I would like to try today to talk about Antigone, the play written by Sophoclesin 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 insofaras 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 ofthe beautiful in relation to that which we have been considering as the aim ofdesire. In a word, it may be that something new on the subject of the functionof 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 thatpath is, Plato says somewhere in the Phaedrus, which is itself a dialogue onthe beautiful: Don't be astonished if the detour is such a long one, for it is anecessary 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 ofoverwhelming rigor, whose only equivalent in Sophocles's work is his finalwork, 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 appreciateits 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, wehave 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 quotedthe end of Aristotle's sentence on pity and fear effecting the catharsis of theemotions, that famous catharsis the true meaning of which we will try tograsp at the end. Strangely enough, Goethe saw the function of this fear andpity in the action itself. That is, the action would provide us with a model ofthe 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 curiousfate 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.
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。
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 oneseems to feel fear or pity. If you doubt that, it is because you haven't readAntigone, and since we are going to read the play together, I hope to point itout 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 leastone 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 thecause 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 bySophocles, the play begins by introducing us to Antigone in her dialogue withIsmene; 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 neverthelessessential 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 thestructure of the ethic of tragedy, which is also that of psychoanalysis; he seeksthe good. Something that after all is his role. The leader is he who leads thecommunity. He exists to promote the good of all.
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。
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What does his fault consist of? Aristotle tells us, using a term that heaffirms falls directly within the province of tragic action, αμαρτία. We havesome trouble translating that word. "Error," we say, and in order to relate itto ethics, we interpret it as "error of judgment." But perhaps it isn't as simpleas 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 creationof great tragedies from their interpretation by philosophical thought. Minerva,as Hegel has already said, takes flight at twilight. I'm not too sure, but Ithink we should remember this formula, which has been so often evoked, torecall that there is after all some distance between the teachings embodied intragic rites as such and their subsequent interpretation in the form of anethics, 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 nothave any difficulty finding αμαρτία in others of Sophocles's tragethes: it exists,it is affirmed. The terms άμαρτάνειν and αμαρτήματα are to be found inCreon'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 ofCreon.
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 thoughtwhich is fond of wisdom ever has) is to want to promote the good of all - andI don't mean the Supreme Good, for let us not forget that 441 B.C. is veryearly, and our friend Plato hadn't yet created the mirage of that SupremeGood - to promote the good of all as the law without limits, the sovereignlaw, the law that goes beyond or crosses the limit. He doesn't even noticethat he has crossed that famous limit about which one assumes enough hasbeen said when one says that Antigone defends it and that it takes the formof the unwritten laws of the Δίκη. One thinks one has said enough when oneinterprets 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 crossesover 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 callsthe Begriff or concept of the good. It is the language of practical reason. Hisrefusal to allow a sepulcre for Polynices, who is an enemy and a traitor to hiscountry, is founded on the fact that one cannot at the same time honor thosewho have defended their country and those who have attacked it. From aKantian point of view, it is a maxim that can be given as a rule of reason witha universal validity. Thus, before the ethical progression that from Aristotleto Kant leads us to make clear the identity of law and reason, doesn't thespectacle of tragedy reveal to us in anticipation the first objection? The goodcannot reign over all without an excess emerging whose fatal consequencesare 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 toldthat it is the place where the unwritten laws, the will or, better yet, the Δίκηof the gods rules. But we no longer have any idea what the gods are. Let usnot forget that we have lived for a long time under Christian law, and inorder 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 reflectionon the nature of love, you will see that we have changed the very axis of thewords 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 thewhole 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 thatwhich 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 actin relation to love varies according to the "epopteia" in which they have participated."Epopteia" here means initiation in the sense that the term has inantiquity; 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 theglobe - in the form of trances or phenomena of possession in which a divinebeing 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 donot react in love in the same way as those who were initiated to Ares. Justreplace those names with those who in a given province of Brazil stand for aspirit of the earth or war or of a sovereign being. It is not our intention toengage 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 theoutside, 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 textin which the question is raised. We Christians have erased the whole sphereof the gods. And we are, in fact, interested here in that which we have replacedit 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 doubtlessremains isolated and leaves its skeleton in this sphere that we Christians haveabandoned. 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 phenomenonis to emerge through reflection, is something I have called the phenomenonof the beautiful, it is something I have begun to define as the limitof the second death.