟糕。」安提贡尼立即接续她说：「特别是现在，请你不要再说那个。因为即使你想要，我也不会跟你有任何牵连。」「敌意」这个术语被使用，关于她跟她的妹妹的关系，以及她将会发现的东西，当面临另外一种生活，在她再次找到她死去的兄长时。她后来将会说「我天生是为爱而活，而非为恨而活」。这句话随后立即介绍「敌意」这个字词。在事件的过程，当她的妹妹回到她，要跟她分担这个命运。即使她还没有犯上这个被禁止的行为，安提贡尼将会拒绝她，带着既残酷又嘲讽，那是特意算计好的。她对艾斯民说：「回去你的克瑞恩的家中，因为你如此爱他。」

This then is how the enigma of Antigone is presented to us: she is inhuman.
But we shouldn’t situate her at the level of the monstrous, for what
would that mean from our point of view? That’s all right for the Chorus,
which is present throughout the whole story, and which at a certain moment
after one of those breath-taking lines that are typical of Antigone, cries out,
“She is ωμός.” We translate that as best we can by “inflexible.” It literally
means something uncivilized, something raw. And the word “raw” comes
closest, when it refers to eaters of raw flesh. That’s the Chorus’s point of
view. It doesn’t understand anything. She is as ωμός as her father – that’s
what the Chorus says.

於是，这就是安提贡尼的谜团被呈现给于我们的样子。她是个怪胎。但是我们不应该将她定位在这个怪胎的层次，因为从我们的观点，那将意味着什么？对于合唱队，那是适合的，故事从头到尾，合唱队都在那里。在某个时刻，在其中一段令人惊心动魄的安提贡尼的典型台词，她喊叫着「她是ωμός。」我们尽快那将它翻译为「不屈不桡」。它实质上意味着某件不文明的东西，某件粗野的东西。那就是合唱队的观点。它什么都不了解。她像她的父亲一样都是不屈不桡ωμός。那就是合唱队说的。

What does it mean to us if Antigone goes beyond the limits of the human?
What does it mean if not that her desire aims at the following – the beyond
of Ate?

假如安提贡那跨越作为人的这个限制，那对于我们意味着什么？它的意思难道不就是她的欲望目标朝着以下：悲惨命运Ate 的超越？

That same word Ate is to be found in “atrocious.” That’s what is involved
here, and that’s what the Chorus repeats at a given moment in its speech with an emphasis that is technical. One does or does not approach Ate, and when one approaches it, it is because of something that is linked to a beginning and a chain of events, namely, that of the misfortune of the Labdacides family.

悲惨命运Ate 相同的这个字，在「残酷atrocious」这个字被发现。「那是在此牵涉的东西。那是合唱队重复的东西，在某特时刻，在它跟技术性的强调的言词。我们确实接近或没有接近「悲惨命运Ate」。当我们接近它时，那是因为某件东西跟开始与一连锁的事件息息相关，换句话说，跟拉达西底斯家族的不悲惨命运息息相关。

As one starts to come close to it, things come together in a great hurry, and
what one finds at the bottom of everything that goes on at every level in this
family, the text tells us, is a μέριμνα, which is almost the same word as
μνήμη, with an emphasis on “resentment.” But it is very wrong to translate
it thus, for “resentment” is a psychological notion, whereas μέριμνα is one
of those ambiguous words that are between the subjective and the objective,
and that properly speaking give us the terms of signifying speech. The μέριμνα
of the Labdacides is that which drives Antigone to the border of Ate.

如同我们开始接近它，事情匆促地汇集在一块。我们所发现的，在这个家庭的每个层次进行的一切。文本告诉我们，这是一个μέριμνα 那跟 μνήμη 几乎是相同的字词。强调「怨恨」。但是这是错误的，将它这样翻译。因为「怨恨」是一个心理的观念，而μέριμνα 则是其中一个模糊暧昧的字词，处于主观与客观之间。适当来说，它们给予我们能指化的言说的术语。拉达西底斯的家族的Μέριμνα 就是驱使安提贡尼到达悲惨命运Ate的边界。

One can no doubt translate Ate by “misfortune,” but it doesn’t have anything
to do with misfortune. It is this meaning that is assigned by doubtless
implacable gods, as she might say, which renders her pitiless and fearless. It
is also this that, so as to have her appear in the course of carrying out her act,
causes the poet to create the following fascinating image, namely, that first
occasion when during the night she goes and covers her brother’s body with
a fine layer of dust, so that it is disguised enough to be hidden from view.
One cannot, of course, expose to the eyes of the world that carrion flesh
visited by dogs and birds, who come to tear off strips and carry them away,
as the text says, only to leave them on the altars in town centers where they
promote horror and pestilence.

无可置疑地，我们能够将Ate翻译为「悲惨命运」。但是它跟悲惨命运并没有丝毫关系。这个意义无可置疑是受到无情的众神所指定。如她所说，这让她变得没有同情心与没有恐惧。也就是这个，引起诗人创造以下的迷人的意象，为了让她出现在实践她的行为的过程。换句话说，在夜晚她前去用一层泥土掩埋她的兄长的过程，那第一个场合。这个场合被足够伪装，被隐藏无法看见。当然，我们无法将野狗与鸟食噬的尸体腐肉，暴露在众人的眼前，因为它们已经被撕裂叼走，。如同文本所说，仅是被留置在城邦中心广场的祭坛，让人产生恐惧与瘟疫。

Thus Antigone carries out the deed the first time. But what goes beyond a
given limit must not be seen. The messenger goes and tells Creon what has
happened, assuring him that no trace has been found, that there is no way of
knowing who did it. The order is given to scatter the dust once again. But
this time Antigone is caught in the act. Upon his return the messenger describes
what happened in the following terms: first, they removed the dust that was
covering the body, and then, they placed themselves up-wind so as to avoid
the awful smells, because it stank. But a strong wind began to blow, and the
dust started to fill the air and even, the text tells us, the heavens themselves.
And at the very moment when everyone tries to escape, to cover their heads
with their arms, and to go to earth at the spectacle of the change in nature,
little Antigone appears at the height of the total darkness, of the cataclysmic
moment. She appears once more beside the corpse, emitting moans, the text
says, like a bird that has just lost its young.

因此，安提贡尼首次实践这样的行为。但是超越某个特定的东西，一定不要被看见。这个信差前去告诉克瑞恩，曾经发生什么事，让他确定，没有痕迹曾经被发现。不可能知道是谁幹的。这个秩序被给予，为了再次散开这些泥土。但是这次，安提贡尼在从事的时候被逮住。当信差回来时，他描述所发生的事情，用以下的术语：首先，他们清开掩埋尸体的泥土，然后，他们迅速离开，为了避免那些可怕的恶臭。因为它发出臭味。但是一阵强风开始吹，泥灰开始飘散空中，文本甚至告诉我们，飘到天庭。就在这个时刻，当每个人尝试逃避，用双手臂盖住他们的头颅，然后去挖掘自然改变的景象，小安提贡尼出现在完全黑暗的高度，在灾难时刻的颠峰。她再次出现在尸体的旁边，发出哀嚎，文本说，就像一隻刚刚散失它的幼雛的母鸟。

It’s a very strange image. And it is even stranger that it should be taken
up and repeated by other authors. I found in Euripides’ Phoenissae four lines
where she is also compared to the lonely mother of a lost brood, who emits
pathetic cries. That proves what the image of a bird always symbolizes in
classical poetry. Let us not forget how close pagan myth is to ideas of metamorphosis
– remember the transformation of Philomen and Baucis. It is the nightingale that appears in Euripides as the image of that which a human being is transformed into through his plaintive cries. The limit we have reached here is the one where the possibility of metamorphosis is located – metamorphosis that has come down through the centuries hidden in the-works of Ovid and that regains its former vitality, its energy, during that turning point of European sensibility, the renaissance, and bursts forth in the theater of Shakespeare. That’s what Antigone is.

这是一个奇怪的意象。更加奇怪的是，其他的作者竟然照本宣科。我在尤利披底斯的Phoenissae 发现有四行，描述她被比喻为丧失幼雛的孤单的母鸟，发出凄楚的哀嚎。那证明，鸟的这个意象总是象征的东西，在古典诗里。让我们不要忘记，异教徒的途径是多么靠近变形的观念。请记住费洛门与巴西斯。夜鹰出现在尤利披底斯笔下，作为是人类被转变成为的这个意象，通过他的哀伤的哭嚎。我们在此到达的限制，是变形的可能性被找到的位置。几世纪以来，隐藏在奥维德的著作的变形记曾经传留下来，重新恢复它先前的生命力，它的能源，在欧洲的启智的转捩点，文艺复兴。并且在莎士比亚的戏院，突然显现。那就是安提贡尼的本质。

The movement of the play toward its climax will from now on be obvious
to you.

这个戏剧朝向它的高潮的动作，从现在开始，对于你们将是显而易见。

I must clear the ground further, but it’s impossible not to point in passing
to a few lines spoken by Antigone. Lines 48, 70, and 73, where Antigone
expresses a kind of idiocy that is apparent at the end of a sentence in the word
μ£τά. Μετά means “with” or “after.” Prepositions don’t have the same function
in Greek as they do in French, in the same way that particles play a different
role in English from what we know in French. Μετά is, properly speaking,
that which implies a break. In response to Creon’s edict, she says, “But it
has nothing to do with my concerns.” At another moment, she says to her
sister, “If you wanted to come with me now and to carry out the sacred task,
I would no longer accept you.” She says to her brother, “I will lie down, my
loving friend, my almost lover, here with you.” Μετά is placed each time at
the end of the line in an inverse position, for normally this preposition like
the word “with” is placed in front of the noun. This feature implies in a
signifying form the kind of fierce presence Antigone represents.

我必须更进一步清理场地。但是我不可能不顺便指出，安提贡尼在48，70，73行，言说的几行。在那里，安提贡尼表达一种痴心妄想。在句子的结尾的这个字μ£τά.，这种痴心妄想，显而易见。Μετά 的意思是「跟、、一块」或是「以后」。在希腊文，这些命题并没有相同的功用，如同它们在法文的功用。同样地，在英文扮演的因素也不同于在法文我们所知道的。适当地说，Μετά 暗示着一种断裂。回应克瑞恩的敕令，她说，「但是这「跟」我的关怀没有丝毫关系。」在另外一个时刻，她对她的妹妹说，「假如你现在想要「跟」我一块，去执行那个神圣的工作，我将不再接纳你。「她对她的兄长说，「我将躺下来，我亲爱的朋友，我几乎的情人，在此「跟」你躺在一块。每次Μετά 被放置在这行的字尾，用倒转的方式，因为正常来说，像with这样的介系词都放置在名词前面。在能指化的形式，这个特征暗示安提贡尼代表的这种强悍的存在。

I will skip the details of her dialogue with Ismene. The commentary could
go on and on; it could take at least a year. I am sorry that I cannot contain
the extraordinary substance of the style and metre involved in the framework
of a seminar. I will pass on. After this opening, which demonstrates that the
die is already cast, we have the Chorus. This alternation between action and
the Chorus is something that, I believe, recurs five times.

我将跳跃过她跟艾斯门对话的细节。这种评论能够不断继续下去，至少要花个一年。我很抱歉，在研讨班的这个架构里，我无法包括所牵涉到的风格与韵律的特别的材料。我将继续下去。在这个开场白之后，它证明这个命运的骰子已经掷下，我们拥有合唱队为证。行动与合唱队之间的轮换是某件我相信我重复过五遍的东西。

But be careful. It is said that tragedy is an action. Is it άγειν? Is it πράτταν?
The signifier introduces two orders in the world, that of truth and that of the
event. But if one wants to retain it at the level of man’s relations to the
dimension of truth, one cannot also at the same time make it serve to punctuate
the event. In tragedy in general there is no kind of true event. The hero
and that which is around him are situated with relation to the goal of desire.
What occurs concerns subsidence, the piling up of different layers of the
Presence of the hero in time. That’s what remains undetermined: in the collapse
of the house of cards represented by tragedy, one thing may subside
before another, and what one finds at the end when one turns the whole thing
around may appear in different ways.

但是请小心。据说悲剧是一种行动。它是άγειν? 还是πράτταν?这个能指介绍世界的两个秩序，真理的秩序与事件的秩序。但是假如我们想要包留它，在人与真理的维度的关系的层次。我们也无法在相同的时刻让它用来强调这个事件。在一般的戏剧里，并没有这样的真实的事件。英雄与环绕他四周的东西，都被定位在跟欲望的目标的关系。所发生的事情，都跟跟崩塌息息相关，英雄在时间中的存在不同层级的累积。那就是由悲剧所代表的牌屋顶的崩塌中，始终保留没有被损坏的东西。某件东西可能存在于另外一件东西之前。我们最后所发现的东西，将整个事情倒转过来。结果出现的方式不同。

An illustration of that is the following: after having broadcast the fact that he will never yield an inch in his responsibilities as ruler, Creon starts to lose his nerve once old Tiresias has finished giving him a piece of his mind. He then says to the Chorus, “Shouldn’t I perhaps, after all. . . perhaps yield?” He says it in terms that, from the point of view of what I am arguing here, are extraordinarily precise, for Αte is used there again with a special appositeness. At that moment it is clear that if he had been to the grave before finally and belatedly granting the corpse its funeral honors, something that does after all take a little time, the worst might have been avoided.

其中一个例子如下：在广播这个事实之后，他将永远退让一步，在他作为统治者的责任。克瑞恩开始丧失他的勇气，一旦那我老泰瑞西亚斯预言家给予他一件劝告。他因此对合唱队说，「或许，我毕竟应该退让？」他用这些术语，从我在此正在主张的这个观点，这些术语是特别确实的。因为Ate在那里再次被使用，带有特别的合适。在那个时刻，显而易见地，假如他当时曾经到坟墓，来得及给尸体拥有葬礼的荣誉，最糟糕的事情本来可以避免，因为这毕竟并不需花费很久时间。

Only there it is, it is probably not for nothing that he begins with the
corpse; he wants, as they say, to come to terms with his conscience. Believe
me, that is always the element that leads everyone astray whenever reparations
are to be made. I have only given you a little illustration, for at every
moment in the unfolding of the drama the question of temporality, of the
way in which the threads in place are joined together, remains decisive,
essential. But it is no more comparable to an action than what I referred to
earlier as subsidence, as a collapse back onto its premises.

只是或许这并非是徒劳无意义，如人们所说，他开始跟尸体在一块。他想要跟他自己的良心妥协。请相信我，总是那个因素引导每个人迷失，每当补偿应该被做的时候。我仅是给予你们一个小例子。因为在每个时刻，在受到质疑的戏剧展开的时刻，分散的线索被联结起来，始终作为决定性，作为基本。但是它不再是被比喻为一个行动，而是我早先提到的崩塌，崩塌成为它的假设。

Thus, after the first dialogue between Antigone and Ismene, the music,
the Chorus, the song of liberation, Thebes is beyond the power of those
whom one might well call the barbarians. The style of the poem, which is
that of the Chorus, represents Polynices’s soldiers and his shadow strangely
enough as a huge bird hovering above the houses. The image of our modern
wars as something that glides overhead was already made concrete in 441 B.C.

