德勒兹_贝内 4-13

Cf. The Logic of Sense, 12-22.
参见《意义的逻辑》，12-22。
Maurice Blanchot, The Space of Literature, trans. Ann Smock Sincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982), cited in Difference and Repetition, 149, Cf. also The Logic of Sense, $148 - 53$ .
莫里斯·布朗肖，《文学的空间》，安·斯莫克翻译，林肯：内布拉斯加大学出版社，1982 年），引自《差异与重复》，149 页，另见《意义的逻辑》， $148 - 53$ 。
Cf. The Iogic of Sense, $18 I - 8 s$ .
参见《意义的逻辑》， $18 I - 8 s$ 。
Cf. Nietzsche, The Geneology of Morals, 1, 13.-ED.
参见尼采，《道德的谱系》，第 1 卷，第 13 页。-编辑。
The English word “thought” translates the French Le pense’ (meaning the thing being thought: the object of thought) and $l a$ pense (thought itself). Where the meaning might be unclear; the original French word appears in parentheses.-Ed.
英语单词“thought”翻译为法语“Le pense”（意指被思考的事物：思考的对象）和“pense”（思考本身）。当含义可能不清楚时，原法语单词会出现在括号中。-编辑。
On this subject, see The Logic of Sense, i86-233. My comnents are, at best, an allusion to these splendid analyses.
关于这个主题，请参见《意义的逻辑》，第 186-233 页。我的评论充其量只是对这些精彩分析的暗示。
Deleuze writes in The Logic of Sense, 9r: “Artaud says that Being, which is noü-sense, has tecti”; on “dark precursors,” sec Difference aní Repetition, H9-21: “We call the disparate the dark precurso.” Cf. “Niedsche, Geneology, History”, in Lan guage, Conter-Menony, Pratice, ed. Donald F. Bouchard (Ichaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977) 143, for a discussion of the “disparate” as the “historical beginning of things.”-Ev.
德勒兹在《意义的逻辑》中写道：“阿尔托说存在，即无意义，有结构”；关于“黑暗的前驱”，见《差异与重复》，H9-21：“我们称不同的为黑暗的前驱。”参见“尼采，谱系，历史”，收录于《语言，反对-记忆，实践》，编辑：唐纳德·F·布沙尔（纽约：康奈尔大学出版社，1977 年）143 页，讨论“不同的”作为“事物的历史开端”。-Ev。
This entire section considers, in a different order from that of the text, some of the themes which intersect within Difference and Repetition. I am, of course, awarc that I have shifted accents and, far more important, that I have ignored its incxhaust supply specific references.
本节以与文本不同的顺序考虑了《差异与重复》中交叉的一些主题。当然，我意识到我改变了重音，更重要的是，我忽略了其无尽的特定参考。
“What will people think of us?” (Nore added by Gilles Delcuze.)
“人们会怎么想我们？”（由吉尔·德尔库兹添加的诺尔。）
On these themes, ef. Difference and Repetition, 38-42, 294-30r; The Logic of Sense, $162 - 68, 177 - 80$
在这些主题上，参见《差异与重复》，38-42，294-30r；《意义的逻辑》， $162 - 68, 177 - 80$
Thus Spoke Zarathistra, part 3, “Of the Vision and the Riddle,” sec. 2.-Ed.
这样说道查拉图斯特拉，第三部分，“关于幻象与谜语”，第二节。-编者。
Ibid., “The Convalescent,” sec. 2.-Ed.
同上，“康复者”，第 2 节。-编者。
Ibid.-Eo. 同上。
Schoenberg’s song cycle, transcribed from the poems of the Belgian poet Albert Giraud.-ED
肖恩伯格的歌曲循环，改编自比利时诗人阿尔贝·吉罗的诗歌。-ED

Gilles Deleuze 吉尔·德勒兹

One Less Manifesto 一个少一点的宣言

Theater and its Critique 戏剧及其批评

Carmelo Bene’ describes his play Romeo and Juliet as “a critical essay on Shakespearc.” But the fact is that Carmelo Bene does not write on Shakespeare; the critical essay is actually a play. How do we understand the relationship between theater and its critique, between the original and derivative plays? Just what is the critical function of the theater of Carmelo Bene?
卡梅洛·贝内将他的剧作《罗密欧与朱丽叶》描述为“对莎士比亚的批评性论文”。但事实是，卡梅洛·贝内并没有写关于莎士比亚的东西；这篇批评性论文实际上是一部剧作。我们如何理解戏剧与其批评之间的关系，原作与衍生剧之间的关系？卡梅洛·贝内的戏剧究竟具有怎样的批评功能？

It is not a matter of reading Shakespeare “critically,” or of theater within theater, or of parody, or of a new version of the play, etc. Bene works differently, in a new fashion. Let us suppose that he amputates an element, that he subtracts something from the original play. To be precise, he does not call his play on Hamict one more Hamilt but “one less Hamlet,” just like Laforgue.

^{2}

He procecds not by addition but by subtraction, by amputation. How he chooses the element for amputation is yet another question which we will treat later. But, for now, we can cite the example of how he amputates Romeo, how he neutralizes the Romeo of the original play. Because a part chosen not arbitrarily is now missing, the entire play could thius loose its balance, turn upon itself, and land on a different side. If you amputate Romeo, you will witness at astonishing development, the development of Mercutio, who was only a virtuality in the play by Shakespeare. In Shakespeare, Mercutio dies quickly. But, in Bene, he does nor want to die, he cannot die, he does not manage to die since he will become the subject of the new play.
这不是以“批判性”阅读莎士比亚，或是剧中剧，或是讽刺，或是新版本的戏剧等问题。贝内的工作方式不同，以一种新的方式进行。假设他截去一个元素，从原剧中减去一些东西。准确地说，他称他的《哈姆雷特》为“少一个哈姆雷特”，就像拉福尔克一样。他不是通过增加而是通过减去、通过截肢来进行创作。他选择截肢元素的方式是另一个我们稍后会讨论的问题。但现在，我们可以举例说明他如何截去罗密欧，如何中和原剧中的罗密欧。因为一个不是随意选择的部分现在缺失，整个剧作因此可能失去平衡，反转自身，落在不同的一面。如果你截去罗密欧，你将目睹一个惊人的发展，即梅丘西奥的发展，他在莎士比亚的剧中只是一个虚拟的存在。在莎士比亚的剧中，梅丘西奥很快就死了。但在贝内的剧中，他不想死，他不能死，他无法死去，因为他将成为新剧的主角。

