悲劇的誕生The Birth Of Tragedy 第15期:真正的藝術
We are now approaching the central concern of our inquiry, which has as its aim an understanding of the Dionysian-Apollinian spirit, or at least an intuitive comprehension of the mystery which made this conjunction possible.
Our first question must be: where in the Greek world is the new seed first to be found which was later to develop into tragedy and the dramatic dithyramb?
到此，我們將首先探討這顆新芽怎樣先在希臘世界出現，後來又發展爲悲劇與酒神祭曲。Greek antiquity gives us a pictorial clue when it represents in statues, on cameos, etc.,
關於這點，古希臘人自己就給我們一個象徵的答案。
Homer and Archilochus side by side as ancestors and torchbearers of Greek poetry, in the certainty that only these two are to be regarded as truly original minds, from whom a stream of fire flowed onto the entire later Greek world.
他們把荷馬和阿奇洛科斯的像並列刻在雕塑，飾物等等之上，視爲希臘詩歌的始祖和持炬人，他們深深感到只有這兩個匠心獨運的同輩天才值得尊重，因爲一股熱情之流從他們發源，流遍希臘晚期的全部歷史。Homer, the hoary dreamer, caught in utter abstraction, prototype of the Apollinian naive artist, stares in amazement at the passionate head of Archilochus, soldierly servant of the Muses, knocked about by fortune.
荷馬，這個潛心默想、白髮蒼蒼的詩人，現在愕然看着狂放豪邁，馳騁人間的尚武詩人阿奇洛科斯的慷慨激昂的才華。All that more recent aesthetics has been able to add by way of interpretation is that here the "objective" artist is confronted by the first "subjective" artist.
現代美學只能把這解釋爲第一個客觀詩人與第一個主觀詩人分庭抗禮。We find this interpretation of little use, since to us the subjective artist is simply the bad artist, and since we demand above all, in every genre and range of art, a triumph over subjectivity, deliverance from the self, the silencing of every personal will and desire.
這種說明對於我們無甚幫助，因爲我們認爲主觀的藝術家不過是可憐的藝術家，而在各種藝術和藝術高峯尤其需要首先克服主觀成份，從自我解放出來，制止個人的意志與慾望。since, in fact, we cannot imagine the smallest genuine art work lacking objectivity and disinterested contemplation.
真的，任何一件微不足道的作品，如果沒有客觀性，沒有純粹的超然的靜觀，我們就不相信它是真正藝術。For this reason our aesthetic must first solve the following problem: how is the lyrical poet at all possible as artist--he who, according to the experience of all times, always says "I" and recites to us the entire chromatic scale of his passions and appetites?
所以，我們的美學必須首先答覆這樣的問題，就各時代的經驗而言，所謂抒情詩人言必及“我”，總是對我們有聲有色地歌唱自己的眷戀愛慕，那麼這種詩人又怎能算是藝術家呢？It is this Archilochus who most disturbs us, placed there beside Homer, with the stridor of his hate and mockery, the drunken outbursts of his desire.
比之荷馬，阿奇洛科斯以他的憤恨輕蔑的吶喊，如醉如狂的熱情，使我們驚心動魄；Isn't he--the first artist to be called subjective--for that reason the veritable non-artist?
那麼，號稱第一個主觀藝術家的他，豈不是非藝術家嗎？How, then, are we to explain the reverence in which he was held as a poet, the honor done him by the Delphic oracle, that seat of "objective" art, in a number of very curious sayings?
然而，在這情況下：又怎樣解釋人們對他的崇敬，甚至客觀藝術之策源地狄爾斐的不同凡響的神喻也尊他爲詩人呢？