因此，在安提贡尼与艾斯门之间的第一次对话之后，音乐，合唱队，解放自由的歌声。泰伯河是超越那些所谓的野蛮民族的权力之外。这首诗的风格，就是合唱队的风格。它足够奇特地代表波利尼西斯的士兵们与他的阴魂，作为是一隻巨大的鸟，盤旋在那些房屋之上。我们现代战争的意象是某件从头上飞翔过的东西，在纪元前441年，已经具体被表现。

Once this first musical entrance is finished – and one cannot help feeling
that there is some irony involved on the part of the author – it’s over or, in
other words, things are about to begin.

有一次，这个首次的音乐的进入被完成。我们禁不住地感觉到，在作者的这方面，会牵涉到某种的反讽。事情已经过去，换句话说，事情即将开始。

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

Ethic 257

Ethic 257
The Ethics of Psychoanalysia
精神分析学的伦理学

Jacques lacan
雅克、拉康

XX
The articulations of the play
戏剧的表达

I would like to try today to talk about Antigone, the play written by Sophocles
in 441 B.C., and in particular about the economy of the play.

今天我想要尝试谈了安提贡尼，纪元前441世纪，索福克利图斯写的这个戏剧。特别是关于戏剧的经济活力。

With the category of the beautiful, Kant says that only the example –
which doesn’t mean the object – is capable of assuring its transmission insofar
as this is both possible and demanded. Now, from every point of view,
this text deserves to play such a role for us.

使用美丽的范畴，康德说，仅有这个例子并没有意味著，客体能够确定它的传递，因为它既是可能，又是被要求。现在，从每个观点，这个文本应该跟我们扮演一个角色。

As you in any case know, I am reopening the question of the function of
the beautiful in relation to that which we have been considering as the aim of
desire. In a word, it may be that something new on the subject of the function
of desire may come to light here. That is the point we have reached.

无论如何，众所周知，我正在重新展开美的功用的这个问题，相关于我们一直在考虑到，作为欲望的目标。总之，那可能是，某件新的东西，对于欲望的功用的主题，在此会有所启发。这就是我们已经到达的这点。

It is only a single point on our path. Don’t be astonished at how long that
path is, Plato says somewhere in the Phaedrus, which is itself a dialogue on
the beautiful: Don’t be astonished if the detour is such a long one, for it is a
necessary detour.

这仅是我们的途径的一个点。你们不要惊讶，那个途径会有多久。柏拉图在「费德拉斯」的某个地方说过，它本身是讨论美的对话。你们不要惊讶，假如这个迂迴如此漫长，因为这是一个必须的迂迴。

Today we need to make progress in our commentary on Antigone.
Read this truly admirable text. It is an unimaginable highpoint, a work of
overwhelming rigor, whose only equivalent in Sophocles’s work is his final
work, Oedipus at Colonus, which was written in 401.

今天，我们需要进展，在我们对于安提贡尼的评论。请阅读这个确实让人赞赏的文本。这是一个难以想象的高潮，一部磅礴充沛的作品。在索福克利图斯的作品，唯一能够匹敌的是他后的作品「伊狄浦斯在科伦那斯」，写于401年。

I will now attempt to analyze this text with you so as to make you appreciate
its extraordinary stature.

我现在将企图跟你们分析这个文本，为了要让你们赏识它的特别的形态。

I
As I said last time then, we have Antigone, we have something going on, we
have the Chorus.

如我上次所说，我们谈论安提贡尼，我们谈论某件正在进行的东西。我们谈论合唱队。

On the other hand, as far as the nature of tragedy is concerned, I quoted
the end of Aristotle’s sentence on pity and fear effecting the catharsis of the
emotions, that famous catharsis the true meaning of which we will try to
grasp at the end. Strangely enough, Goethe saw the function of this fear and
pity in the action itself. That is, the action would provide us with a model of
the balance between fear and pity. That is certainly not what Aristotle says;
what he says is as inaccessible to us as a closed road on account of the curious
fate that has left us with so little material to confirm what he says in his text,
because so much of it has been lost down through the centuries.

在另一方面，就悲剧的特性而言，我引述亚里斯多德讨论同情与恐惧的句子的结局，造成情感的心灵净化的结果。那个著名的心灵净化的真实的意义，我们最后将尝试理解。奇特的是，歌德看到恐惧与同情的这个功用，在行动的本身。换句话说，行动将会提供我们恐惧与同情的一个平衡点模式。那确实并不是亚里斯多德所说的。他所说的内容是我们无法接近，作为一条封闭的道路，因为这个耐人寻味的命运，曾经留给我们如此少的材料，为了要肯定他在他的文本所说的话。因为经历许多世纪下来，如此多的部分已经丧失。

I will tell you one thing right away. Please note, and this is my first point,
that at first glance, of the two protagonists, Creon and Antigone, neither one
seems to feel fear or pity. If you doubt that, it is because you haven’t read
Antigone, and since we are going to read the play together, I hope to point it
out to you in the text.

我将立即告诉你们一件事情。请注意，这是我的第一点。乍然一看，两位主角，克瑞恩与安提贡尼，没有一位似乎感觉恐惧与同情。假如你们怀疑这点，你是因为你们还没有阅读「安提贡尼」。因为我们将一块阅读这个戏本，我希望在文本里跟你们指出它。

My second point is that it is not “seems,” but it is “certain” that at least
one of the protagonists right through to the end feels neither fear nor pity,
and that is Antigone. That is why, among other things, she is the real hero.
Creon, on the other hand, is moved by fear toward the end, and if it isn’t the
cause of his ruin, it is certainly the sign of it.

我的第二点是，它并不是「似乎」，而是「确定」。至少两位主角的其中一位从头到尾，既不感到恐惧，也不感到同情。那就是安提贡尼。那就是为什么，在众多事情当作，她是真实的英雄。在另一方面，将近结局时，克瑞恩受到恐惧的感动。即使那并不是他的灭亡的原因，它确实是它的迹象。

Let us now take up the question from the beginning.

让我们从开头探讨这个问题。

It’s not even that Creon says the play’s opening words. As composed by
Sophocles, the play begins by introducing us to Antigone in her dialogue with
Ismene; and she affirms her position and her reasons from the opening lines.
Creon isn’t even there as a foil. He only appears later. He is nevertheless
essential for our demonstration.

这甚至不是因为克瑞恩说出戏剧开场白。由索福克利图斯写作，这部戏剧开始时，跟我们介绍安提贡尼，以她跟艾斯民的对话。她肯定她的立场与她的理由，从开头的几行。克瑞恩在那里甚至仅是一个陪衬人物。他仅是后来才出现。可是对于我们的展示，他是举足轻重。

Creon exists to illustrate a function that we have shown is inherent in the
structure of the ethic of tragedy, which is also that of psychoanalysis; he seeks
the good. Something that after all is his role. The leader is he who leads the
community. He exists to promote the good of all.

克瑞恩存在为了解释我们曾经显示的一个功用。在悲剧的伦理学的结构，这个功用是重要的。那也是精神分析的功用。他寻求善行。毕竟，这个东西是他的角色。他是引导社会的领导者。他存在是为了提升一切的善行。

What does his fault consist of? Aristotle tells us, using a term that he
affirms falls directly within the province of tragic action, αμαρτία. We have
some trouble translating that word. “Error,” we say, and in order to relate it
to ethics, we interpret it as “error of judgment.” But perhaps it isn’t as simple
as that.

他的缺点由什么组成？亚里斯多德告诉我们，使用一个他肯定的术语，这个术语被涵盖在悲剧的行动αμαρτία.的范围里。我们遭遇一些麻烦，翻译那个字词。「错误」，我们说，为了将它跟伦理学连接一块，我们解释它，作为是「判断的错误」。但是或许，这并不那么单纯。

As I told you last time, almost a century separates the period of the creation
of great tragedies from their interpretation by philosophical thought. Minerva,
as Hegel has already said, takes flight at twilight. I’m not too sure, but I
think we should remember this formula, which has been so often evoked, to
recall that there is after all some distance between the teachings embodied in
tragic rites as such and their subsequent interpretation in the form of an
ethics, which with Aristotle is a science of happiness.

如同我上次告诉你们，伟大悲剧的创作的时期，跟哲学的思想的解释分开，几乎有一个世纪。如同黑格尔已经说过，明诺瓦在天将破晓时起飞。我并不太确定，但是我认为我们应该记住这个公式。这个公式曾经经常被引用，为了提醒，毕竟，有某个距离存在于悲剧仪式具体表现的教导，与它们随后的解释之间，后者以伦理学的形式，对于亚里斯多德，伦理学是一门快乐的智慧。

Nevertheless, it is true that we do note the following. And I would not
have any difficulty finding αμαρτία in others of Sophocles’s tragethes: it exists,
it is affirmed. The terms άμαρτάνειν and αμαρτήματα are to be found in
Creon’s own speeches, when at the end he succumbs to the blows of fate. But αμαρτία does not appear at the level of the true hero, but at the level of
Creon.

可是，我们确实注意到以下。我将不会遭遇任何困难，在索福克利斯的其他悲剧发现 αμαρτία 。它存在，它被肯定。άμαρτάνειν 与 αμαρτήματα 的这些术语能够被发现，在克瑞恩的言说里。当最后，他屈服于命运的打击。但是αμαρτία并没有出现在这位真实英雄的层次，而是出现在克瑞恩的层次。

His error of judgment (and we come closer to it here than that thought
which is fond of wisdom ever has) is to want to promote the good of all – and
I don’t mean the Supreme Good, for let us not forget that 441 B.C. is very
early, and our friend Plato hadn’t yet created the mirage of that Supreme
Good – to promote the good of all as the law without limits, the sovereign
law, the law that goes beyond or crosses the limit. He doesn’t even notice
that he has crossed that famous limit about which one assumes enough has
been said when one says that Antigone defends it and that it takes the form
of the unwritten laws of the Δίκη. One thinks one has said enough when one
interprets it as the Justice or the Doctrine of the gods, but one hasn’t, in fact,
said very much. And there is no doubt that Creon in his innocence crosses
over into another sphere.

他的判断的错误（在此，比起以往，我们比较靠近喜爱智慧的这个思想），就是想要提升一切的善行。我的意思并不是崇高的善，因为让我们不要忘记，在纪元前441年是非常早期，我们的朋友柏拉图还没有创造那个崇高的善的幻想。提升一切中的善，作为没有限制的法则，这个统治性的法则，超越或跨越这个限制的法则。他甚至没有注意到，他已经跨越这个著名的限制。关于这个限制，我们认为我们已经说得足够，当我们说安提贡尼防卫它，它形成这个Δίκη 的不成文法则。我们认为我们已经说得足够，当我们解释它，作为是众神的信条的正义。但是事实上我们没有说的很多。无可置疑的地，克瑞恩纯然无知地跨越进入另外一个领域。

Note that his language is in perfect conformity with that which Kant calls
the Begriff or concept of the good. It is the language of practical reason. His
refusal to allow a sepulcre for Polynices, who is an enemy and a traitor to his
country, is founded on the fact that one cannot at the same time honor those
who have defended their country and those who have attacked it. From a
Kantian point of view, it is a maxim that can be given as a rule of reason with
a universal validity. Thus, before the ethical progression that from Aristotle
to Kant leads us to make clear the identity of law and reason, doesn’t the
spectacle of tragedy reveal to us in anticipation the first objection? The good
cannot reign over all without an excess emerging whose fatal consequences
are revealed to us in tragedy.

请注意，他的语言完全地和谐，跟康德所谓的善的观念。这是一个实践理性的语言。他拒绝给予波利尼西斯死后埋葬。因为他是他的国家的敌人与背叛者。这种拒绝的基础是这个理由：我们无法同时尊敬那些为捍卫他们国家的人，与曾经攻击他们国家的人们。从康德的观点，这些一个能够被给予作为理性规则的公理，具有普遍性的正确性。因此，在伦理的进展之前，从亚里斯多德到康德，这种伦理的进展引导我们澄清法则与理想的认同。悲剧的这个景象难道不是跟我们显示，预期首先的反对？这个善统治一切，必然会有过度出现。这个过度的结果在悲剧中跟我们显示出来。

What then is this famous sphere that we must not cross into? We are told
that it is the place where the unwritten laws, the will or, better yet, the Δίκη
of the gods rules. But we no longer have any idea what the gods are. Let us
not forget that we have lived for a long time under Christian law, and in
order to recall what the gods are, we have to engage in a little ethnography.
If you read the Phaedrus I was talking about just now, which is a reflection
on the nature of love, you will see that we have changed the very axis of the
words that designate it.

那么，我们一定不要跨越进入的这个著名的领域是什么？我们被告诉，那是不成文法则统治的地方，这个意志，或更贴切地说，众神的这个Δίκη 统治的地方。但是我们不再知道众神是什么。让我们不要忘记，我们曾经长久生活在基督教的法则之下。为了回想众神在哪儿，我们必须稍微探讨一下民族学。假如你们阅读我刚才谈论到的「费德拉斯」，这是对于爱的特性的省思。你们将会看出，我们曾经改变指明它的那些字词的轴心。

What is this love? Is it that which, as a result of the fluctuations of the
whole Christian adventure, we have come to call sublime love? Is it, in effect,
very close, although it was reached by other paths? Is it desire? Is it that
which some people believe I identify with a certain central sphere, namely,
some natural evil in man? Is it that which Creon somewhere calls anarchy?
In any case, you will see that the way in which the lovers in the Phaedrus act
in relation to love varies according to the “epopteia” in which they have participated.
“Epopteia” here means initiation in the sense that the term has in
antiquity; it designates very detailed ceremonies in the course of which certain phenomena occur. One comes upon these down through the centuries –
and down to the present time, if one is willing to go to other regions of the
globe – in the form of trances or phenomena of possession in which a divine
being manifests itself through the mouth of someone who is, so to speak,
willing to cooperate.

这个爱是什么？它难道不是由于整个基督教的冒险的摇摆，我们渐渐称为崇高的爱？事实上，它难道不是非常靠近，虽然是凭借其他的途径到达？它是欲望吗？它难道不是某些人相信的东西吗？我认同某种的中央的领域。换句话说，人身上的某种自然的邪恶？它难道不是克瑞恩在某个地方称为是无法无天的地方？无论如何，你们将会看出，在「费德拉斯」，情人的行动跟爱相关的方式，会依照这个”epopteia” 而有差异。他们曾经参与那里。”Epopteia” 在此的意思意味着创始，这个术语在古代具有的意义。它指明非常详细的典礼。在这个典礼的过程，某些现象出现。几个世纪以降，一直到现在，我们遭遇到这些。假如我们愿意去到地球的其他地区—以狂喜的形式或是著魔的现象。在那里，神性的存在展现它自己，通过某人的嘴巴。换句话说，某个愿意合作的人。

Thus Plato tells us that those who have undergone an initiation to Zeus do
not react in love in the same way as those who were initiated to Ares. Just
replace those names with those who in a given province of Brazil stand for a
spirit of the earth or war or of a sovereign being. It is not our intention to
engage in exoticism here, but that is what is involved.

因此，柏拉图告诉我们，曾经经历创始仪式进入宙斯神殿那些人，并没有以爱作为反应，如同那些被创始仪式进入阿瑞斯神殿的那些人。请你们用在巴西的某个省份代表大地或战争，或统治者的精神的那些人，来取代那些名字。在此从事驱魔，并不是我们的意图，但是那是所被牵涉的东西。

In other words, this whole sphere is only really accessible to us from the
outside, from the point of view of science and of objectification. For us Christians,
who have been educated by Christianity, it doesn’t belong to the text
in which the question is raised. We Christians have erased the whole sphere
of the gods. And we are, in fact, interested here in that which we have replaced
it with as illuminated by psychoanalysis. In this sphere, where is the limit?
A limit that has no doubt been there from the beginning, but which doubtless
remains isolated and leaves its skeleton in this sphere that we Christians have
abandoned. That is the question I am asking here.