First of all, there is the constitution of a character on the stage itself. Even objects and props await their destiny, that is, the necessity attributed to them by the whims of the character. The play initially involves itself with the fabrication of the character, its preparation, its birth, its stammerings, its variations, its development. This critical theater is constitutive theater. Critique is a constitution. The theater maker is no longer an author, an actor, or a director. She is an operator. Operation must be understood as the movement of subtraction, of amputation, one already covered by the other movement that gives birth to and multiplies something unexpected, like a prosthesis: the amputation of Romeo and the colossal development of Mercutio, one in the other. It is a theater of surgical precision. Consequently, if Carmelo Bene ofter needs a primary play, it is not to make it a fashionable parody or to add
首先，舞台上角色的构成是最重要的。即使是物品和道具也在等待它们的命运，也就是角色的任性所赋予它们的必要性。剧本最初涉及角色的构造、准备、诞生、口吃、变化和发展。这种批判性戏剧是构成性的戏剧。批判是一种构成。戏剧创作者不再是作者、演员或导演。她是一个操作者。操作必须被理解为减法、截肢的运动，这种运动已经被另一个运动所覆盖，后者产生并倍增一些意想不到的东西，就像假肢一样：罗密欧的截肢和梅丘西奥的巨大发展，二者相互交织。这是一种外科精确的戏剧。因此，如果卡梅洛·贝内常常需要一部基础剧本，那并不是为了将其变成时尚的讽刺或添加。
literature to literature. On the contrary, it is to subtract literature, to subtract the text, for example, a part of the text, and to observe the result. May words stop making “text”. . It is a theater experimentation that bears more love for Shakespeare than all of the commentaries.
文学对文学。相反，它是要减去文学，减去文本，例如，文本的一部分，并观察结果。让文字停止形成“文本”。这是一种对莎士比亚的热爱超过所有评论的戏剧实验。

Take the case of Bene’s S.AD.E. Here, on the backdrop of a stock recitation of the Sadean text, the sadistic image of the Master is what finds itself to be amputated, paralyzed, reduced to a masturbatory twitch. At the same time, the masochistic Servant seeks himself, develops himself, metamorphosizes himself, experments with himself, creates himsclf on stage in relation to the deficiencies and impotencies of the Master. The Servant is not at all the reverse image of the Master, nor his replica or contradictory identity: he creates himself piece by piece, bit by bir, from the neutralization of the Master; he acquires his autonomy from the Master’s anputation.
以贝内的 S.AD.E.为例。在萨德文本的背景下，施虐者的形象被截肢、瘫痪，沦为一种自慰的抽搐。与此同时，受虐者寻求自我，发展自我，蜕变自我，实验自我，在与施虐者的缺陷和无能相关的舞台上创造自我。受虐者并不是施虐者的反面形象，也不是他的复制品或矛盾身份：他从施虐者的中立化中一点一点地创造自己，从施虐者的截肢中获得自主性。

The comes Richard III, where Bene goes the furthest, perhaps, in his theatrical construction. What is amputated here, what is subrracted, is the entire royal and princely system. Only Richard III and the women are retained. Thus appears in a new light what existed only virtually in the tragedy. Richard III may be Shakespeare’s only tragedy in which women have their own tales of war. And Richard, for his part, is less interested in power than in reintroducing or reinventing a war machine, even if it means the destruction of the apparent balance or peace of the state (what Shakespeare call Richard’s sccret, the “secret close intent”). In performing the subtraction of claaracters of State Power. Bene gives frec reign to the creation of the soldier on stage, with his prostheses, his deformities, his tumors, his malpractices, his variations. The soldier has always been considered in mythology as coming from an origin different from that of the statesman or the king: deformed and crooked, he always comes from elsewhere. Bene brings them onto the stage: while the women at war enter and exit anxious for their whining children. Richard III will deform himself to amuse the children and restrain the mothers. He will fashion himself with prostheses as he arbitrarily takes objects from a drawer. He will create himself a little Jike Mr. Hyde with colors, noises, and things. He will make himself, or rather unmake himself, according to a line of continuous variation.3 Bene’s play begins with very beautiful “note on the feminine” (in Kleist’s Penthesilita, isn’t there already such a relation of the warrior, Achilles, with the feminine, with the transvestite?).
理查三世的到来，或许是贝内在戏剧构建上走得最远。这里被截断、被剔除的是整个王室和王子体系。只有理查三世和女性被保留。因此，悲剧中仅仅虚存的东西以新的面貌出现。理查三世可能是莎士比亚唯一一部女性有自己战争故事的悲剧。而理查本人对权力的兴趣不如对重新引入或重新创造战争机器的兴趣，即使这意味着破坏国家表面上的平衡或和平（莎士比亚称之为理查的秘密，“秘密的隐秘意图”）。在执行国家权力角色的剔除时，贝内给予了舞台上士兵创造的自由，带着他的假肢、畸形、肿瘤、不当行为和变化。士兵在神话中一直被视为来自与政治家或国王不同的起源：畸形和扭曲，他总是来自别处。贝内将他们带上舞台：而在战争中的女性则焦急地进出，惦记着她们哭泣的孩子。理查三世将扭曲自己以取悦孩子们并约束母亲们。他将用假肢塑造自己，任意从抽屉里拿出物品。他将用颜色、声音和物品创造出一个小的杰基·霍德。他将根据一条持续变化的线来塑造自己，或者更确切地说，解构自己。贝内的剧作以非常美丽的“女性注释”开始（在克莱斯特的《潘忒西莉亚》中，难道已经存在战士阿基琉斯与女性、与变装者之间的这种关系吗？）。

Bene’s plays are short, no one knows better than he tiow to end them. He detests all principles of consistency or eternity, of textual permanency: “The spectacle begins and ends at the same moment it occurs.” And the play ends with the creation of the character. It has no other purpose and does not extend further than the process of this creation. It ends with birth when it normally ends with death. One would not conclude that these characters have an “Ego.” On the contrary, they do not have one at all. Richard III, the Servant, and Mercuzio are born only in a continuous series of metamorphoses and variations. The character is part of the totality of the scenic design inctuding colors, lights, gestures, and words. Oddly, it is often said that Carmelo Bene is a great actor-a compliment mixed with disapproval, with an accusation of narcissism. Bene’s pride would rather trigger a process over which the is the controller, the mechanic or the operator (he himself says: the protagonist) rather than the actor. To give birth to a monster or a colossus…
贝内的戏剧很短，没有人比他更知道如何结束它们。他厌恶所有一致性或永恒的原则，厌恶文本的持久性：“景观在发生的同时开始和结束。”而戏剧在角色的创造中结束。它没有其他目的，也不超出这一创造的过程。它在出生时结束，而通常是在死亡时结束。人们不会得出这些角色有“自我”的结论。相反，他们根本没有自我。理查三世、仆人和梅丘里奥仅在一系列连续的变形和变化中诞生。角色是整个舞台设计的组成部分，包括颜色、灯光、手势和语言。奇怪的是，人们常常说卡梅洛·贝内是一个伟大的演员——这是一种夹杂着不满的赞美，带有自恋的指控。贝内的自豪感宁愿引发一个他是控制者、机械师或操作员（他自己说：主角）的过程，而不是演员。创造一个怪物或巨人……