换句话说，这整个领域仅是我们确实可以从外面接近的东西，从智慧与客观化的观点。对于我们基督教徒，他们曾经受过基督教的教育。它并不属于这个问题被提出的文本。我们基督徒曾经抹除众神的这个领域。事实上，我们在此感到興趣的是，我们曾经用来取代它的东西，作为是有精神分析所启蒙。在这个领域，这个限制在哪里？无可置疑地，这一个限制从开头就一直在那里。但是无可置疑地，它始终是孤立，并且留下它的骨架在这个领域，我们基督徒曾经放弃的领域。那就是我在此正在询问的问题。

The limit involved, the limit that it is essential to situate if a certain phenomenon
is to emerge through reflection, is something I have called the phenomenon
of the beautiful, it is something I have begun to define as the limit
of the second death.

被牵涉到的这个限制，是某件我曾经称为是美丽的现象。假如某个现象将要通过这个省思出现，定位这个限制是很重要的。美丽的现象这个东西，我曾经开始定义它，作为是二次死亡的限制。

I first brought this to your attention in connection with Sade as something
that sought to pursue nature to the very principle of its creative power, which
regulates the alternation of corruption and generation. Beyond that order,
which it is no longer easy for us to think of and assume in the form of knowledge
– and that is taken to be a reference point in the development of Christian
thought – Sade tells us that there is something else, that a form of
transgression is possible, and he calls it “crime.”

我首先提醒你们注意，关于萨德，作为是某件尝试寻求自然，到达它的创造性力量的原则。这个原则规范腐败与生产的轮替。在那个秩序之外，我们不再容易地用知识的形式认为与假定。那被认为是一个指称点，在基督教的思想的发展。萨德告诉我们，还有某件其他东西。一种逾越的形式是可能的，他称它为「犯罪」。

As I indicated, the form of the crime may only be a ridiculous fantasm,
but what is in question is that which the thought points to. The crime is said
to be that which doesn’t respect the natural order. And Sade’s thought goes
as far as forging the strangely extravagant notion that through crime man is
given the power to liberate nature from its own laws. For its own laws are
chains. What one has to sweep aside in order to force nature to start again
from zero, so to speak, is the reproduction of forms against which nature’s
both harmonious and contradictory possibilities are stifled in an impasse of
conflicting forces. That is the aim of Sadean crime. It isn’t for nothing that
crime is one boundary of our exploration of desire or that it is on the basis of
a crime that Freud attempted to reconstruct the genealogy of the law. The
frontiers represented by “starting from zero,” ex nihilo, is, as I indicated at
the beginning of my comments this year, the place where a strictly atheist
thought necessarily situates itself. A strictly atheist thought adopts no other
perspective than that of “creationism.”

如同我指示，犯罪的这个形式可能仅是一种荒谬的幻见，但是受到置疑的问题是，思想指向的东西。犯罪据说是并没有尊敬自然秩序的东西。萨德的思想甚至铸造这个奢侈得怪异的观念，凭借犯罪，人被给予这个力量，将自然从它自己的天性解放出来。因为它自己的法则就是锁链。我们所必需横扫一旁的东西，为了强迫自然再次从零开始1，换句话说，那是形式的复制。对抗这些形式的复制，自然的既和谐与矛盾的可能性，被闷住在各种冲突力量的僵局里。那是萨德的犯罪的目标。这并非是没有意义，犯罪是我们的欲望的探索的边界。或者说，根据犯罪的基础，弗洛依德企图重新建构法律的系谱学。如同我从今年我的评论的开始所指示的，由「从零度开始」ex nihilo所代表的边界。严格的无神论思想必须定位自己在那里。严格的无神论思想採用的观点不是别的，就是「创造主义」的观点。

Moreover, nothing demonstrates better that Sadean thought is situated at
that limit than the fundamental fantasm one finds in Sade, a fantasm that is
illustrated in a thousand or more exhausting images that he gives us of the
manifestations of human desire. The fantasm involved is that of eternal suffering.

而且，比起在萨德我们发现的这个基本的幻见，没有一样东西更能证明：萨德的思想被定位在这个限制。萨德的这个幻见被举例说明，用他给予我们的上千个数不尽的意象，关于人类欲望的展示。被牵涉的幻见识永恒的痛苦的幻见。

In the typical Sadean scenario, suffering doesn’t lead the victim to the
point where he is dismembered and destroyed. It seems rather that the object
of all the torture is to retain the capacity of being an indestructible support.
Analysis shows clearly that the subject separates out a double of himself who
is made inaccessible to destruction, so as to make it support what, borrowing
a term from the realm of aesthetics, one cannot help calling the play of pain.
For the space in question is the same as that in which aesthetic phenomena
disport themselves, a space of freedom. And the conjunction between the
play of pain and the phenomena of beauty is to be found there, though it is
never emphasized, for it is as if some taboo or other prevented it, as if some
prohibition were there, which is related to the difficulty we are familiar with
in our patients of admitting something that properly speaking belongs to the
realm of fantasm.

在这个典型的萨德的剧本，痛苦并没有引导受害者到达他被肢解与毁灭的这个点。相反地，似乎所有的折磨的这个客体应该保留这个能力，成为是无可毁灭的支持。精神分析清楚地显示，主体将自己的双重人分开。这个自己是无法让毁灭靠近的。为了让它支持我们忍不住要称为是痛苦的遊戏，从美学的领域借用的术语。因为受到置疑的这个空间是相同的，跟美学现象嬉戏的空间，自由的空间。痛苦的遊戏与美丽的现象之间的关联，能够在那里被找到。虽然它从来没有被强调。因为好像某种的禁忌阻挡它，好像某种的禁止在那里，它跟我们在病人身上耳熟能详的困难息息相关，他们很困难承认某件东西，适当来说，是属于幻见的领域。

I will point it out to you in Sade’s texts, where it is so obvious that one
fails to see it. The victims are always adorned not only with all kinds of
beauty, but also with grace, which is beauty’s finest flower. How does one
explain this necessity, if not by the fact that we need to find it hidden, though
imminent, however we approach the phenomenon, in the moving presentation
of the victim or also in every form of beauty that is too obvious, too
present, so that it leaves man speechless at the prospect of the image that is
silhouetted behind it and threatens it. But what precisely is the threat, since
it isn’t the threat of destruction?

我将跟你们指出，在萨德的文本，显而易见地，我们没有看出它。受害者总是被装饰各种的美丽，而且优雅。那是美丽的最精致的花朵。我们如何解释这个必要？难道不是凭借这个事实? 我们需要发现它被隐藏，虽然是即将出现在受害者的感人的呈现，无论我们用什么方式接近这个现象。美丽的每个形式是过于明显，过于存在，它让人哑口无言，想到在它背后呈现轮廓及威胁它的这个意象。但是因为这并不是毁灭的威胁，这个威胁确实是什么？

The whole question is so crucial that I intend to have you go over the
passages of Kant’s Critique of Judgment that are concerned with the nature of
beauty; they are extraordinarily precise. I will leave them aside for the moment
except to note the following: the forms that are at work in knowledge, Kant
tells us, are interested in the phenomenon of beauty, though the object itself
is not involved. I take it you see the analogy with the Sadean fantasm, since
the object there is no more than the power to support a form of suffering,
which is in itself nothing else but the signifier of a limit. Suffering is conceived
of as a stasis which affirms that that which is cannot return to the void
from which it emerged.

整个的问题是如此重要，以致我打算让你们温习一下康德的「判断的批判」的这些段落，它们跟美丽的特性息息相关。它们是特别的确实。我暂时将它们放置一旁，除了注意以下：在知识里运作的那些形式。康德告诉我们，这些形式并不是对美丽的现象感到興趣，虽然客体本身并没有牵涉在内。我相信，你们看到跟萨德的幻见的这个类似。因为在那里的客体仅仅就是这个力量要支持痛苦的形式。痛苦的本身不是别的，而是限制的能指。痛苦被构想作为一种停滞的状态，肯定存在的东西，无法回到它原先从那里出现的空无

Here one encounters the limit that Christianity has erected in the place of
all the other gods, a limit that takes the form of the exemplary image which attracts to itself all the threads of our desire, the image of the crucifixion. If
we dare, not so much look it in the face – given that mystics have been staring
at it for centuries, we can only hope that it has been observed closely – but
speak about it directly, which is much more difficult, shall we say that what
is involved there is something that we might call the apotheosis of sadism?
And by that I mean the divinization of everything that remains in this sphere,
namely, of the limit in which a being remains in a state of suffering, otherwise
he can only do so by means of a concept that moreover represents the disqualification
of all concepts, that is, the concept of ex nihiôo.

在此，我们遭遇基督教竖立的这种限制，来代替所有其他的众神。这一个限制採取的是典范意象的形式。这个意象将我们欲望的所有线索吸引到它自己，耶稣钉上十字架的意象。假如我们胆敢，不是正面直视它，假如考虑到，神秘主义一直凝视它好几世纪了，我们仅能希望，它曾经仔细地被观察。但是直接地谈论到它。那会更加的困难。我们将会说，在那里所被牵涉的东西，是某件我们可能称为萨德主义的升华吗？我说这话的意思是，保留在这个领域的每样东西都神圣化。换句话说，限制的神圣化。在那里，人的存在始终是痛苦的状态。否则他仅能这样做，凭借一种观念。而且，这种观念代表所有的观念都除掉资格，从空无中创造ex nihilo的观念。

Suffice it for me to remind you of what you as analysts encounter directly,
in other words the extent to which the fantasm that guides feminine desire –
from the reveries of pure young virgins to the couplings fantasized by middleaged
matrons—may be literally poisoned by the favored image of Christ on
the cross. Need I go further and add that in connection with that image
Christianity has been crucifying man in holiness for centuries? In holiness.
For some time now we have discovered that administrators are saints. Can’t
one turn that around and say that saints are administrators, administrators of
the access to desire, for Christianity’s influence over man takes place at the
level of the collectivity? Those gods who are dead in Christian hearts are
pursued throughout the world by Christian missionaries. The central image
of Christian divinity absorbs all other images of desire in man with significant
consequences. From an historical point of view, we have perhaps reached the
edge of this. It is what in the language of administration is referred to as the
cultural problems of underdeveloped countries.

我仅能够这样提醒你们，作为精神分析家，你们直接遭遇的东西，换句话说，幻见引导女性的欲望的程度。从纯洁的处女地狂想，到中年的熟女幻想的配对—实质上是受到耶稣基督被钉在十字架的受到喜爱的意象所毒害。我需要更深入地补充说吗？关于耶稣基督的那个意象，基督教一直将人钉在神圣的十字架，有好几世纪了。钉在神圣的十字架。现在有段时间，我们曾经发现，那些实践者是圣人。我们难道不能将那个倒转过来，并且说：圣人就是那些实践者？接近欲望的实践者？因为基督教对于人的影响发生在集体化的层次。在基督徒心里，世界各地的基督教的传教士，就是在追求死去的那些众神。基督教的神性的中心的意象，吸引人们身上的欲望的所有其他的意象，具有重要的结果。从历史的观点，我们或许到达这个边缘。用实践的语言，被提到作为是未开发中的国家的文化的问题。

I am not as a result going to promise you a surprise here, whether it be a
good one or a bad one. You will come upon it, as Antigone says, soon enough.
Let us go back to Antigone.

结果，我并没有要在此给予你们一种惊奇，无论它是好或是不好的惊奇。不久，你们将会遇到它，如同安提贡尼所说。让我们回头谈论安提贡尼。
雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Ethic 253

Ethic 253
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XIX
第19章
The splendor of Antigone
安提贡尼的辉煌

GOETHE’S WISH
歌德的愿望

4
What else can I tell you today? I am hesitating because it is late. What I want
to do is lead you from one end to the other to make you appreciate its scope.
There is nevertheless one thing that you could do between now and next
time, and that is read the play. I don’t suppose that alerting you last time by
telling you that I would be talking about Antigone was even enough to make
you glance at it, given the average level of zeal you display. It would, how
ever, not be without interest if you did so before next time.

今天，我除外能够告诉你们什么呢？我正在犹豫，因为时间很晚了。我想要做的是，引导你们从一段到另外一端，为了让你们赏识它的宏伟。可是，有一件你们能够做的事情，在现在与下次之间，那就是阅读那个戏剧。我并不认为，上次我提醒你们，告诉你们说，我将会谈论安提贡尼，就足够让你们浏览它。假如考虑到你们展现的热诚的层次，可是，假如你们在下次之前能够阅读它，那将不无俾益。

There are a thousand ways of doing so. First of all, there’s Mr. Robert
Pignarre’s critical edition. For those who know Greek, I recommend the
interlinear translation, since a word by word rendering is amazingly instructive,
and I will be able to make you see the extent to which my points of
reference are perfectly articulated in the text by the signifiers, so that I don’t
have to search for them all over the place. If I find a word now and then
which echoes what I have to say, that would be a by no means arbitrary mode
of confirmation. On the contrary, I will show you that the words I use are
the words that are to be found running like a single thread from one end of
the play to the other, and that these words give it its structure.

有一千个方式阅读它。首先，有罗勃特、皮格内尔的评注的版本。对于懂希腊文的人们，我推荐交互对照的翻译，因为逐字地对照是非常具有启发性。我将会能够让你们看出这个程度，我的指称点非常清楚地被表达，在这些能指的文本。这样，我并不需要到处去寻找它们。假如我有时找到一个字词，跟我必须说的内容共鸣，那绝非是任意的肯定的模式。相反地，我将跟你们显示，我使用的这些字词是能够被找到的字词，就像一条脉络，从这个戏剧的这一段传递到另外一端。这些字词给予它它的结构。

There is one other thing I would like to point out.
One day Goethe in a conversation with Eckermann was in a speculative
mood. A few days previously he had invented the Suez canal and the Panama
canal. I must say that you have to be quite brilliant to have extremely clear
views on the subject of the historical function of these two pieces of equipment
in 1827. Then one day he comes across a book that had just come out
and has been completely forgotten since by a certain Irish, which is a nice
little commentary on Antigone, and that I know through Goethe.

还有另外一件事情，我想要指出。
有一天，歌德跟艾克曼在谈话，他正处于沉思的心情。前几天，他曾经构想苏伊士运河与巴拉马运河。我必须说，你们必须相当聪慧，才会极端清楚，对于1927年，这两条运河的历史上的功用的议题。然后有一天，他偶然碰到一本刚出版的书。这本书是某位爱尔兰人写的，从此就完全被忘记。那本书是对安提贡尼的非常好的评论。我是经由歌德才知道。

I don’t see how it is so different from Hegel’s commentary; it’s a little more
simpleminded, but there are some amusing things in it. Those who sometimes
criticize Hegel for the extraordinary difficulty of his statements will
find their taunts ratified by Goethe’s authority. Goethe certainly rectifies the
Hegelian view that Creon is opposed to Antigone as one principle of the law,
of discourse, to another. The conflict is thus said to be linked to structures.
Goethe, on the other hand, shows that Creon is driven by his desire and
manifestly deviates from the straight path; he seeks to break through a barrier
in striking at his enemy Polynices beyond limits within which he has the
right to strike him. He, in fact, wants to inflict on him that second death that
he has no right to inflict on him. All of Creon’s speeches are developed with
that end in view, and he thus rushes by himself toward his own destruction.
If it’s not exactly stated in those terms, it is implied, intuited, by Goethe.