This is neither a theater of the author (d’autewn) nor a critique of the author (d’auteur) \

\cdot

But if this theater is inseparably creative and critical, what is the nature of the critique: It is not Bene reading Shakespeare. At most one could say that if an Englishman at the end of the sixteenth century has a certain image of Italy, an Italian of the twentieth century may send back an image of Britain that incorporates Shakespeare: Bene’s admirable, giant decor of Romeo and Jusiet, with its immense goblets and flasks and Juliet who falls aslecp in a cake, shows Shakespeare through the eyes of Lewis Carroll, but a Lewis Carroll via Italian comedy (Carroll already proposed an entire system of subtractions of Shakespeare in order to develop unanuicipated virtualities). 5 Nor is it a critique of countries or societies. One questions the nature of Bene’s initial subtractions. In the three preceding.cases, what is subtracted, amputated; or neutralized are the elements of power, the elements that constitute or represent a system of power: Romeo as representative of familial power, the Master as representative of sexual power, kings and princes as representatives of state power. But the elements of power in the theater are what insure both the coherence of the subject in question and the coherence of the representation on stage. It is both the power of what is represented and the power of theater itself. In this sense, the traditional actor enters into an aricient complicity with princes and kings, while the theater is complicitous with power: thus Napoleon and Talma.

^{6}

The actual power of theater is inseparable from a representation of power in theater, even if it is a critical representation.
这既不是作者的剧场，也不是对作者的批评。但如果这个剧场是不可分割的创造性和批判性，那么批评的本质是什么：这不是贝内在阅读莎士比亚。最多可以说，如果十六世纪末的一个英国人对意大利有某种印象，那么二十世纪的一个意大利人可能会回送一个包含莎士比亚的英国形象：贝内令人钦佩的、巨大的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》布景，配有巨大的酒杯和瓶子，以及在蛋糕中睡着的朱丽叶，通过路易斯·卡罗尔的视角展现莎士比亚，但这是通过意大利喜剧的路易斯·卡罗尔（卡罗尔已经提出了一个完整的莎士比亚减法系统，以发展未预见的虚拟性）。这也不是对国家或社会的批评。人们质疑贝内最初的减法的本质。在前三个案例中，被减去、截肢或中和的都是权力的元素，构成或代表权力体系的元素：罗密欧作为家庭权力的代表，主人作为性权力的代表，国王和王子作为国家权力的代表。但剧院中的权力元素确保了所讨论主题的连贯性以及舞台表现的连贯性。这既是所表现内容的力量，也是剧院本身的力量。从这个意义上说，传统演员与王子和国王之间形成了一种古老的共谋，而剧院则与权力共谋：因此有拿破仑和塔尔马。剧院的实际权力与剧院中权力的表现是不可分割的，即使它是一种批判性的表现。

But Carmelo Bene possesses a different understanding of the critiquc. When he decides to amputate the elements of power, he changes not only the theatrical matter but also the form of theater, which ceases to be a “representation” at the same time as the actor ceases to be an actor. He gives free reigti to a different theatrical matter and to a different theatrical form, which would not have been possible without this subtraction. One could say that Bene is not the first to create a theater of nonrepresentation. One could cite at random Artaud, Bob Wilson, Grotowski, the Living Theater . . Yet I do not believe in the usefulness of filiations. Alliances are more important than filiations. Bene. has very different degrees of alliance with those I have just cited. He belongs to a movement that deeply disturbs contemporary theater.
但卡梅洛·贝内对批评有着不同的理解。当他决定切断权力的元素时，他不仅改变了戏剧的内容，还改变了戏剧的形式，戏剧不再是“表演”，演员也不再是演员。他给予不同的戏剧内容和不同的戏剧形式以自由，这在没有这种减法的情况下是无法实现的。可以说，贝内并不是第一个创造非表演戏剧的人。可以随意提到阿尔托、鲍勃·威尔逊、格罗托夫斯基、活生生的剧院……然而，我不相信血缘关系的有用性。联盟比血缘关系更重要。贝内与我刚提到的那些人有着非常不同的联盟程度。他属于一个深刻扰动当代戏剧的运动。

But he belongs to this movement only by what he invents himself and not the opposite. And the originality of his bearing, the totality of his merhods, first appears to us as coming from the subtraction of the stable elements of power that will release a new potentiality of theater, an always unbalanced, nonrepresentative force.
但他只通过自己所创造的东西属于这个运动，而不是相反。他的举止的独创性，他方法的整体性，首先向我们展现的是通过减去稳定的权力元素而释放出一种新的戏剧潜能，这是一种始终不平衡、非代表性的力量。

Theater and Its Minorities
戏剧与其少数群体
Carmelo Bene is very interested in the notions of Major and Minor.

^{7}

He gives them a live body. What is a “minor” character? What is a “minor” author? First Bene says that it is unwise to be interested in the beginning or end of something, in points of origin or termination. What is interesting is never the way in which someone starts or finishes. Of interest is the middle (le milietu), what is happening in the middie. It is not by chance that the greatest speed is in the middle. People often dream of starting or restarting from zero; and they also fear their arrival, their terminal proint. They think in terms of future or past; but the past and even the future are bistory. What counts, on the other hand, is the becoming: becoming-revolutionary, and not the future or the past of the revolution. “I will arrive nowhere, I do not want to arrive anywhere. There are no arrivals. I am not interested in where someone arrives. One could easily arrive at madness. What does that mean?” It is in the middle that he experiences the becoming, the movement, the speed, the vortex. The middle is not a means but, on the contrary, an excess. Things sprout from the middle. That was Virginia Woolf’s idea. But the middle does not at all mean to belong to the times, to be of one’s time, to be historical. It means just the opposite. It is the means by which very different times communicate. It is neither the historical nor the eternal but the untimely. A minor author is preciscly that-without future or past, she has only a becoming, a middle. (un milieu), by which sthe communicates with other times, with other spaces.

^{8}

Goethe used to give stern lectures to Kleist as he explained that a great author, a major author, owed it to himself to be of his time. But Kleist was incurably minor, “Antihistoricism,” says Carmelo Bene: do you know which men must be seen in their century? Those we call the greatest. Goethe, for example, cannot be seen outside of the Germany of his time, or, if he leaves his time, it is immediately to rejoin the eternal. But truly great authors are the minor. ones, the untimely ones. It is the minor author who delivers the true masterpiece. The minor author does not interpret his or ber time; no one bas a fixed time, time depends on the man: François Villon, Kleist, or Laforgue. So isn’t there a great incentive in subjecting authors considered major to a minor author treatment in order to rediscover their potential becomings? Shakespecare, for example?
卡梅洛·贝内对“大”和“小”的概念非常感兴趣。他赋予它们一个活生生的身体。什么是“次要”角色？什么是“次要”作者？贝内首先说，关注事物的开始或结束、起点或终点是不明智的。真正有趣的从来不是某人如何开始或结束。值得关注的是中间（le milietu），中间发生了什么。最大的速度恰恰在中间。人们常常梦想从零开始或重新开始；他们也害怕自己的到达，终点。他们以未来或过去的方式思考；但过去甚至未来都是历史。另一方面，重要的是成为：成为革命者，而不是革命的未来或过去。“我不会到达任何地方，我不想到达任何地方。没有到达。我对某人到达哪里不感兴趣。人们很容易陷入疯狂。这意味着什么？”正是在中间，他体验到成为、运动、速度、漩涡。中间不是一种手段，而恰恰是一种过剩。事物从中间萌芽。这是弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的观点。但“中间”并不意味着属于时代，或是与时代相符，或是历史性的。它恰恰意味着相反。它是不同时间之间沟通的手段。它既不是历史的，也不是永恒的，而是非时宜的。一个小作者正是如此——没有未来或过去，她只有一个成为，一个中间（un milieu），通过这个中间她与其他时代、其他空间进行交流。

^{8}

歌德曾严厉地对克莱斯特讲课，解释说一个伟大的作者，一个主要的作者，应该对自己负责，成为他所处时代的一部分。但克莱斯特是无可救药的小作者，“反历史主义”，卡梅洛·贝内说：你知道哪些人必须在他们的世纪中被看见吗？那些我们称之为最伟大的人。例如，歌德不能被看作是他那个时代德国之外的人，或者，如果他离开了他的时代，那也是立即回归永恒。但真正伟大的作者是小作者，是非时宜的作者。正是小作者交付了真正的杰作。小作者并不解读他或她的时代；没有人有固定的时代，时间取决于人：弗朗索瓦·维永、克莱斯特或拉福尔。难道不应该有一个很大的动力，将被视为重要的作者以次要作者的方式对待，以重新发现他们潜在的可能性吗？例如，莎士比亚？
There would appear to be two contrary operations. On the one hand, one ascends to “the major”: one makes a doctrine from a thought, one makes a culture from a way of life, one makes History from an event. One thus pretends to discover and admire, but in fact one normalizes. In Bene’s opinion, it is like the peasants from Pughia: you can give them theater, cinema, and even television.9. It is not a question of regretting the old times, but of frightening oncself in the face of the operation to which the pcasants have been subjected, the graph, the transplant done on their back to normalize them. They have become major. Then, operation for operation, surgery against surgery, one can conceive the opposite: how “to minorate” (minorer) (a term cmployed by mathematicians), how to impose a minor treatment or a treatment of minoration to extract becomings against History, lives against culture, thoughts against doctrine, graces or disgraces against dogma. When you see how the traditional theater treats Shakespearc, his magnificationnormalization, one calls for another treatment that would recover the active force of the minority. Theologians are major, but certain Italian saints are minor. “The saints sanctified by grace: Saint Joseph of Copertino, the imbeciles, the idior saints, Saint Francis of Assisi who danced for the Pope . . . I say that there is already culture from the moment we begin examining an idea, not living that idea. If we are the idea, then we can perform the Saint Vitis dance and we are in a state of grace. We will begin to be wise just when we are disgraced.” We save ourselves, we become minor, only by the creation of a disgrace or a deformity. It is the operation of grace itself. Like in the story of Lourdes: make my hand return like the other one : . . but God always chooses the wrong hand. How to understand this operation? Kleist stuttering and grinding his teeth?
似乎存在两种相反的操作。一方面，人们上升到“主要”：人们从一个思想中形成一个教义，从一种生活方式中形成一种文化，从一个事件中形成历史。因此，人们假装发现和欣赏，但实际上是在规范化。在贝内看来，这就像普吉亚的农民：你可以给他们戏剧、电影，甚至电视。这并不是怀念旧时光，而是面对农民所经历的操作而感到恐惧，图表，移植在他们身上进行的规范化手术。他们已经变得主要。那么，手术对手术，手术对手术，人们可以构思相反的情况：如何“使之次要”（minorer）（这是数学家使用的术语），如何施加次要处理或次要化处理，以提取与历史相对的变革，与文化相对的生活，与教义相对的思想，与教条相对的恩典或不幸。当你看到传统戏剧如何处理莎士比亚，他的放大规范化时，人们呼唤另一种处理方式，以恢复少数群体的主动力量。神学家是主要的，但某些意大利圣人是次要的。 “被恩典圣化的圣人：科佩尔蒂诺的圣约瑟、傻瓜、异端圣人、为教皇跳舞的圣方济各……我说，从我们开始审视一个想法的那一刻起，就已经有了文化，而不是生活在那个想法中。如果我们就是那个想法，那么我们可以跳圣维特斯舞，并处于恩典状态。我们只有在失去恩宠时才会开始变得聪明。” 我们拯救自己，变得渺小，只有通过创造一种耻辱或畸形。这就是恩典本身的运作。就像在卢尔德的故事中：让我这只手像另一只手一样……但上帝总是选择错误的手。如何理解这种运作？克莱斯特结结巴巴，咬牙切齿？

Major and minor also refer to languages.