我没有看出，它跟黑格尔的评注有多大差异。它是更加地心灵单纯，但是在它里面有某些有趣的东西。那些有时批评黑格尔的人们，因为他的评注的特别的难读，他们将会发现他们的嘲讽受到歌德的权威的认可。歌德确实纠正黑格尔的观点，克瑞恩跟安提贡尼相对立，作为是法律，辞说的某个原则跟另外一种原则的对立。这种冲突因此据说是跟结构有关系。在另一方面，歌德显示，克瑞恩受到他的欲望的驱使，明显地偏离这个直线的正途。他尝试突破一种阻碍，超过限制地来攻击他的敌人波利尼西斯。在这个限制之内，它拥有权力来攻击他。事实上，他想要给予他二次死亡的痛苦。那是他没有权力给予的痛苦。所有的克瑞安的演说被发展，就是以这个目标。他因此自己冲向他自己的毁灭。即使它并没有确实地用那些术语陈述，它被歌德暗示，直觉感受到。

It is not for him a question of a right opposed to a right, but of a wrong
opposed to – what? To something else that is represented by Antigone. Let
me tell you that it isn’t simply the defense of the sacred rights of the dead
and of the family, nor is it all that we have been told about Antigone’s saintliness.
Antigone is borne along by a passion, and I will try to tell you which one it is.

对于他而言，问题并不是正确跟正确对立，而是错误跟什么对立？跟某件其他由安提贡尼所代表的东西对立。让我告诉你们，这不仅是死者与家庭的神圣权利的防卫，它也并不是我们曾经被告上，有关安提贡尼的圣者情操。安提贡尼受到激情的带领。我将尝试告诉你们，那是什么激情。

But one thing is strange, and that is that Goethe tells us he was shocked,
rattled, by one point in her speeches. When every move has been made, her
capture, her defiance, her condemnation, and even her lamentations, and she
stands on the edge of the celebrated tomb with the martyrdom that we have
witnessed already behind her, Antigone stops to justify herself. When she
has already seemed to have been moved to a kind of “Father, why hast thou
forsaken me?”, she steps back and says, “Understand this: I would not have
defied the law of the city for a husband or a child to whom a tomb had been
denied, because after all,” she says, “if I had lost a husband in this way, I
could have taken another, and even if I had lost a child with my husband, I
could have made another child with another husband. But it concerned my
brother αύτάδεΚφος, born of the same father and the same mother.” The
Greek term that expresses the joining of oneself to a brother or sister recurs
throughout the play, and it appears right away in the first line when Antigone
is speaking to Ismene. Now that Antigone’s mother and father are hidden
away in Hades, there is no possibility of another brother ever being born:

但是有一件事情是奇怪的。那就是歌德告诉我们，他受到震吓，懊恼，因为她的言说的一个观点。当每个动作曾经被做，她的被捕捉，她的挑衅，她的被判刑，甚至她的哀悼，她站立在那著名的坟墓的边缘，带着我们已经见证到她背后的烈士情操。安提贡尼停下来自圆其说。当她似乎已经被感动到某种的「父亲，为什么你遗弃我？」她退回一步说：「请了解这点：我本来不会为了丈夫或小孩，去挑衅这个城邦的法律，假如他们被拒绝给予坟墓埋葬。因为毕竟，」她说，「假如我当时以这种方式丧失我的丈夫，我本来还可以另外寻找一个丈夫，跟另外一个丈夫再生一个小孩。但是这是跟我的兄弟有关，我们同属相同的母亲与父亲所生。」希腊的术语表达自己跟兄弟姐妹的关系，在戏剧从头到尾重复。它立即出现在第一行，当安提贡尼正在跟艾斯民谈话。因为安提贡尼的母亲与父亲已经隐藏在阴府之地，就不再有可能再生另外一个兄弟：

μητρός 8’iv “Αώου και πατρός κ€Κ€υθότοιν
ουκ έστ’ αδελφός όστις &ν βλαστοί ποτέ

The sage from Weimar finds that all that is a bit strange. He’s not the only
one. Over the centuries the reasoning found in that extraordinary justification
has always left people uncertain. It’s important that some madness always
strike the wisest of discourses, and Goethe cannot help emitting a wish. “I
wish,” he says, “that one day some scholar will reveal to us that this passage
is a later addition.”

在威马出生的歌德这位圣者发现，所有这一切有点奇怪。他并不是仅有的一位。几个世纪来，在那个特别的道理被发现的推理，总是让人们摇摆不定。重要的是是，某种的疯狂总是让各种辞说的大智慧者为之动容。歌德禁不住地发出愿望，「我但愿」，他说：「有朝一日，某位学者将会跟我们显示，这个段落是后来填加。」

This is the truth of a prudent man, one who knows the value of a text, one
who always takes care not to formulate ideas prematurely – for isn’t that how
one exposes oneself to all kinds of risks? – and naturally when one makes
such a wish, one can always hope that it will be realized. But there were at
least four or five nineteenth-century scholars who said that such a position is
untenable.

这就是一位谨慎的人都真理，他知道文本的价值，我们总是小心翼翼，不要过早地说明的观念。因为那难道不是我们将我们自己暴露于各种危险？自然地，当我们许下一个愿望，我们总是希望，这个愿望将会被实现。但是至少有四或五个世纪的学者说，这样一个立场是难以自圆其说。

A story just like it is said to be in Herodotus, in the third book. In truth,
there isn’t too great a relationship apart from the fact that it is a question of
life and death and of a brother, father, husband and child. It concerns a
woman who as a result of her lamentations is offered the possibility of choosing
one person in her family to be pardoned, the whole family having been
condemned, as was possible at the Persian court. The woman explains why
she chooses her brother over her husband.

像它这样的故事据说是存在于希罗德塔斯，在第三册。事实上，有没有太大的关系，除了这个事实：这是一个生死的问题，兄弟，父亲，丈夫或小孩的生死的问题。它关系到一位女人，由于她哀悼的结果，被提供这个可能性：选择家中的一个人接受饶恕，整个家庭已经被判刑，在波斯法庭，这是可能的。这位女人选择他的兄弟，而不是她的丈夫。

On the other hand, just because two passages resemble each other doesn’t
mean to say that one is copied from the other. Why, in any case, would the
copied lines have been inserted there? In other words, this passage is so little
apocryphal that these two lines are quoted roughly ninety years later by Aristotle
in the third book of his Rhetoric in a passage that explains how one
should explain one’s acts. It is difficult to believe the someone who was living
ninety years after Sophocles would have quoted these lines as a literary example,
if they carried with them the odor of a scandal. That seems to render the
thesis of a latter addition highly doubtful.

在另一方面，仅是因为两个段落互相类似，并不意味着说，我们从另外一个抄袭。无论如何，这些被抄袭的文词曾经被插入那里？换句话说，这个段落是没有什么可疑，这两行被亚里斯多德引述，大约十九年以后，在修饰学到第三册，这一个段落解释为们应该如何解释自己的行动。我们很困难相信，活在索福克利图斯之后九十年的人，本来会引用这几行，作为是文学的例子，假如它们具有丑闻的意涵。那似乎是让一个后来填加到主题非常可疑。

In the end, precisely because it carries with it the suggestion of a scandal,
this passage is of interest to us. You can already see why; it is only there so
as to furnish additional evidence to something that next time I will try to
define as the aim of Antigone.
May 25, 1960

最后，确实是因为它本身具有丑闻的暗示，我们对于这一段颇感興趣。你们已经能够看出为什么，它仅是在那里，为了供应额外的证据，给某件东西。下一次，我将尝试定义它，作为安提贡尼的目的。
1960年5月25日。

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

少于空无：第11章

CHAPTER 11c
第11章

Less Than Nothing
少于空无

Slavoj Zizek
斯拉夫、齐泽克

FORMULAE OF SEXUATION: THE ALL WITH AN EXCEPTION

性别化公式：具有例外的这个「全部」

Lacan elaborated the inconsistencies which structure sexual difference in his
“formulae of sexuation,” where the masculine side is defined by the universal function and its constitutive exception, and the feminine side by the paradox of “non‐All” (pas‐tout) (there is no exception, and for that very reason, the set is non‐All, non‐totalized). Recall the shifting status of the Ineffable in Wittgenstein: the passage from early to late Wittgenstein is the passage from All (the order of the universal All grounded in its constitutive exception) to non‐All (the order without exception and for that reason non‐universal, non‐All).

拉康建构作为性别差异的架构的这些不一贯性，在他的「性别公式」。在那里，男性的一面根据普遍性的功用与结构性的例外来定义。而女性的这边则是根据「并非全部」的悖论来定义。（没有例外，因为那个理由，这个集合是并非全部，并非整体性）。请大家回忆一下，维根斯坦对于无法解释物的转变的地位：从早期维根斯坦到晚期维根斯坦的过程，是从「全部」（全部作为基础的普遍性的秩序，在它的结构性的例外），到「并非全部」（没有例外的秩序，因为那个理由，并非是普遍性，并非全部）。

That is to say, in the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, the world is comprehended as a self‐enclosed, limited, bounded Whole of “facts” which precisely as such presupposes an Exception: the mystical Ineffable which functions as its Limit. In late Wittgenstein, on the contrary, the problematic of the Ineffable disappears, yet for that very reason the universe is no longer comprehended as a Whole regulated by the universal conditions of language: all that remains are lateral connections between partial domains. The notion of language as a system defined by a set of universal features is replaced by the notion of language as a multitude of dispersed practices loosely interconnected by “family resemblances.”22

换句话说，在早期维根斯坦的「逻辑哲学论文Tractatus 」，这个世界被理解作为是各种事实的自我封闭，有限制，有边界的整体。它的本身确实预先假设一种「例外」：神秘的无法解释物充当是它的限制。相反地，在晚期维根斯坦，这个无法解释物的问题消失。可是，正因为那个理由，宇宙不再是可理解，作为一个「整体性」，受到语言的普遍性条件的规范：所有剩余的东西，都是部分领域的边缘联接。语言作为系统的观念，由一套普遍性特征来定义，现在被取代。由语言作为众多的散佈的实践的观念取代。这些散佈的实践则是受到「家庭的类似物」互相联结。

A certain type of ethnic cliché renders perfectly this paradox of the non‐All: the
narratives of Origin in which a nation posits itself as being “more X than X itself,” where X stands for another nation commonly regarded as the paradigmatic case of some property.

某种的少数民族的陈词让这个「并非全部」的悖论表现得最为淋漓尽致。起源的所有叙事，每次都伴随着不同的否定。在起源的叙事里，一个国家提出它自己，作为「比 X 的本身更加是X」。在那里，X代表另外一个国家。那个国家共同被认为是某种财产的典范案例。

The myth of Iceland is that it became inhabited when those who found Norway, the freest land in the world, too oppressive, fled to Iceland; the myth about Slovenes being miserly claims that Scotland (the proverbial land of misers) became populated when Slovenes expelled to Scotland someone who had spent too much money.

冰岛的神话是，它开始有人定居，当有些人发现挪威，世界上最自由的土地，太过于压迫。他们逃到冰岛。关于斯拉夫人是守财奴的神话宣称：苏格兰（守财奴的世俗家园），苏格兰开始有人定居，当斯拉夫人被驱赶到苏格兰时，某个人曾经挥霍太多的钱。

The point is not that Slovenes are the most avaricious or Icelanders the most freedom‐loving—Scots remain the most miserly, but Slovenes are even more so; the people of Norway remain the most freedom‐loving, but Icelanders are even more so. This is the paradox of the “non‐All”: if we totalize all nations, then the Scots are the most miserly, yet if we compare them one by one, as “non‐All,” Slovenes are more miserly. A variation on the same motif occurs in Rossini’s famous statement on the difference between Beethoven and Mozart: when asked, “Who is the greatest composer?” Rossini answered, “Beethoven”; when asked the additional question “What about Mozart?” he added, “Mozart is not the greatest, he is the only composer…”

重点并不是斯拉夫人是最贪婪的人，或是冰岛是最热爱自由的人。苏格兰人始终是守财奴。而是斯拉夫人甚至是更加守财奴。挪威的人们始终是最热爱自由的人，而是冰岛人甚至是更加热爱自由的人。这个就是「并非全部」的悖论：假如我们将所有的国家整体化，那么苏格兰人是最守财奴的人。可是，假如我们逐一地比较他们，作为「并非全部」，斯拉夫人是更加的守财奴。对于相同主题的一个变种发生在罗西尼的著名的陈述，对于贝多芬与莫扎特之间的差异。当被问到，「谁是最伟大的作曲家？」罗西尼回答，「贝多芬」；当被问到这个额外的问题，「莫扎特怎么样？」他补充说，「莫扎特并不是最伟大，他是仅有的作曲家、、、」

This opposition between Beethoven (“the greatest” of them all, since he struggled with his compositions with titanic effort, overcoming the resistance of the musical material) and Mozart (who freely floated in the musical stuff and composed with spontaneous grace) points towards the well‐known opposition between the two notions of God: God as “the greatest,” above all Creation, the Ruler of the World, and so on, and God who is not the greatest but simply the only reality, who does not relate to finite reality as separate from him, since he is “all there is,” the immanent principle of all reality.23

将贝多芬与莫扎特相提并论，（贝多芬是所有作曲家中最伟大，因为他费尽心力跟他的作曲奋斗，克服音乐材料的阻碍；而莫扎特则是自由地飘浮在音乐道材料里，作曲时自动自发而且悠遊高雅），指向这个著名的对立：上帝的两个观念的对立：一个上帝的观念，作为是「最伟大，尤其是在创造世界方面，世界的统治者，等等；另一个上帝的观念，并不是最伟大，而仅是唯一的现实界。他并没有跟有限的现实界相关，作为是跟他分开，因为他就是「现实界所有存在的一切」，所有现实界的不朽原则。

The famous first paragraph of Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti‐Oedipus contains another unexpected example of universality grounded in an exception: it begins with a long list of what the unconscious (“it,” not the substantialized “Id,” of course) does: “It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks.”24 Talking is conspicuously missing from this series: for Deleuze and Guattari, there is no “ça parle,” the unconscious does not talk. The plethora of functions is in place to cover up this absence—as was clear already to Freud, multiplicity (of phalluses in a dream, of the wolves the Wolf‐man sees through the window in his
famous dream) is the very image of castration. Multiplicity signals that the One is
lacking.25

德勒兹与瓜达里的「反伊狄浦斯」的著名的第一段，包括另外一个意料之外的例子：普遍性以例外作为基础。它开始于一长列的无意识的作为（当然，「它」并不是「本我」的实体化」：「它到处运作，有时功能顺畅，有时它适合与开始。它呼吸，它发热，它吃。它拉屎，它性交」。从这一系列当中，谈话显而易见是失落。对于德勒兹与瓜达里，「言说」并不存在，无意识并不言说。丰富的功能各就各位，掩盖这个欠缺—如同对于弗洛依德，这已经是显而易见，多重性（梦中阳具的多重性，狼人通过他著名的梦中的窗户观看的狼的多重性）就是阉割的意象。多重性意指著，这个「一」是欠缺的。

The logic of universality and its constitutive exception should be deployed in three moments: (1) First, there is the exception to universality: every universality contains a particular element which, while formally belonging to the universal dimension, sticks out, does not fit its frame. (2) Then comes the insight that every particular example or element of a universality is an exception: there is no “normal” particularity, every particularity sticks out, is in excess and/or lacking with regard to its universality (as Hegel showed, no existing form of state fits the notion of the State). (3)Then comes the proper dialectical twist: the exception to the exception—still an exception, but the exception as singular universality, an element whose exception is its direct link to universality itself, which stands directly for the universal. (Note here the parallel with the three moments of the value‐form in Marx.)