^{10}

Can one distinguish in each era major, global, or national vehicular languages and minor vernacular languages? Would English and American English be major today and Italian minor? One distinguishes a high and low language in societies expressing themselves in two languages or more. But isn’t that also true of unilinugal societics? We could define major languages even when they have little international importance: these would be languages with a strong homogeneous structure (standardization) and centered on invariables, constants, or universals of a phonological, syntactical, or semantic nature. Bene outlines a linguistics for laughs: thus French seems to be a major language even with the loss of its international expansion because it has a strong homogeneity and strong phonological and syntactical constants. This is not without consequence for theater: "French, theaters are museums of the everyday, a disconcerting and boring repetition, because we go in the evening, in the service of spoken and written language, to see and hear what we heard and saw during the day.
主要和次要也指语言。

^{10}

在每个时代，能否区分主要的、全球的或国家的通用语言和次要的方言语言？今天，英语和美式英语算不算主要语言，而意大利语算不算次要语言？在使用两种或更多语言的社会中，可以区分高语言和低语言。但这在单语社会中是否也成立？即使这些语言在国际上重要性不大，我们也可以定义主要语言：这些语言具有强烈的同质结构（标准化），并集中于音韵、句法或语义性质的不变性、常数或普遍性。贝恩勾勒出一种幽默的语言学：因此，法语似乎是主要语言，即使它失去了国际扩展，因为它具有强烈的同质性和强大的音韵及句法常数。这对戏剧并非没有影响：“法语，剧院是日常生活的博物馆，一种令人困惑和乏味的重复，因为我们在晚上，服务于口语和书面语言，去看和听我们白天听到和看到的东西。”

Theatrically: there is really no difference berween Marivaux and the Director of the Paris train station cxcept that you cannot take the train at the Odeon Theater." English may be founded on other invariables, for example, primarily semantic constants. It is always by means of constants and homogencity that a language is major: “England is a history of kings : . . The Gielguds and the Oliviers are living copics of the departed Kembles and Keans. The monarchy of the once upon a time-that is the English tradition.” In brief, major languages are languages of power, as different as they may be. They can be contrasted with minor languages: Italian, for example (“Our country is young, it does not yet have a language . . .”). And, already, one no longer has a choice; one must define minor languages as languages of continuous variability-whether the considered dimension may be phonological, syntactical, semantical, or cven stylistical. A minor language is comprised of only a minimum of structural constancy and homogencity. It is not, however, a pulp, a mixture of dialects, since it finds its rules in the construction of a continuum. Indeed, the continuous variation will apply to all the sonorous. and linguistic components in a sort of generalized chromatics. It will be theater itself or the “spectacle.”
戏剧上：马里沃和巴黎火车站的站长之间实际上没有区别，除了你不能在奥德翁剧院乘坐火车。英语可能基于其他不变性，例如，主要是语义常量。语言的主要性总是通过常量和同质性来体现：“英格兰是一个国王的历史：……吉尔古德和奥利维尔是已故的肯布尔和基恩的活生生的复制品。曾经的君主制——这就是英国的传统。”简而言之，主要语言是权力的语言，尽管它们可能有很大不同。它们可以与次要语言形成对比：例如意大利语（“我们的国家年轻，还没有语言……”）。而且，已经没有选择；必须将次要语言定义为持续变异的语言——无论所考虑的维度是音位的、句法的、语义的，还是风格的。次要语言仅由最小的结构恒定性和同质性构成。然而，它并不是一种混合物，不是方言的混合，因为它在连续体的构建中找到了自己的规则。确实，持续的变化将适用于所有的声响和语言成分，形成一种普遍的色彩学。这将是戏剧本身或“表演”。”

But, as a result, it is difficult to contrast languages that would be major by nature with others that would be minor. Protests occur, notably in France, against the imperialism of English and Ancrican English. But the counterpart of this imperialism is precisely that British and American English are best worked over by the minorities employing them from within. Note how the Anglo-Irish of Synge strains the English, and imposes on it a vanishing line" or a line of continuous variation: "the way . . . " Of course, this is certainly not the same way that minorities work over American English, say, black English and all American idioms of the ghetto. But, in any case, there is no imperial language that is not hallowed out, swept away by these lines of inherent and continuous variation, that is, by these minor usages. Major and minor languages, therefore, qualify less as different languages than as different usages of the same language. Kafka, a Czech Jew writing in German, makes German a minor usage, and thus produces a decisive linguistic masterpiece (more generally, the work of minorities on German in the Austrian empire). At the most, one could say that one language is more or less endowed with these minor usages.
但是，结果是，很难将本质上属于主要语言的语言与其他次要语言进行对比。抗议活动在法国尤为明显，反对英语和美式英语的帝国主义。但这种帝国主义的对立面恰恰在于，英国和美式英语是由内部的少数群体最有效地改造的。注意辛吉的盎格鲁爱尔兰人如何扭曲英语，并在其上施加一个“消失的线”或一个持续变化的线：“方式……”。当然，这与少数群体改造美式英语的方式并不相同，比如黑人英语和所有美国贫民区的习语。但无论如何，没有一种帝国语言不是被这些固有的、持续的变化所侵蚀、扫除的，也就是说，被这些次要用法所影响。因此，主要语言和次要语言的区别，更多地体现在同一种语言的不同用法上。卡夫卡，一个用德语写作的捷克犹太人，使德语成为一种次要用法，从而创作出一部决定性的语言杰作（更普遍地说，是少数群体在奥地利帝国对德语的创作）。在最多的情况下，可以说一种语言在这些小用法上或多或少地更具天赋。

Linguists often have a debatable understanding of the object they study. They say that all language is, of course, a heterogeneous mixture, but that one can study it scientifically only in view of a homogeneous and constant subsystem: a dialect, a patois, a ghetto language would then be subjected to the
语言学家对他们研究的对象常常有争议的理解。他们说，所有语言当然都是一种异质混合物，但只有在考虑一个同质且恒定的子系统时，才能科学地研究它：方言、土语或贫民区语言将因此受到...
. same rules as a standard language (Noam Chomsky). The variations that affect a language would be considered, then, either as extrinsic and outside of the system or as attesting to a mixture of two systems that would be homogeneous in themselves. But this rulc of constancy and homogeneity may already suppose a certain usage of the language under consideration: a major usage treating language as a state of power, a marker of power. A small number of linguists (notably Wiliam Labov) have noted in all language the existence of lines of variation applying to all the components and constituting immanent rules of a new type. You will not come across a homogeneous system that has yet to be shaped by an immanent, continuous, and constant vatiation: here is what defines all language in its minor usagc, an enlarged color field, a black English for each language. Continuous variability is not explained by bilingualism, nor by a mixture of dialects, but by language’s most inherent, creative property as apprehended in minor usage. And, to a ccitain degree, this is the “theater” of language.
相同的规则适用于标准语言（诺姆·乔姆斯基）。影响语言的变体将被视为外在于系统的因素，或者作为两种系统的混合，彼此之间是同质的。但是，这种恒定性和同质性的规则可能已经假设了对所考虑语言的某种使用：一种主要的使用将语言视为一种权力状态，一种权力的标志。一小部分语言学家（特别是威廉·拉博夫）注意到，所有语言中都存在适用于所有组成部分的变异线，并构成了一种新类型的内在规则。你不会遇到一个尚未被内在、连续和恒定的变异所塑造的同质系统：这就是定义所有语言在其小型使用中的特征，一个扩展的色彩领域，每种语言都有一种黑色英语。连续的变异并不是由双语现象或方言混合所解释的，而是由语言最内在、最具创造性的特性所决定，这在小型使用中得以体现。而在某种程度上，这就是语言的“剧场”。

Theater and Its Language 戏剧及其语言
This is not an issue of anticheater, of theater in the theater, or of theater denying the theater, etc.: Carmelo Bene is disgusted by so-called avant-garde formulas. It is a marter of a more precise opcration: you begin by subcracting, deducting everything that would constitute an element of power, in language and in gestures, in the representation and in the represented. You cannot even say that it is a negative operation because it already crlists and releases positive processes. You will then deduct or amputate history because History is the temporal marker of Power. You will subtract structure because it is the synchronic marker, the totality of relations among invariants. You will subtract constants, the stable or stabilized elements, because they belong to major usage. You will amputate the text because the text is like the domination of language over speech and still attests to invariance or homogeneity. You deduct dialogue because it transmirs elements of power into speech and causes them to spread: it is your turn to speak under such codified conditions (linguists try to determine “the universals of dialogue”). Etc, etc. As Franco Quadri explains, you deduct even diction and action: the playback is first of all a subtraction.

^{12}

But what remains? Everything temains, but under a new light with new sounds and new gestures.
这不是反作弊的问题，也不是剧院中的剧院，或剧院否认剧院等问题：卡梅洛·贝内对所谓的先锋公式感到厌恶。这是一个更精确的操作问题：你首先要减去，扣除一切构成权力元素的东西，无论是在语言和手势中，还是在表现和被表现中。你甚至不能说这是一种消极操作，因为它已经存在并释放出积极的过程。然后你将扣除或截肢历史，因为历史是权力的时间标记。你将减去结构，因为它是共时标记，是不变体之间关系的整体。你将减去常量，稳定或已稳定的元素，因为它们属于主要用法。你将截肢文本，因为文本就像语言对言语的支配，仍然证明了不变性或同质性。你扣除对话，因为它将权力元素传递到言语中并使其传播：在这样的编码条件下轮到你发言（语言学家试图确定“对话的普遍性”）。等等，等等。正如弗朗哥·夸德里所解释的，你甚至要扣除措辞和动作：回放首先是一种减法。

^{12}

但剩下的是什么？一切都存在，但在新的光线、新的声音和新的手势下。

For cxample, you say: “I swear.” But this is not at all the same énoncé when uttered before the law, in a love seene, or in childhood. And this variation affects not only the exterior situation, not only the physical intonation, but also the signification, the syntax, and the phonemes from within. You will then transmit an enoncé through all the variables that could affect it in the shortest amount of time. The enconce, will never be more than the sum of
例如，你说：“我发誓。”但在法律面前、在爱情场景中或在童年时说出时，这完全不是同样的陈述。这种变化不仅影响外部情况，不仅影响物理语调，还影响内部的意义、句法和音素。然后，你将通过所有可能影响它的变量在最短的时间内传递一个陈述。这个陈述永远不会超过总和。
its own variations that frees it from each apparatus of power capable of fixing it and that gives it the slip from all constancy. You will construct the continuurn of “I Swear.” Suppose that Lady Anne says to Richard III: “You disgust me.” It is hardly the same enoncé when uttered by a woman at war, a child facing a toad, or a young girl feeling a pity that is already consenting and loving . . . Lady Anne will have to move through all these variables. She will have to stand erect like a woman warrior, regress to a childilike state, and return as a young girl-as quickly as possible on a line of continuous variation. Carmelo Bene never stops tracing lines that overlap positions, regres sions, and rebirths. He places language and speech in continuous variation. Hence Bene’s very original use of playback, since playback will guarantee the amplitude of these variations and provide them with order. It is odd, since there is no dialogue in this theater; for yoices, simultaneous or successive, superimposed or transposed, are caught in this spatiotemporal continuity of variation. It is a sort of Sprechgesang. In song, it is a matter of maintaining the pitch, but in the Sprechgesang, one always varies the pitch with ascendings and descendings. The text, then, is not what counts as mere material for variation. Oric would even have to overload the text with nontextual, and yet internal, directions, which would be not mevely scenic, which would function as operators consistently conveying the scale of variables through which the énoncé passes, exactly as in a musical score. Now that is the way Carmelo Bene writes, with a writing (écriture) that is neither literary nor dramatic, but truly performative, whose effect on the reader is very strong and very strange. In Richard III, you see these operators occupying a lot more space than the text itself. Bene’s theater must be seen, but also read, even though the text is, properly speak- ing, not esseritial. This is not a contradiction. It is rather like reading a score. Bene’s wariness of Brecht is understandable in this context: Brecht performed the greatest “critical operation,” but this operation was enacted “on the text and not on the stage.” The complete critical operation consists of ( 1 ) deduct ing the stable elements, (2) placing everything in continuous variation, (3) then transposing everything in minor (this is the role of the company in responding to the notion of the “smallest” interval).
它自身的变体使其摆脱了能够固定它的每一个权力装置，并使其从所有的恒常中溜走。你将构建“我发誓”的延续。假设安妮夫人对理查三世说：“你让我恶心。”当一个女人在战争中说出这句话、一个孩子面对一只蟾蜍，或一个年轻女孩感受到已经同意和爱的怜悯时，这几乎不是同样的表述……安妮夫人必须经历所有这些变量。她必须像女战士一样挺立，退回到儿童状态，然后尽快以年轻女孩的身份回归，沿着连续变异的线条。卡梅洛·贝内从未停止描绘重叠的位置、回归和重生的线条。他将语言和言语置于持续的变异之中。因此，贝内非常独特地使用回放，因为回放将保证这些变异的幅度并为其提供秩序。这很奇怪，因为在这个剧场中没有对话；因为声音，无论是同时的还是连续的，叠加的还是转置的，都被捕捉在这种时空连续的变异中。这是一种朗诵歌唱。在歌唱中，保持音高是一个问题，但在朗诵歌唱中，音高总是随着升降而变化。因此，文本并不是仅仅作为变奏的材料。奥里克甚至必须用非文本的、但又是内部的指示来过载文本，这些指示不仅仅是场景性的，而是作为操作符，持续传达通过陈述所经历的变量的范围，就像在乐谱中一样。这就是卡梅洛·贝内的写作方式，他的写作既不是文学的，也不是戏剧的，而是真正的表演性的，对读者的影响非常强烈且奇特。在《理查三世》中，你会看到这些操作符占据了比文本本身更多的空间。贝内的戏剧必须被观看，但也必须被阅读，尽管文本在严格意义上并不是本质。这并不是矛盾。这更像是在阅读乐谱。在这个背景下，贝内对布莱希特的谨慎是可以理解的：布莱希特进行了最大的“批判性操作”，但这个操作是在“文本上而不是在舞台上”进行的。完整的关键操作包括（1）扣除稳定元素，（2）将一切置于连续变化中，（3）然后将一切转置为小调（这就是公司在响应“最小”音程概念中的角色）。