普遍性的逻辑与其结构的例外应该被运作，在三个时刻：一、首先，普遍性有这个例外；每个普遍性包括一个特别的因素。虽然它正式属于普遍性的维度，它突出，它不适合于框架。二、然后有这个洞察：每个特殊的例子或普遍性的元素是一个例外。没有「正常」的特殊性，每个特殊性都突出，处于过度及欠缺，关于这个普遍性（如同黑格尔显示，没有一个现存的国家的形式适合国家的观念）。三、然后来临的就是适当的辩证法的变形：例外中的例外—依旧是一个例外。但是这个例外作为独特的普遍性，这一个元素的例外就是它跟普遍性本身的直接关系。它直接代表普遍性。（请注意这里的这个并列，跟在马克思的价值形式的三个时刻的并列。）

The starting point for Lacan’s formulae of sexuation is Aristotle—why? Aristotle oscillates between two notions of the relationship between form and matter: either form is conceived as universal, a possibility of particular beings, and matter as the principle or agent of individualization (what makes a table this particular table is the particular matter in which the universal form of Table is actualized), or matter is conceived as neutral‐universal stuff, a possibility of different beings, and form as the principle of individualization, as the agent which transforms neutral matter into a particular entity (the form of a table makes wood—which could have become many other things—a table). For
Hegel, of course, the first notion is that of abstract universality (universality as a neutral form shared by many particular entities), while the second notion already contains the germ of concrete universality: the form (i.e., universal concept) is in itself the principle or agent of its own individualization, of its concrete self‐articulation. It is in order to resolve or obfuscate this deadlock that Aristotle has to have recourse to sexual difference: being (a substantial entity) is the unity of form and hyle, of masculine and feminine, of active and passive.

对于拉康的性别公式的起始点是亚里斯多德—为什么？亚里斯多德摇摆于形式与物质之间的关系的两个观念之间：要就是，形式被构想成为普遍性，特殊的存在物的可能性，物质被构想成为个体化的原则与代理物（让桌子成为这个特殊的桌子的原因，是这个特殊的物质，桌子的普遍性形式在那里被实现）。要不然就是，物质被构想成为中立与普遍性的材料，不同存在物的可能性，而形式则是被构想成为个体化的原则，作为代理物，将中立的物质转变成为特殊的实体（桌子的形式使木材成为桌子—虽然木材本来能够成为许多的其他东西）。当然，对于黑格尔，第一个观念上抽象的普遍性的观念（普遍性作为中立的形式，受到许多特殊性的实体的分享）。而第二个观念已经包括具体普遍性的因子：形式（譬如，普遍性的观念）本身就是它自己的个体化的原则与代理物，它自己的具体的自我实现。为了要解决或模糊这个僵局，亚里斯多德必须诉诸于性别差异：存在作为一个实质的实体, 就是形式与物质的一致性，男性与女性的一致性，主动与被动的一致性。

This point is crucial to bear in mind: Lacan’s claim is not the rather obvious one that the Aristotelian couple of form and hyle is “sexualized,” that Aristotelian ontology remains in the lineage of the ancient sexualized cosmologies. It is, on the contrary, that Aristotle has to have recourse to a sexualized couple in order to resolve a strictly conceptual problem—and that this solution does not work, since the paradox of gender is that it disturbs the clear division into genus and species: we cannot say that humanity is a genus (gender) composed of two species, men and women, since a species is a unity which can reproduce itself—no wonder our everyday use of these terms turns this hierarchical
distinction around: we talk about the human species composed of (divided into) two genders.26 What this confusion indicates is that there is indeed “gender trouble,” but not in Judith Butler’s sense: the point is not only that the identity of each sex is not clearly established, neither socially nor symbolically nor biologically—it is not only that sexual identity is a symbolic norm imposed onto a fluid and polymorphous body which never fits the ideal—the “trouble” is rather that this ideal itself is inconsistent, masking a constitutive
incompatibility. Sexual difference is not simply a particular difference subordinated to the universality of the human genus/gender, but has a stronger status inscribed into the very universality of the human species: a difference which is the constitutive feature of the universal species itself, and which, paradoxically, for this reason, precedes (logically/conceptually) the two terms it differentiates between: “perhaps, the difference which keeps apart one [sex] from the other belongs neither to the one nor to the other.”27

这点非常重要，要铭记在心。拉康的宣称并不是这个明显的宣称：亚里斯多德将形式与物质的配对是「性别化」，亚里斯多德的本体论始终是在古代的性别化的宇宙论的脉络里。相反地，亚里斯多德必须诉诸于性别化的配对，为了解决严格是观念的问题。这种解决行不通，因为性别的悖论式，它扰乱这个清楚的区分成为物种与品种。我们无法说，人类是由两种品种组成的物种（性别化），男人与女人。因为品种是一种能够繁殖自己的一致性。难怪我们日常使用这些术语，将这种阶层的区别倒转过来。我们谈论人类的品种是由两种性别组成（区分）。这种混淆所指示的内容是，确实是有「性别的麻烦」。但不是朱蒂丝、巴特勒的意义：这个点不但是每个性别的认同没有清楚地被建立，无论社会上，象征上，或生物上。不但是性别的认同是一种象征的名称，被赋加在流动而多形态的身体上，这个身体永远没有适合这个理想。相反的，这个「麻烦」是，这个理想本身是不一贯，遮蔽一个结构性的不和谐。性别差异不仅是特殊的差异，隶属于人类物种与品种的普遍性，而且拥有一个更加强烈的地位，被铭记到人类品种的普遍性。这一种差异是普遍性的品种本身的构成特征。矛盾地，因为这个理由，它预先存在（逻辑上与观念上）于它区别的这两个术语：「或许，保持一个性别跟另外一个性别不同的差异，既不属于这个性别，也不属于另外一个性别」。

So how do Lacan’s formulae of sexuation relate to Aristotle? Lacan proposes a
reading of the Aristotelian “logical square” different from the predominant one: he introduces a subtle change into each of the four propositions. First, in his reading (here Lacan follows Peirce), the truth of the universal affirmation does not imply existence: it is true that “all x are Fx” even if no x exists. Second, he does not read the particular affirmation (some x are Fx) in the standard “minimal” way (“at least some x—but maybe all x—are Fx”), but in the “maximal” way, that is, as excluding the universal affirmation, as in contradiction with it (“some x are Fx means that all x are not Fx”). Third, he changes the formulation of the universal negative statement into a double negation: instead of the standard “all x are not Fx,” he writes, “there is no x which is not Fx.” Fourth, he changes the
formulation of the negative particular statement, displacing the negation from the function to the quantifier: not “some x are not Fx,” but “not‐all x are Fx.”

拉康的性别的公式如何跟亚里斯多德扯上关系？拉康建议一种阅读亚里斯多德的「逻辑方块」的方式，不同于这个盛行的方法。他介绍一种微妙的改变，成为四种命题的每一个。首先，在他的阅读（在此，拉康遵循皮尔斯），普遍性肯定的真理并没有意味着存在：的确，在标准的「最小量」方式，「所有的X是X」（至少，有些的X—但是也许所有的X—都是X）。但是在「最大量」的方式，也就是说，作为排除普遍性的肯定，如同跟它的矛盾（「有些的X是fx，意味着并非所有的X 都是Fx」）。第三，他改变普遍性的否定的陈述的说明，成为双重的否定：非但不是标准的「并非所有的X是FX」，他写道，「没有不是Fx的X」。第四，他改变否定的特殊的陈述的说明，替代这个否定，从功用变成数量词：并不是「有些的X，不是Fx」，而是「并非全部的X是Fx」。

What immediately stands out is how contradiction is displaced. In the classic
Aristotelian logical square, contradiction is vertical, between the left side (“all x are Fx” and “some x are Fx”) and the right side (“all x are not Fx” and “some x are not Fx”): the two universal propositions are contrary (all x are Fx or not Fx), while the two diagonals are contradictory (“some x are nonFx” is in contradiction with “all x are Fx”; and “some x are Fx” is in contradiction with “all x are nonFx”). Furthermore, the relation between each universal and particular proposition is one of implication: “all x are Fx” implies that “some x are Fx,” and “all x are not Fx” implies that “some x are not Fx”; plus the relation between the two particular propositions is one of compatibility (“some x are Fx” and “some x are not
Fx” can both be true). The standard example: “all swans are white” and “all swans are not‐white” is contrary; “all swans are white” and “some swans are non‐white” is contradictory, as well as “all swans are non‐white” and “some swans are white”; “some swans are white” is compatible with “some swans are non‐white.”

立即突显出来的东西，是矛盾如何被替换。在古典的亚里斯多德的逻辑四方块，矛盾是垂直的，处于左边（所有的X都是Fx」与「有些的X是fx」；在右边则是「并非所有的X是Fx，或有些的X,并非Fx」：这两个普遍性的命题是相反的（所有的X都是Fx，或并非是Fx」。虽然这两个斜角线是矛盾 （「有些的X是并非Fx」，处于矛盾状态，跟「所有的X是Fx」。「有些的X是Fx」处于矛盾状态，跟「并非所有的X都是Fx」。这暗示着：「有些的X并非是X」。除外，这两个特殊的命题之间的关系，是和谐的关系（「有些的X是Fx」与「有些的X并非是Fx」，两者俱可是真实）。标准的例子是：「所有的天鹅都是白色」，与「所有的天鹅都是非白色」是相反的；「所有的天鹅是白色」与「有些的天鹅是非白色」；以及「所有的天鹅是非白色」与「有些天鹅是白色」是矛盾。「有些的天鹅是白色」与「有些天鹅是非白色」是和谐的。

In the square as rewritten by Lacan, contradictions are only between the upper and the lower levels (directly and diagonally): “all x are Fx” is in contradiction with “there is at least one x which is nonFx” as well as with “not‐all x are Fx,” and vice versa for “there is no x which is not Fx”; the relationship between the two horizontal couples, the upper and the lower, is, on the contrary, one of equivalence: “all x are Fx” is equivalent to “there is no x which is nonFx,” and “there is at least one x which is nonFx” is equivalent to “not‐all x are Fx.” This lesson is crucial: “there is no sexual relationship” means that there is no direct
relationship between the left (masculine) and the right (feminine) side, not even that of contrariness or contradiction; the two sides, set side by side, are equivalent, which means they just coexist in a non‐relationship of indifference. Contradiction only occurs within each of the sexes, between the universal and the particular of each sexual position (“all x are Fx” is in contradiction with “there is at least one x which is not Fx,” and “there is no x which is not Fx” is in contradiction with “not‐all x are Fx”).

在拉康重新改写的这个四方块，矛可仅存在于上方及下方的层次（直接或是斜角线）：「所有的x 是fx」跟「至少有一个x是非fx」，以及跟「并非所有的x是fx，」彼此矛盾。反过来说也是一样，「没有不是fx的x」。在两个水平的配对之间的关系，上方与下方之间的关系，相反地是相等的关系：「所有的x是fx」相等于「并非所有的x 是fx」。这个教训是重要的：「性别关系不存在」意味着，在左边（男性）与右边（女性）之间，没有直接的关系。甚至没有相反或是矛盾的关系，这两边，并列存在，是相等的。这意味着，它们仅是共同存在于一个冷漠的非关系。矛盾仅是发生在每个性别内部，在每个性别位置的普遍性与特殊性之间（「所有的x是fx」，跟「至少有一个并非fx的x」之间，互相矛盾。「没有不是fx的x」与「并非所有的x是fx」互相矛盾。

Sexual difference is thus ultimately not the difference between the sexes, but the difference which cuts across the very heart of the identity of each sex, stigmatizing it with the mark of impossibility. If sexual difference is not the difference between the two sexes, but a difference which cuts from within each sex, how then do the two sexes relate to each other? Lacan’s answer is “indifference”: there is no relationship, il n’y a pas de rapport sexuel—the two sexes are out of sync. Recall that, on very last page of Seminar XI, Lacan defines the desire of the analyst not as a pure desire (a self‐critical remark, clearly—he had himself claimed this in Seminar VII), but as a desire to obtain absolute difference.28 In order for the difference to be “absolute,” it must be a
redoubled, self‐reflected difference, a difference of differences, and this is what the formulae of sexuation offer: the “dynamic” antinomy of All and its exception, and the “mathematic” antinomy of non‐All without exception. In other words, there is no direct way to formulate sexual difference: sexual difference names the Real of an antagonism which can only be circumscribed through two different contradictions.29

性别差异因此最后并不是两性之间的差异，而是横切每个性别的核心的差异，用不可能性的标记污染它。假如性别差异并不是两性之间的差别，而是横切每个性别之间的差异，那么这两个性别如何发生关联？拉康的回答是「冷漠」。性别关系不存在。这两个性别并不是同时性。请回忆一下，在第11研讨班的最后一页，拉康定义精神分析家的欲望，不是作为纯粹的欲望，（显而易见是自我批判的谈论，他自己曾经在第7研讨班宣称过），而是作为获得绝对差异的欲望。为了让这个差异成为「绝对」，这个差异必须双倍，自我反射的差异，差异中的差异。这就是性别公式提供的：「所有」的「动力」的镝及其例外，与没有例外的并非所有的「数学公式」的镝。换句话说，没有直接的方式，说明性别关系：性别关系命名敌意的实在界，它仅能通过两个不同的矛盾来界定。

Let us take a closer look at the first antinomy: Lacan refers here to Peirce’s logical square of universal and particular positive and negative propositions, which implies that the truth of a universal affirmative proposition does not imply the existence of a term to which it refers, in contrast to a particular affirmative proposition (“all unicorns have one horn” is true even if there are no unicorns, but not “some unicorns have one horn”—for the second proposition to be true, at least one unicorn has to exist).30 What are the consequences for psychoanalysis of the purely logical point that the true of a universal affirmation does not imply that a particular element which exemplifies this truth exists? It is true that unicorns have only one horn, but there are nonetheless no unicorns… and if we
go by way of a little wild analysis insisting on the phallic value of the single horn growing out of the forehead, this brings us to the paternal phallic authority, to what Lacan calls the Name‐of‐the‐Father.