How might we understand this usage of language in terms of variation? One could explain it in many ways: to be bilingual, but in a single language, in a unique language . . . To be a foreigner, but in one’s own tongue . . . To stammer, but as a stammerer of language itself, not only of speech . . . Adds Bene: to talk to oneself, in one’s own ear, but in the middle of the market, in the public square . . One must agree to accept each of these formulas as is in . order to define Bene’s work and to perceive not what anxieties of influence, but what alliances, what contacts he maintains with other older or contemporary attempts. Bilingualism puts us on the track but only on the track. Since the bilingual leaps from one language to another, one speaker can have a minor usage, the other a major usage. One can even produce a heterogeneous mixture of several languages and several dialects. But, here, it is in one and the same language that one must become bilingual. It is on my own tongue that I must impose the heterogencity of variation. It is within my own tongue that I must etch a minor usage and deduct the elements of power or majority. One can always start from an exterior siruation: for examplc, Kafka, a Czech Jew writing in German, Beckett, an Irishman writing simultancously in English and French, Pasolini employing the dialectical variations of Iralian. But it is in German itself that Kafka traces a vanishing linc or a line of continuous variation. It is’ French itself that Beckett stammers. And so does Jean-Luc Godard in a different way, as well as Gherasim Luca in yet another. And it is Engish that Bob Wilson whispers and mumbles (since whispering does not imply a weak intensity but, on the contrary, an intensity with indefinite pitch). But the formula for stammering is just as approximate as that of bilingualism. Stammering, in general, is a speech problem. But to make language stammer is a different matter. It is to impose the work of continuous variation on language, on all interior elements of language, phonological, syntactical, and semantic. I believe Gherasim Luca to be one of the greatest French poets of all times. He certainly docs not owe this to his Romanian origin, but he uses this origin to make French stammer in itself, with itself, to import stammering into language itself and not into speech. Read or listen to the poem “Passionately,” which was recorded as well as published in the collection The Song of the Carp.

^{13}

Such an intensity of language and such an intense usage of language has never been equalled. A public reading of poems by Gherasim Luca is a complete and marvelous theatrical event. To be a stranger, then, in onc’s own language . . . It is not to speak “as” an Irishman or a Romanian speaking French. This would be the case for neither Beckett nor Luca. It is to impose on language, as it is spoken perfectly and soberly, this line of variation that will make you a foreigner in your own language or make a foreign language your own or nake your language a bilingualism immanent to your foreignness. Always return to Proust’s formula: “masterpieces are written in a kind of foreign language.” Or, conversely, the novella, “The Great Swimmer,” by Kafka (who never knew how to swim): “I must acknowledge that I am here in my own country and, that despite all my efforts I do not understand a word of the language you speak.” These are Carmelo Bene’s alliances or encounters, involuntary or not, with those I have just cited. And they count only in relation to how Bene constructs his own methods of stammering, whispering, and varying his own language to intensify it on the level of each of its clements
我们如何理解这种语言的使用方式，尤其是变异方面？可以用多种方式来解释：双语，但在一种语言中，以独特的语言……作为外国人，但用自己的母语……口吃，但作为语言本身的口吃者，而不仅仅是言语……贝内补充道：在市场中，在公共广场上，自己对自己说话，耳边自语……必须同意接受每一个公式，以便定义贝内的工作，并感知他与其他较老或当代尝试之间的联盟和联系，而不是影响的焦虑。双语使我们走上了轨道，但仅仅是轨道。由于双语者在一种语言和另一种语言之间跳跃，一个说话者可能有次要的用法，而另一个则有主要的用法。甚至可以产生几种语言和几种方言的异质混合。但在这里，必须在同一种语言中成为双语者。必须在我自己的语言中施加变异的异质性。在我自己的语言中，我必须刻画出次要的用法，并推导出权力或多数的元素。人们总是可以从外部情况开始：例如，卡夫卡，一个用德语写作的捷克犹太人；贝克特，一个同时用英语和法语写作的爱尔兰人；帕索里尼，使用意大利方言的变体。但正是在德语中，卡夫卡追踪到了一条消失的线或一条持续变化的线。正是法语本身让贝克特结结巴巴。让-吕克·戈达尔以不同的方式也是如此，赫拉西姆·卢卡则以另一种方式。而鲍勃·威尔逊则在低声细语和咕哝（因为低声细语并不意味着弱的强度，恰恰相反，它是一种不确定音高的强度）。但结结巴巴的公式和双语的公式一样模糊。一般来说，结结巴巴是一种语言问题。但让语言结结巴巴则是另一回事。这是将持续变化的工作强加于语言，强加于语言的所有内部元素，包括音位、句法和语义。我相信赫拉西姆·卢卡是所有时代最伟大的法语诗人之一。他当然不是因为他的罗马尼亚血统而获得这一点，而是他利用这一血统使法语在自身内部、与自身一起结结巴巴，将结结巴巴引入语言本身，而不是引入言语。阅读或聆听诗歌《热情》，该诗已在《鲤鱼之歌》一集中录制和出版。

^{13}

这样的语言强度和如此强烈的语言使用从未被超越。赫拉西姆·卢卡的诗歌公开朗读是一场完整而奇妙的戏剧事件。因此，在自己的语言中成为陌生人……这并不是像爱尔兰人或罗马尼亚人说法语那样说话。这对贝克特和卢卡都不适用。是对语言施加一种变化的线条，正如它被完美而清 sober 地说出，这将使你在自己的语言中成为外乡人，或使外语成为你的母语，或使你的语言成为一种内在于你外乡身份的双语性。始终回到普鲁斯特的公式：“杰作是用一种外语写成的。”或者，相反，卡夫卡的中篇小说《伟大的游泳者》（他从未学会游泳）：“我必须承认，我在自己的国家，尽管我付出了所有努力，我仍然听不懂你说的语言。”这些是卡梅洛·贝内与我刚刚提到的那些人的联盟或遭遇，无论是自愿还是非自愿。他们的计算仅与贝内如何构建自己的口吃、低语以及变化自己的语言以在每个元素的层面上增强它有关