让我们更加仔细观看第一个镝：拉康在此提到皮尔斯的逻辑的四方块：普遍性，特殊性，肯定与否定的命题。它暗示着，普遍性肯定的命题的真理，并未暗示着它提到的术语的存在，对照于特殊性的肯定的命题（「所有的独角兽都有一个角」是真实的，即使并没有这样的独角兽存在。但是「有些的独角兽有一个角」则是并不真实。为了让第二个命题成为真实，至少要有一个独角兽必须存在」。对于精神分析，当普遍性的肯定的真实并没有暗示着，作为这个真理的典范的特殊的因素存在，这个纯粹的逻辑的点的结果是什么？虽然独角兽确实仅有一个角，但是并没有独角兽存在。假如我们经由稍微深入的精神分析，继续坚持单一的角从前额长出来的阳具的价值，这带领我们到达父权的阳具的权威，拉康称之为「以父亲之名」。

“All fathers are Fx” is true, but this means that no existing father is“really father,” that—in Hegelese—there is no father at the level of his notion: every father that exists is an exception to the universal notion of father: the order of the function which we introduced here as that of the name‐of‐the‐father is something which has universal value, but, simultaneously, puts on you the charge to control if there is or not a father who fits this function. If there is no such father, it still remains true that the father is God, it is simply that this formula is confirmed only by the empty sector of the square.31

「所有的父亲都是fx」是真实的，但是这意味着，没有现有的父亲「确实是父亲」。用黑格尔的话说，没有处于他的观念的父亲：每个现存的父亲都是父亲的普遍性的观念的例外。我们在此介绍的功用的秩序，作为父亲之名的功用的秩序，是某件具有普遍性价值的东西。但是，同时地，它让你们来负责控制，有或是没有适合这个功用的父亲。假如每有这样的父亲，这仍然是真实的，这个父亲是上帝。这仅是因为这个公式被肯定，仅是凭借这个四方块的空洞的部分。

The implications of this paradox for the individual’s psychic economy are crucial: the paternal function is universal, each of us is determined by it, but there is always a gap between the universal paternal function and the individual who occupies this symbolic place: no father is “really a father,” every “real” father is either not‐enough‐father, a deficient father, failing to play the role properly, or too‐much‐father, an overbearing presence which stains the paternal symbolic function with pathological obscenity. The only father who fully exists is the exception to the universal function, the “primordial father” external to the symbolic Law.32 Or, a more problematic example: one curious story about
Hitler reported in the (in)famous record of his “table conversations” is that, one morning in the early 1940s, he awoke terrified and then, with tears running down his cheeks, explained to his doctor the nightmare that had haunted him:

个人心灵的经济活动的这个悖论的暗示是关键性：父权的功用是普遍性，我们每个人都受到它的决定，但是总是有一个差距，处于普遍性的父权的功用，与个人之间。这个个人佔据这个象征的位置：没有父亲是「确实的父亲」；每个「真实」的父亲要不就是不足够充当父亲，一个不足的父亲，没有适当地扮演这个角色。要不然就是，太过强势的父亲，一个跋扈的存在，他污染父权的象征的功用，具有病态的卑下。充分存在的唯一的父亲，是普遍性的功用的例外，外在于象征法则。或是，更加棘手的例子: 一个耐人寻味的故事关于希特勒被报导，在那个著名（或恶名昭彰）的记载有关他的「餐会谈话」：1940年代，有一天早上，他惊骇地醒来，眼泪掉落他的脸颊。他对他的医生解释萦绕他的这个梦魇。

“In my dream, I saw the future overmen—they are so totally ruthless, without any consideration for our pains, that I found it unbearable!” The very idea of Hitler, our main candidate for the most evil person of all time, being horrified at a lack of compassion is, of course, weird—but, philosophically, the idea makes sense. What Hitler was implicitly referring to was the Nietzschean passage from
Lion to Child: it is not yet possible for us, caught as we are in the reflective attitude of nihilism, to enter the “innocence of becoming,” the full life beyond justification; all we can do is engage in a “self‐overcoming of morality through truthfulness.”33 So it is all too easy to dismiss the Nazis as inhuman and bestial—what if the problem was precisely that they remained “human, all too human”? But let us go further and move to the opposite end of the spectrum, to Jesus Christ: is not Jesus also a case of the singular exception (“there is one
God who is an exception to divinity, who is fully human”) which implies the inexistence of the universal God?

「在我的梦里，我看见未来的超人—他们是如此残酷无情，没有体谅到我们的痛苦，我发现它无法令人承受！」希特勒的这个观念，我们主要的候选人，充当自古以来最邪恶的人，他感到惊吓，对于欠缺同情心。当然，他的这个观念是古怪的，但是从哲学来说，这个观念具有意义。希特勒暗示提到的东西，是尼采的「从狮子变成小孩」的那个段落: 虽然我们被陷住于虚无主义的省思的态度，我们还没有可能进入「生成的纯真」，超越是非善恶的充实的生活。我们所能做的事参与「凭借真理，来从事道德的自我克服」。所以，我们轻易地就将纳粹排除为没有人性，而且野蛮—万一这个问题确实就是，他们始终是「人性，太过性」，那怎么说？但是让我们更加深入，并且移动到这个光谱的相反一端，移动到耶稣基督。耶稣基督难道不就是这个独特的例外的情况？（有一个是神性例外的上帝，他完全是人」）这暗示着，普遍性的上帝并不存在吗？

This affirmation of existence as an exception to (its) universal notion cannot but
appear anti‐Hegelian, Kierkegaardian even: is not Hegel’s point precisely that every existence can be subsumed under a universal essence through notional mediation? But what if we conceive it as the elementary figure of what Hegel called “concrete universality”? Concrete universality is not the organic articulation of a universality into its species or parts or organs; we approach concrete universality only when the universality in question encounters, among its species or moments, itself in its oppositional determination, in an exceptional moment which denies the universal dimension and is as such its direct embodiment. Within a hierarchical society, the exceptional element are
those at the bottom, like the “untouchables” in India. In contrast to Gandhi, Dr. Ambedkar “underlined the futility of merely abolishing Untouchability: this evil being the product of a social hierarchy of a particular kind, it was the entire caste system that had to be eradicated: ‘There will be out castes [Untouchables] as long as there are castes.’ … Gandhi responded that, on the contrary, here it was a question of the foundation of Hinduism, a civilization which, in its original form, in fact ignored hierarchy.”34

存在的这个肯定，作为普遍性的例外的这个观念，让人不禁想到反对-黑格尔，甚是齐克果。黑格尔的重点难道不确实就是：通过观念的中介，每个存在能够被包括在普遍性的本质之下？但是万一我们构想它，作为是这个基本的人物，黑格尔所谓的「具体的普遍性」，那会怎么样？具体的普遍性并不是普遍性被器官表达，进入它的品种或是部分器官；我们接近具体的普遍性，仅有当这个受到质疑的普遍性遭遇到它的本身，在它的品种或时刻当中，处于它的相对的决定，处于例外的时刻。这个时刻否认普遍性的维度，并且它的本身就是它直接的具体代表。在一个阶层的社会，例外的因素是底端的那些因素，就像印度的「贱民」。跟甘地相照起来，安贝卡尔「强调仅是废除贱民的徒劳无功：这种邪恶是社会特别种类的阶层的产物，而是整个种性阶级制度必须被废除：「只要有种性阶级存在，就会有被放逐的贱民种性。」甘地回应说：相反地，在此的问题是印度教的基础，这一种文明在原先的形式，事实上是忽视阶级制度。」

Although Gandhi and Ambedkar respected each other and often collaborated in the struggle to defend the dignity of the Untouchables, their difference here is insurmountable: it is the difference between the “organic” solution (solving the problem by returning to the purity of the original uncorrupted system) and the truly radical solution (identifying the problem as the “symptom” of the entire system, a symptom which can only be resolved by abolishing the entire system). Ambedkar saw clearly how the four‐caste structure does not unite four elements which belong to the same order: while the first three castes (priests,
warrior‐kings, merchants‐producers) form a consistent All, an organic triad, the
Untouchables are, like Marx’s “Asiatic mode of production,” the “part of no‐part,” the inconsistent element which, within the system, occupies the place of what the system as such excludes—and, as such, the Untouchables stand for universality.

虽然甘地与安贝卡尔互相尊敬，并且时常合作为了奋斗捍卫贱民的尊严，他们在此的差异无法克服的。这个「器官」的解决与彻底的激进解决之间的差异。前者解决这个问题，凭借回到原初的没有腐败的制度的纯净。而后者则是将这个问题辨明为整个制度的「病征」，仅有凭借废除整个制度，这一种病征才能够被解决。安贝卡尔清楚地看出，这四个种性阶级结构并没有统合归属于相同秩序的四个因素。虽然前三个种性阶级（僧侣，战士与国王，商人作为制造者），形成一贯性的「整体」，一个有机体的三角模式。贱民，就像马克思的「亚洲的生产模式」，「没有参与的部分」，这个不一贯的因素，在这个制度之内，佔据这个位置，制度本身排除的东西的位置。就本身而言，贱民代表普遍性。

Effectively, there are no castes without outcasts—as long as there are castes, there will be an excessive, excremental zero‐value element which, while formally part of the system, has no proper place within it. Gandhi obfuscates this paradox, clinging to the (im)possibility of a harmonious structure that would fully integrate all its elements. The paradox of the Untouchables is that they are doubly marked by the excremental logic: not only do they deal with impure excrement, their own formal status within the social body is that of
excrement. Hence the properly dialectical paradox: to break out of the caste system, it is not enough to reverse the Untouchable’s status, elevating them into the “children of God.” The first step should rather be exactly the opposite one: to universalize their excremental status to the whole of humanity.

有效地，有种性阶级的地方，就有放逐者。只要有种性阶级存在，就会有过分，排泄出来的零度价值的因素。虽然正式来说，它们是制度的部分，它们在制度里面并没有适当的地位。甘地抹除这个悖论，坚持这个和谐结构的不可能性。这个结构充分地合并所有它的因素。贱民的悖论式，他们双重地受到排泄的逻辑的标记：不但他们处理不纯净的排泄，而且在这个社会的团体里面，他们自己的正式的地位，是排泄的地位。因此，适当的辨证法的悖论是：为了打破这个种性阶级制度，仅是倒转贱民的地位，将他们提升奥「上帝的子民」，是不足够的。代替地，第一步应该确实就是相反的一步：将排泄的地位普遍化到整个人类。

But is there an inconsistency here?—First, the claim was that every particular entity is an exception, unfit as an example of its universality; then we posited the exception as the singular Master‐Signifier which holds, within a structure, the place of its lack. The solution lies in the redoubled exception: every particular entity is in the position of an exception with regard to its universality; with regard to the series of “normal” exceptions, the Master‐Signifier which represents the subject is the exception to the exception, the only place of direct universality. In other words, in the Master‐Signifier, the logic of exception is
taken to its reflexive extreme: the Master‐Signifier is totally excluded from the universal order (as its “part of no‐part,” with no proper place in it), and, as such, it immediately stands for universality as opposed to its particular content. (It is in this sense that Hegel characterizes Christ as an “example of example” and, as such, as the “absolute example.”)

但是在此会有不一贯存在吗？首先，这个宣称是，每个特殊的实体是一个例外，不适合充当它的普遍性的例子。然后，我们提出这个例外，作为独特的主人能指，它在一个结构里，拥有它的欠缺的这个位置。这种解决在于这个双重的例外：每个特殊性的实体处于例外的立场，关于普遍性。关于这一系列的「正常的」的例外，代表主体的主人能指，是例外中的例外。直接普遍性的逻辑。换句话说，在主人能指，例外的逻辑被发挥到它反身的极端。主人能指完全从普遍性的秩序被排除（作为它的「部分的部分」，在它里面，没有适当的位位）。就它的本身而言，它立即代表普遍性，作为跟它的特殊性的内容的对立。（就是这个意义，黑格尔表现耶稣基督的特征，作为是「典范中的典范」，它的本身，作为「绝对的典范。」）

Such “oppositional determination” subjectivizes a structure—how? To grasp this logic of subjectivization, one has to introduce the difference between the enunciated (content) and its process of enunciation, that is, Lacan’s difference between the subject of the enunciated and the subject of enunciation: the exception with regard to the universal order is the subject itself, its position of enunciation. To put it in somewhat simplistic terms, insofar as universality is in front of me, the object of my thought or speech, I occupy by definition a place of minimal externality with regard to it—no matter how much I locate myself as a res cogitans, as a determinate object within the reality I am grasping, that tiny
spot in my world is not me as the point of “self‐consciousness,” the point from which I speak or think. Of course, all my positive properties or determinations can be “objectivized,” but not “myself” as the singular self‐reflexive point of enunciation.

如此「对立的决定」将结构主体化。用怎样的方式？为了理解主体化的这个逻辑，我们必须介绍这个差异，处于被表述的内容与它的表述的过程。换句话是，拉康的差异，处于被表述的主体与表述的主体之间的差异；「关于普遍性秩序的例外，就是主体自己」，它的表述的立场。简单扼要地说，因为普遍性是在我的前面，我的思想或言说的客体，我凭借定义佔据关于它的最小量的外在性的位置。无论我发现我自己的位置是多么作为「思想的人」，作为一个决定的客体，在我理解的现实界里面，在我的世界的那个小小的斑点，并不是我，作为「自我-意识的点」。从那个点，我言说或思想。当然，我所有的决定论的正面属性，能够被客体化，但是「我自己」作为表述的独特的反身的点，并无法被客体化。

In this simple but strict sense, the subject is more universal than universality itself: it may be a tiny part of reality, a tiny speck in the “great chain of being,” but it is simultaneously the singular (stand)point encompassing reality as something that appears within its horizon.

从这个简单但是严谨的意义来说，主体比普遍性的本身更加普遍性。它可能是现实界的一小部分。在「生命实存的伟大锁链」里，是一个小的斑点。但是它同时是这个独特的立足点，涵盖现实界，作是是某件出现在它的领域里面。

We experience this exception in a pointed way apropos statements which concern our mortality: “every human is mortal” implicitly excludes me as mortal, excepts me from the universality of mortals, although I know very well that (as a human animal) I am also mortal. One should take a step further here: not only is the subject a crack in universality, an X which cannot be located in a substantial totality—there is universality (universality “for itself,” as Hegel would have put it) only for the subject: only from the minimally exempted subjective standpoint can an All, a universality (as different from its particular instantiations), appear as such, never to someone or something fully embedded in it as its particular moment. In this sense exception literally grounds universality.

我们经验到这种例外，以一个尖锐的方式，关于跟我们的有限生命息息相关的陈述：「每个人都是有限生命」。这个陈述暗含地排除「我」作为有限生命，将我从有限生命的普遍性排除，虽然我清楚知道，（人作为动物），我也是有限生命。在此，我们应该採取更深入一步：主体在普遍性里不但是一个裂缝，一个未知数X，无法被找出位置，在实质的整体里—仅有对于主体，才会有普遍性存在（普遍性的「物自体」），如同黑格尔本来会这样表达。仅有从最小量的被免除的主体的观点，一个「全部」，一个普遍性的本身（作为跟它的特殊性的当下不同）才能够出现，它永远不是属于某个完全镶嵌于它的特殊时刻的人或某件东西。从这个意义来说，例外实质上是作为普遍性的基础。

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

Ethic 250

Ethic 250
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XIX
第19章
The splendor of Antigone
安提贡尼的辉煌

THE MEANING OF CATHARSIS
心理净化的意义

HEGEL’S WEAKNESS
黑格尔的弱点

THE FUNCTION OF THE CHORUS
合唱队的功用

GOETHE’S WISH
歌德的愿望

3
What does one find in Antigone? First of all, one finds Antigone.

我们在安提贡尼发现什么？首先，为民发现安提贡尼。

Have you noticed that she is only ever referred to throughout the play with
the Greek word ή παις, which means “the child”? I say that as a way of
coming to the point and of enabling you to focus your eye on the style of the
thing. And, of course, there is the action of the play.

你们曾经注意到，她是戏剧从头到尾唯一被提到，用这些希腊字ή παις。它的意思是「小孩」？我的意思是，作为一种谈到重点，并且让你们能够专注你们的眼光，看到这件事情的风格。当然，这戏剧有动作。

The question of the action in tragedy is very important. I don’t know why
someone whom I’m not very fond of, probably because he is always being
shoved under my nose, someone called La Bruyere, said that we have arrived
too late in a world that is too old in which everything has already been said.
It’s not something I’ve noticed. As far as the action of tragedy is concerned,
there’s still a lot to be said. It’s far from being resolved.

在悲剧的动作的问题是非常重要的。我不知道为什么我并不很喜欢的某个人，可能是因为他总是被推挤到我面前，某位名叫布鲁维尔的人。他说，我们到达得太迟，在这个太古老的这个世界，每样东西都已经被说过了。这并不是我曾经注意的事情。就悲剧的行动而言，依旧还有许多话可说。问题根本还没有被解决。

To return to Erwin Rohde, whom I complimented just now, I was astonished
to find that in another chapter he explains a curious conflict between
the tragic author and his subject, a conflict that is caused by the following:
the laws of the genre oblige the author to choose as frame a noble action in
preference to a mythic action. I suppose that is so that everyone already knows
what it’s all about, what’s going on. The action has to be emphasized in
relation to the ethos, the personalities, the characters, the problems, and so
forth, of the time. If that’s true, then Mr. Anouilh was right to give us his
little fascist Antigone. The conflict that results from the dialogue between the
poet and his subject is, according to Erwin Rohde, capable of generating
conflicts between action and thought, and in this connection, echoing a great
many things that have already been said before, he refers with some relevance
to the figure of Hamlet.

回到欧文、罗德，我刚才恭维过他，我惊奇地发现，在另外一个章节，他解释一个奇怪的冲突，处于悲剧作者于他的主体之间。这一种冲突被以下的艺术的法则所引起，强迫作者选择一个高贵的行动，胜过于一个神秘的行动，作为一个框架。我认为那会是那样，是每个人都已经知道那是什么一回事，什么正在进行。行动必须被强调，相关于当时的悲情，人格，人物，问题，等等。假如那是真实的，那么阿诺伊尔是正确，他的剧本表现安提贡尼有点法西斯式。依照欧文、罗德的说法，在诗人与他的主体之间的对话造成的冲突，能够产生行动与思想之间的冲突。关于这点，这个冲突能够迴响许多以前曾经被说过的事情，他相关地提到哈姆雷特的人物。

It’s entertaining, but it must be difficult for you to accept, if what I explained
last year about Hamlet meant anything to you. Hamlet is by no means a drama
of the importance of thought in the face of action. Why on the threshold of
the modern period would Hamlet bear witness to the special weakness of
future man as far as action is concerned? I am not so gloomy, and nothing
apart from a clichi of decadent thought requires that we should be, although
it is a cliché Freud himself falls into when he compares the different attitudes
of Hamlet and Oedipus toward desire.

它具有娱乐性质，但是你们一定很难接受。假如我去年所解释的关于哈姆雷特，对于你们有任何意义的话。「哈姆雷特」绝非是一个面对行动时思想的重要的戏剧。为什么在现代时期的门槛，哈姆雷特见证特别的未来人类的弱点，就行动而言。我并没有那么悲观。除了颓废思想的陈腔滥调外，没有一样东西要求，我们应该悲观。虽然这是弗洛依德自己掉入的陈腔滥调，当他比较哈姆雷特与伊狄浦斯对待欲望的态度。

I don’t believe that the drama of Hamlet is to be found in such a divergence
between action and thought nor in the problem of the extinction of his desire.
I tried to show that Hamlet’s strange apathy belongs to the sphere of action
itself, that it is in the myth chosen by Shakespeare that we should look for
its motives; we will find its origin in a relationship to the mother’s desire and
to the father’s knowledge of his own death. And to take a step further, I will
mention here the moment at which our analysis of Hamlet is confirmed by
the analysis I am leading up to on the subject of the second death.

我并不相信，哈姆雷特的戏剧能够被发现，在行动与思想的分叉处，或是在他的欲望的消灭的问题。我尝试显示：哈姆雷特的奇怪的冷漠属于行动的范围本身。那就是在莎士比亚选择的神话，我们应该寻找它的动机。我们将会发现它的起源，在跟母亲的欲望的关系，以及跟父亲的知道他自己的死亡的关系。再深入一步说，我在此将提醒这个时刻，我们对于哈姆雷特的分析受到我正在引导的精神分析的证实，探讨二次死亡的主题。

Don’t forget one of the effects in which the topology I refer to may be
recognized. If Hamlet stops when he is on the point of killing Claudius, it is
because he is worried about that precise point I am trying to define here:
simply to kill him is not enough, he wants him to suffer hell’s eternal torture.
Under the pretext that we have already busied ourselves a great deal with this
hell, should we see it as beneath our dignity to make a little use of it in the
analysis of a text? Even if he doesn’t believe in hell anymore than we do, even
if he’s not at all sure about it, since he does after all question the notion –
“To sleep, perchance to dream …” – it is nevertheless true that Hamlet
stops in the middle of his act because he wants Claudius to go to hell.

不要忘记其中一个影响可能被体认到，在我提到的这个拓扑图形。假如哈姆雷特停止，当他正要杀死克劳狄斯。那是因为他忧虑我在此正在尝试定义的那个确实的时刻。仅是杀死他是不足够，他想要他遭受地狱的永恒折磨。在这个藉口之下，我们自己已经相当忙碌于这个地狱。我们应该将它视为是贬低我们的尊严，为了在文本的分析里稍微利用它？即使他跟我们一样，并不相信地狱。即使他根本就不确定，关于它。因为他毕竟质疑这个观念：「睡觉，或许会作梦、、、」。这仍然是真实的，哈姆雷特在他的行动的中间停止，因为他想要克劳狄斯下地狱。

The reason why we are always missing the opportunity of pointing to the
limits and the crossing-points of the paths we follow is because we are unwilling
to come to grips with the texts, preferring to remain within the realm of
what is considered acceptable or, in other words, the realm of prejudices. If
I were not to have taught you anything more than an implacable method for
the analysis of signifiers, then it would not have been in vain – at least I hope
so. I even hope that that is all you will retain. If it is true that what I teach
represents a body of thought, I will not leave behind me any of those handles
which will enable you to append a suffix in the form of an “-ism.” In other
words, none of the terms that I have made use of here one after the other –
none of which, I am glad to see from your confusion, has yet managed to
impress itself on you as the essential term, whether it be the symbolic, the
signifier or desire – none of the terms will in the end enable anyone of you to
turn into an intellectual cricket on my account.

我们总是漏失这个机会，来指向这些限制与我们遵循的途径的交叉点。原因是我们不愿意穷究这些文本，宁可保留在世俗之见的领域，换句话说，在各种偏见的领域。假如我想要教导你们的，恰恰就是能指的分析的超然无情的方法。那么这本来不会是徒劳无功。至少，我是这样希望。我甚至希望，那是你们愿意保留的。假如我所教导的内容确实代表一种思想体系，我将不会把任何那些处理留置后面。那些处理将会让你们能够填加一个词后语，以「主义」的形式。换句话说，我在此曾经陆续使用的这些术语，我很高兴从你们的混淆看出，没有一样曾经成功地给予你们印象，作为是基本的术语，无论是象征的术语，欲望的能指的术语。最后，没有一样将会让你们任何人因为我的关心而成为知识份子的遊戏。

Next then in a tragedy, there is a Chorus. And what is a Chorus? You will
be told that it’s you yourselves. Or perhaps that it isn’t you. But that’s not
the point. Means are involved here, emotional means. In my view, the Chorus
is people who are moved.

然后在悲剧里，有一个合唱队。合唱队是什么？你们将会被告诉：合唱队就是你们自己。或许，并不是你。但那并不是重点。在此牵涉到工具，情感的工具。依我之见，合唱队是受到感动的人们。

Therefore, look closely before telling yourself that emotions are engaged
in this purification. They are engaged, along with others, when at the end
they have to be pacified by some artifice or other. But that doesn’t mean to
say that they are directly engaged. On the one hand, they no doubt are, and
you are there in the form of a material to be made use of; on the other hand,
that material is also completely indifferent. When you go to the theater in the
evening, you are preoccupied by the affairs of the day, by the pen that you
lost, by the check that you will have to sign the next day. You shouldn’t give
yourselves too much credit. Your emotions are taken charge of by the healthy
order displayed on the stage. The Chorus takes care of them. The emotional
commentary is done for you, The greatest chance for the survival of classical
tragedy depends on that. The emotional commentary is done for you. It is
just sufficiently silly; it is also not without firmness; it is more or less human.

因此，请你们仔细看，再告诉你们自己，情感参与这种净化。它们跟其他的情感一起参与，当最后它们必须被平息下来，用某种的巧计。但是那并不意味著要说成，它们是直接参与。在一方面，它们无可置疑地是直接参与，但是你们在那里的形态，是应该被使用的材料。在另一方面，那个材料也是完全冷漠。当你们晚上到戏院，你们专注于白天的事情，由于你们遗失的钢笔，第二天你们将必须签付的支票。你们不应该透支借贷太多。你们的情感受到舞台上展现的健康秩序作操控。合唱队照顾你们的情感。情感的评论是为你们而做的。古典悲剧的存活的最大可能性就依靠那点。情感的评论是为你们而做的。那恰恰是足够愚蠢。那也并不是没有道理。那相当合乎人性。

Therefore, you don’t have to worry; even if you don’t feel anything, the
Chorus will feel in your stead. Why after all can one not imagine that the
effect on you may be achieved, at least a small dose of it, even if you didn’t
tremble that much? To be honest, I’m not sure if the spectator ever trembles
that much. I am, however, sure that he is fascinated by the image of Antigone.
In this he is a spectator, but the question we need to ask is, What is he a
spectator of? What is the image represented by Antigone? That is the question.
Let us not confuse this relationship to a special image with the spectacle as
a whole. The term spectacle, which is usually used to discuss the effect of
tragedy, strikes me as highly problematic if we don’t delimit the field to
which it refers.

因此，你们不需要忧虑，即使你们没有感觉任何东西，合唱队会代替你们感觉。毕竟，为什么你们无法想象，对于你们的影响可能被完成，至少一小部分，即使你们并没有那么颤栗？坦白说，我并不确定，观众是否那么颤栗。可是，我确定，众众是被安提贡尼的意象迷住了。在这点，他是观众。但是我们需要问的问题是：「他是什么的观众？」安提贡尼代表的意象是什么？那就是这个问题。让我们不要混淆特别意象，跟整体景象的这个关系。景象这个术语，通常被用来讨论悲剧的效果，它给我的印象是问题重重，假如我们没有除掉它提到的领域的限制。

On the level of what occurs in reality, an auditor rather than a spectator is
involved. And I can hardly be more pleased with myself since Aristotle agrees
with me; for him the whole development of the arts of theater takes place at
the level of what is heard, the spectacle itself being no more than something
arranged on the margin. Technique is not without significance, but it is not
essential; it plays the same role as elocution in rhetoric. The spectacle here is
a secondary medium. It is a point of view that puts in its place the modern
concerns with mise en scene or stagecraft. The importance of mise en scene
should not be underrated, and I always appreciate it both in the theater and
in the cinema. But we shouldn’t forget that it is only important – and I hope
you will forgive the expression – if our third eye doesn’t get a hard-on; it is,
so to speak, jerked off a little with the mise en seine.

在现实界所发生的事情的层次，牵涉到的是监听者，而不是观众。对于这点，我自己洋洋自得，因为亚里斯多德跟我意见一致。对于他，戏院的艺术的整个发展，发生在所被听见的东西的层次，景象本身仅是带来某件被安排在边缘的东西。技巧并非不重要，但是并非是最基本。它扮演相同的角色，如同在修饰学的装腔作势。在此的景象是次要的媒介。它是一种观点，现代对于场景与舞台技巧的关注来代替它。场景的重要性不应该被低估，我总是赏识它，不论在戏剧或是戏院。但是我们不应该忘记，它仅是重要。我希望你们将会原谅这个表达，假如我们的第三隻眼睛没有张开的话。也就是说，假如它没有对这个场景稍微睁亮的话。

In this connection I have no intention of giving myself up to the morose
pleasure I was denouncing earlier by affirming a supposed decline in the
spectator. I don’t believe in that at all. From a certain point of view, the
audience must always have been at the same level. Sub specie aeternitatis
everything is equal, everything is always there, although it isn’t always in the
same place.

关于这点，我没有打算让我自己耽溺于我早先抨击的发泄情绪的快乐，凭借肯定观众的被认为的减少。我根本就不相信那个。从某个观点，观众当时一定总是维持相同的层次。「在永恒的观照下」，每样东西都是相等的，每样东西总是在那里，虽然它未必总是在相同的位置。

But I would just mention in passing that you really have to be a student in
my seminar – by which I mean someone especially alert – to find something
in the spectacle of Fellini’s La Dolce Vita.

但是我仅是偶然提到，你们确实必须是我的研讨班的学生，（我的意思你们必须专注学习），你们才会发现某件东西，在费里尼的「甜密生活La Dolce Vita.」的景象里。

I am amazed at the murmur of pleasure that that name seems to have
aroused among a significant number of you here today. I am ready to believe
that this effect is only due to the moment of illusion produced by the fact
that the things I say are calculated to emphasize a certain mirage, which is,
in effect, the only one aimed at in the series of cinematographic images referred
to. But it isn’t reached anywhere except at one single moment. That is to say
at the moment when early in the morning among the pines on the edge of the
beach, the jet-setters suddenly begin to move again after having remained
motionless and almost disappearing from the vibration of the light; they begin
to move toward some goal that pleased a great many of you, since you associated
it with my famous Thing, which in this instance is some disgusting
object that has been caught by a net in the sea. Thank goodness, that hadn’t
yet been seen at the moment I am referring to. Only the jet-setters start to
walk, and they remain almost always as invisible, just like statues moving
among trees painted by Uccello. It is a rare and unique moment. Those of
you who haven’t been should go and observe what I’ve been teaching you
here. It happens right at the end, so that you can take your seats at the right
moment, if there are any seats left.

我很惊讶，那个名字似乎曾经引起快乐的窃窃私语，在今天在场的你们大多数人。我愿意相信，这个影响仅是由于这个幻觉，由于这个事实产生的幻觉：我说的这些事情被计算要用来强调某种的幻景。事实上，这个幻景是唯一被瞄准的幻景，用被提到的一系列的电影的综艺意象。但是这个目标并没有被达成，除了在一个时刻。换句话说，就在大清早，在海边的松树林，寻欢作乐的人们在静止许久，并从光影里消失之后，突然开始再次移动。他们开始移动，朝向让你们许多人感到愉悦的目标。因为你们将它跟我的著名的「物象」联想一块。在这个例子，这个「物象」是某件令人厌恶的客体，在海里被鱼网捕捉住。谢天谢地，在我提到的那个时刻，它还没有被看见。仅有寻欢作乐的人们开始走路，他们始终几乎总是隐形不见。就像尤谢洛绘画的那些雕像在树林里移动。这是罕见而独特的时刻。你们还没有看这个电影的那些人，应该去观察我在此一直教导你们的东西。恰巧就在结束时，你们能够在这个适当时刻坐在位置上，假如还有座位的话。

Now we are ready for Antigone.
Our Antigone is on the point of entering the action of the play, and we will
follow her.

现在我们准备谈论「安提贡尼」。
我们的安提贡尼即将要进入戏剧的行动。我们将跟随她。

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

Ethic 247

Ethic247

The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
精神分析伦理学

Jacques Lacan
雅克、拉康

XIX
第19章

HEGEL’S WEAKNESS
黑格尔的弱点

THE FUNCTION OF THE CHORUS
合唱队的功用

GOETHE’S WISH
歌德的愿望

2
Tragedy – we are told in a definition that we can hardly avoid paying attention
to, since it appeared scarcely a century after the time of the birth of
tragedy – has as its aim catharsis, the purgation of the τιαθ-ηματα, of the
emotions of fear and pity.

悲剧—我们被告诉，用一个我们几乎无法避免要注意的定义，因为它出现在悲剧的诞生的一个世纪。这个定义以净化作为它的目标，清涤这个τιαθ-ηματα，清涤恐惧与同情的情感。

How is one to understand that formula? We will approach the problem
from the perspective imposed on us by what we have articulated on the subject
of the proper place of desire in the economy of the Freuthan Thing. Will
this allow us to take the additional step required by this historical revelation?
If the Aristotelian formulation appears at first sight to be so closed, it is
due to the loss of a part of Aristotle’s work as well as to a certain conditioning
within the very possibilities of thought. Yet is it so closed to us after all as a
consequence of the progress made in our discussions of ethics here over the
past two years? What in particular has been said about desire enables us to
bring a new element to the understanding of the meaning of tragedy, above
all by means of the exemplary approach suggested by the function of catharsis
– there are no doubt more direct approaches.

我们应该如何来理解那个公式？我们将探究这个问题，从我们所表达的赋加在我们身上的观点，在弗洛依德的「物象」的经济活动，欲望的适当位置的这个主体。这将让我们能够採取根据这个历史的启示所要求的额外的步骤吗？假如亚里斯多德的说明，乍然一看，是如此的靠近，那是由于亚里斯多德的著作有部分丧失，以及由于在思想的可能性里某种制约的丧失。可是，它毕竟是跟我们如此地靠近，作为是进步的结果，这种进步是过去两年来，我们在此探讨伦理学所做的进步。特别是关于欲望，曾经被说过的事情，让我们能够带来新的因素，给悲剧意义的理解，尤其重要的是，凭借净化的功用建议的这个典范的方法—无可置疑地，还有更多的直接的方法。

In effect, Antigone reveals to us the line of sight that defines desire.
This line of sight focuses on an image that possesses a mystery which up
till now has never been articulated, since it forces you to close your eyes at
the very moment you look at it. Yet that image is at the center of tragedy,
since it is the fascinating image of Antigone herself. We know very well that
over and beyond the dialogue, over and beyond the question of family and
country, over and beyond the moralizing arguments, it is Antigone herself
who fascinates us, Antigone in her unbearable splendor. She has a quality
that both attracts us and startles us, in the sense of intimidates us; this terrible,
self-willed victim disturbs us.

事实上，安提贡尼跟我们显示定义欲望的视觉的脉络。这个视觉的脉络集中于一个意象，这个意象拥有一种神秘迄今尚未被表达过，因为它强迫你们闭起你们的眼睛，当你们看见它的那一刻。可是，那个意象处于悲剧的中心。因为那是安提贡尼自己的迷人的意象。我们清楚地知道，超越这个对话，超越家庭与国家的问题，超越道德化的争论，安提贡尼自己迷住我们，安提贡尼处于无可忍受的辉煌。她拥有一种特质，既吸引我们，也惊吓我们，她让我们感到胆怯，这位可怕的自我意志的受害者，让我们感到困扰。

It is in connection with this power of attraction that we should look for the
true sense, the true mystery, the true significance of tragedy – in connection
with the excitement involved, in connection with the emotions and, in particular,
with the singular emotions that are fear and pity, since it is through
their intervention, δι’ έλεου και φόβου, through the intervention of pity and fear, that we are purged, purified of everything of that order. And that order, we can now immethately recognize, is properly speaking the order of the imaginary. And we are purged of it through the intervention of one image among others.

关于这个迷人的力量，我们应该寻找悲剧的真实的理解，真实的神秘，真实的意义。关于牵涉到的興奋，关于这些情感，特别是，关于独特的情感，那就是恐惧与同情。因为凭借它们的介入，δι’ έλεου και φόβου,凭借同情与恐惧的介入，我们被清涤，被清涤那个秩序的一切。那个秩序，我们现在能够立即体认出来，适当来说，那就是想象界的秩序。我们被清涤它，凭借其他意象当中，一个意象的介入。

And it is here that a question arises. How do we explain the dissipatory
power of this central image relative to all the others that suddenly seem to
descend upon it and disappear? The articulation of the tragic action is illuminating
on the subject. It has to do with Antigone’s beauty. And this is not
something I invented; I will show you the passage in the song of the Chorus
where that beauty is evoked, and I will prove that it is the pivotal passage. It
has to do with Antigone’s beauty and with the place it occupies as intermediary
between two fields that are symbolically differentiated. It is doubtless
from this place that her splendor derives, a splendor that all those who have
spoken worthily of beauty have never omitted from its definition.

在此，一个问题产生。我们如何解释这个中央意象的驱散的力量，相对于所有的其他意象，似乎突然地降落在它上面，并且消失？悲剧行动的表达，对于这个主体具有启发性。它跟安提贡尼的美丽有关联。这并不是我凭空杜撰的东西。我将跟你们显现这个段落，在合唱队的歌咏里。在那里，美丽被召唤，我将证明，这是核心的段落。它跟安提贡尼的美丽必然有关联，跟它佔据的位置，作为在象征被区分的的两个领域之间的中介。她的辉煌无可置疑是来自这个位置，这一种辉煌，所有曾经有价值地谈论美丽的那些人，从来不曾忽视它，作为它的定义。

Moreover, as you know, this is the place that I am attempting to define. I
have already come close to it in previous lectures, and I attempted to grasp it
the first time by means of the second death imagined by Sade’s heroes – death
insofar as it is regarded as the point at which the very cycles of the transformations
of nature are annihilated. This is the point where the false metaphors
of being (I’etant) can be distinguished from the position of Being (I’etre) itself,
and we find its place articulated as such, as a limit, throughout the text of
Antigone, in the mouths of all the characters and of Tiresias. But how can one
also not fail to see this position in the action itself? Given that the middle of
the play is constituted of a time of lamentation, commentary, discussions,
and appeals relative to an Antigone condemned to a cruel punishment. Which
punishment? That of being buried alive in a tomb.

而且，如你们所知，这是我正企图定义的位置。在前几次的演讲，我已经靠近它。我第一次企图理解它，凭借这个二次死亡，在萨德的小说人物想象的二次死亡。因为死亡被认为是自然的转变的循环被毁灭的这个时刻。就是这个时刻，生命实存的虚假比喻能够被区别，跟生命实存本身的位置。我们发现它的位置本身清楚地被表达，作为是一个限制。在安提贡尼的文本到处，在泰瑞西亚斯的所有人物的嘴中。但是我们如何也能够免于忽视行动本身的这个立场？假如考虑到这个戏剧的中间，由哀悼，评论，讨论，与诉求所构成，相关于安提贡尼的被判处接受残酷的惩罚。怎样的惩罚？生命被活活埋葬于巨大墓室的惩罚。

The central third of the text is composed of a detailed series of vowel gradations,
which informs us about the meaning of the situation or fate of a life
that is about to turn into certain death, a death lived by anticipation, a death
that crosses over into the sphere of life, a life that moves into the realm of
death.

这个文本的中心的第三部分，由渐层的声音的详细系列组成。它告诉我有关这个情境的意义，或是即将转变成为某种死亡的生命的命运，一种预期要生活的死亡，一种跨越进入生命领域的死亡，一种移动进入死亡的领域的生命。

It is surprising that dialecticians or indeed aestheticians as eminent as Hegel
and Goethe haven’t felt obliged to take account of this whole field in their
evaluation of the effect of the play.

令人惊讶的是，像黑格尔与歌德这样杰出的辩证法学者，或美学家，却没有感受到有义务要考虑到整个的领域，当他们评估这个戏剧的影响。

The dimension involved here is not unique to Antigone. I could suggest
that you look in a number of places and you will find something analogous
without having to search too hard. The zone defined in that way has a strange
function in tragedy.

在此牵涉的维度，对于「安提贡尼」，并不算是独特。我能够建议，你们应该观看许多地方，你们就会找到某件类同等东西，而不需要过于辛苦寻觅。以那种方式被定义的地区，在悲剧拥有一个奇特的地位。

It is when passing through that zone that the beam of desire is both reflected
and refracted till it ends up giving us that most strange and most profound
of effects, which is the effect of beauty on desire.

当经过那个地区时，欲望的光芒被反射，也被折射，直到它结果给予我们那个最奇特最深奥的影响。那就是对于欲望的美丽的影响。

It seems to split desire strangely as it continues on its way, for one cannot say that it is completely extinguished by the apprehension of beauty. It continues
on its way, but now more than elsewhere, it has a sense of being taken
in and this is manifested by the splendor and magnificence of the zone that
draws it on. On the other hand, since its excitement is not refracted but
reflected, rejected, it knows it to be most real. But there is no longer any object.

它似乎将欲望奇特地分裂，当它继续前进。因为我们无法说，它完全地被美丽的理解所消灭。它继续前进，但是现在比起其他地方，它拥有一种被接受的理解，从接纳它的这个地区的辉煌与灿烂可获得证明。在另一方面，因为它的興奋并没有被折射，而是被反射，它知道它最为实在。但是不再有任何的客体。

Hence these two sides of the issue. The extinction or the tempering of
desire through the effect of beauty that some thinkers, including Saint Thomas,
whom I quoted last time, insist on. On the other hand, the disruption of any
object, on which Kant insists in The Critique of Judgment.

因此，这个议题的这边。欲望的消灭或减缓，凭借美丽的这个影响。某些思想家，包括圣汤姆斯，我上次引用的，他们都坚持美丽的这个影响。在另一方面，任何客体的中断，康德在「判断的批判」坚持它。

I was talking to you just now of excitement. And I will take a moment to
have you reflect on the inappropriate use that is made of this word in the
usual translation into French of Triebregung, namely, “έπιοί pulsionnel,”
“instinctual excitement.”1 Why was this word so badly chosen? “Emoi”
(excitement) has nothing to do with emotion nor with being moved. “Emoi”
is a French word that is linked to a very old verb, namely, “émoyer” or
“esmayer,” which, to be precise, means “faire perdre a quelqu’un ses moyens,”
as I almost said, although it is a play on words in French, “to make
someone lose” not “his head,” but something closer to the middle of the
body, “his means.” In any case a question of power is involved. “Esmayer”
is related to the old gothic word “magnan” or “mogen” in modern German.
As everybody knows, a state of excitement is something that is involved in
the sphere of your power relations; it is notably something that makes you
lose them.

刚才，我正在跟你们谈论到興奋。我将花些时刻让你们省思一下，关于对于这个字词的不适当使用，Triebregung, 这个字词通常被翻译成为法文，意思是”έπιοί pulsionnel,” 「本能的興奋」。为什么这个字词选择得很不恰当？”Emoi” （興奋）跟情感或被感动，没有任何关系。”Emoi”是一个法文字，跟一个古老的动词有关，也就是”émoyer” 或是 “esmayer,” 。贴切地说，它的意思是”faire perdre a quelqu’un ses moyens,” 。我几乎要说，虽然这是法文的文字遊戏，「让某个迷失」，不是迷失「他的头脑」，而是迷失某件靠近身体的中间，他的财富。无论如何，权力的问题被牵涉到。”Esmayer” 跟古老的的歌德语的字词有关。在现代德语，是 “magnan” or “mogen” 。如众所周知，興奋的状态是某件牵涉到你们权力的关系的领域。它特别是某件让你们丧失它的东西。

We are now in a position to be able to discuss the text of Antigone with a
view to finding something other than a lesson in morality.

我们现在处于这个立场，能够讨论安提贡尼的文本，为了找出某件并非是道德教训的东西。

A thoroughly irresponsible individual wrote a short time ago that I am
powerless to resist the seductions of the Hegelian dialectic. The reproach
was formulated at a time when I was beginning to articulate for you the
dialectic of desire in terms that I have continued to employ since. And I don’t
know if the reproach was deserved at the time, but no one could claim that
the individual involved is especially sensitive to these things. It is in any
case true that Hegel nowhere appears to me to be weaker than he is in the
sphere of poetics, and this is especially true of what he has to say about
Antigone.

不久之前，一位彻底没有责任感的个人写道：我是无能为力，来抗拒黑格尔的辩证法的诱惑。这种谴责被说明，当我们正在开始跟你们表达欲望的辩证法。用从此我继续使用的术语。我并不知道，这种谴责在当时是否我应该获得。但是没有人能够宣称，牵涉的这位个人对于这些事情特别敏感。无论如何，这是真实的，我觉得黑格尔在诗学的这个领域，最为脆弱。关于安提贡尼，他所必须说的东西，这特别是真实的。

According to Hegel, there is a conflict of discourses, it being assumed that
the discourses of the spoken dialogues embody the fundamental concerns of
the play, and that they, moreover, move toward some form of reconciliation.
I just wonder what the reconciliation of the end of Antigone might be. Further, it is not without some astonishment that one learns that, in addition,
this reconciliation is said to be subjective.

依照黑格尔，有一种辞说的矛盾。它被假设：这个被言说的对谈的辞说，具体表现这个戏剧的基本关系。而且，它们朝向某种调和的形态移动。我不禁感到奇怪，安提贡尼的结局可能会有怎样的调和。而且，我们不禁会感到惊奇，当我们获知，这种调和而且还据说是主观性的调和。

Let us not forget that in Sophocles’s last play, Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus’s
final malediction is addressed to his sons; it is the malediction that gives
rise to the catastrophic series of dramas to which Antigone belongs. Oedipus
at Colonus ends with Oedipus’s last curse, “Never to have been born were
best …” How can one talk of reconciliation in connection with a tone like
that?

让我们不要忘记，在索福克利图斯的最后戏剧，「伊狄浦斯在科伦纳斯」，伊狄浦斯发现诅咒朝向他的儿子们发出。就是这种诅咒产生这个灾难的戏剧系列，「安提贡尼」属于其中之一。「伊狄浦斯在科伦纳斯」的结局，有一个伊狄浦斯的最后诅咒：「但愿当时永远不要出生是最好、、、」。用这样的语调，我们如何能够谈论到调和?

I am not tempted to regard my own indignation as particularly worthy;
others have had a similar reaction before me. Goethe notably seems to have
been somewhat suspicious of such a view, and so was Erwin Rohde. When I
went and looked up his Psyche recently, a work that I made use of to bring
together classical antiquity’s different conceptions of the immortality of the
soul, and that is an admirable work, which I strongly recommend, I was
pleased to come across an expression of the author’s astonishment at the traditional
interpretation of Oedipus at Colonus.

我并没有情不自禁地将我们的愤怒，视为是特别有价值。在我之前，就有其他人曾经有过类似的反应。特别是歌德，他似乎对于这样的观点，心中甚为怀疑。欧文、罗德也是。当我最近前去查阅他的「心灵学」，我常使用的一本著作，用来聚拢古代的经典的不同的观念，对于灵魂的不朽。那是一部令人崇拜的著作，我强烈地推荐。我很高兴偶然遇见一个表达：作者对于传统的解释「伊狄浦斯在科伦纳斯」，大感惊讶。

Let us now attempt to wash our brains clean of all we have heard about
Antigone and look in detail at what goes on there.

让我们现在企图让我们的脑海清涤我们曾经听过的关于「安提贡尼」，并且详细的观看那里进行的东西。

陈春雄译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com