All the linguistic and sonorous components, inseparably language and
所有的语言和声音成分，密不可分地结合在一起
speech, are put in a state of continuous variation. But this is not without effect on other nonlinguistic components like actions, passions, gestures, attitudes, objects, etc. For one cannot treat the clements of language and speech as so many interior variables without placing them in a reciprocal relation with exterior variables, in the same continuity, in the same flux of continuiry. It is in the same movement that language will tend to escape the system of power structuring it. And, similarly, action will tend to escape the system of Mastery or domination organizing it. In an excellent article, Corrado Augias shows how Bene brings together a work of “aphasia”. on language (whispered, stammered, and deformed diction, barely audible or deafening sounds), and a work of “obstruction” on objects and gestures (costumes limiting movement instead of aiding it, props thwarting change of place, gestures either too stiff or excessively “soft”)." So it works in Salomé" the apple being continually swallowed and spit up; the costurnes never ceasing to fall off and needing continually to be put back on; the stage props always useless rather than useful, as with the table that separates instead of supporting things-one must always surmount objects instead of using them. The same goes for SA.D.E. with the perpetually delayed act of copulation, and, especially, with the Servant, who hinders and impedes himself in a continuous series of his own metamorphoses because he must not master his role as servant, and, at the beginning of Ricbard II, with Richard never ceasing to lose his balance, to totter, to slip from the dresser on which he leans…
言语处于持续变化的状态。但这并不对其他非语言成分如动作、情感、手势、态度、物体等没有影响。因为人们不能将语言和言语的元素视为许多内部变量，而不将它们置于与外部变量的相互关系中，在同样的连续性中，在同样的流动中。正是在同样的运动中，语言将倾向于逃离构成其系统的权力结构。同样，行动也将倾向于逃离组织它的主宰或支配系统。在一篇优秀的文章中，科拉多·奥吉亚斯展示了贝内如何将一部关于“失语症”的作品与一部关于物体和手势的“阻碍”作品结合在一起（低声、结结巴巴和变形的发音，几乎听不见或震耳欲聋的声音，以及限制运动而不是帮助运动的服装，妨碍位置变化的道具，手势要么过于僵硬，要么过于“柔软”）。“所以它在萨洛梅中运作，”苹果不断被吞下又吐出；服装不断掉落，需要不断重新穿上；舞台道具总是无用而非有用，就像那张分开的桌子，而不是支撑物品——人们总是必须克服物体，而不是使用它们。SA.D.E. 也是如此。与不断延迟的交配行为，尤其是与那个仆人，他在自己不断变化的系列中阻碍和妨碍自己，因为他不能掌握作为仆人的角色，以及在《理查德二世》的开头，理查德始终无法保持平衡，摇摇欲坠，从他所依靠的梳妆台上滑落……

The Theater and Its Gestures
剧院及其手势

Must it be said, however, that this double principle, of aphasia and obstruction; reveals its relations of power in which each body becomes an obstacle to the body of the other, as cach will thwart the will of others? There is something else, different from a play of oppositions, that would return us to the system of power and domination. That is, by constant obstruction, gestures and movements are placed in a state of continuous variation in relation to one another and themselves, just like voices and linguistic elements are sustained in this state of variation. The gesture of Richard UI afways yacates its own level, its own height, by a fall, a rise, or a slip:

^{t6}

the gesture in perpenual and positive imbalance. The costume that one takes off and puts back on, that falls off and is put back on, is like the variation of clothing. Likewise the variation of flowers that takes place so frequently in Bene. Indeed, there are very few shocks and oppositions in Berie’s theater. One could conceive of ways of producing stammering by making words clash, by producing a contrast of phonemes, or even a confrontation of varying dialects. But these are not the neans employed by Carmelo Benc. On the contrary, the beauty of his style is how it induces stammering by the creation of melodious lines that free language from a system of dominant oppositions. The same goes for the grace of the gestures on stage. It is odd, then, that angry women, as well as critics, would have reproached Bene for his staging of the feminine body, and would have accused him of sexism and phallocratism. The woman-object in S.A.D.E, the nude young woman, undergoes all the metamorphoses imposed on her by the sadistic Master, She is transformed into a successive series of familiar objects: but the point is that she traverses these netamorphoses, she never assumes degrading poses. She takes the cue from her gestures, following their line of variation that allows her to escape the domination of the Master and to flourish outside of his control by prolonging her grace throughout the entire series. Compliments to the actress who played this role in Paris. But the theater of Cammelo Bene never unfolds in relation to force and opposition, regardless of its “toughness” and “cruelty.” Put even better, the relations of force and opposition are part of what is shown only to be subtracted, deducted, neutralized. Carmelo Benc. is not very interested in conflicts. They serve as a simple prop for Variation. Benc’s theater unfolds itself only in relation to the variation that eliminates “masters.”
然而，必须说，这一双重原则，即失语和阻碍，揭示了权力的关系，其中每个身体都成为另一个身体的障碍，因为每个身体都会阻碍他人的意志？还有其他一些东西，不同于对立的游戏，将我们带回权力和统治的系统。也就是说，通过不断的阻碍，手势和动作在彼此及自身之间处于持续变化的状态，就像声音和语言元素在这种变化状态中被维持一样。理查德·乌伊的手势总是通过一次跌落、一次上升或一次滑动来改变其自身的水平和高度：手势处于持续而积极的不平衡状态。脱下和重新穿上的服装，掉落后再穿上的服装，就像衣物的变化。同样，贝尼中花朵的变化也发生得如此频繁。实际上，贝里戏剧中几乎没有冲击和对立。人们可以设想通过使单词碰撞、产生音素的对比，甚至不同方言的对抗来产生口吃。但这些并不是卡梅洛·本克所采用的手段。相反，他的风格之美在于通过创造旋律优美的句子，使语言摆脱主导对立的体系，从而引发口吃。舞台上动作的优雅也是如此。那么，愤怒的女性以及评论家们指责贝内对女性身体的舞台呈现，并指控他性别歧视和男性中心主义，这实在是奇怪。在《S.A.D.E》中，女性-物体，裸体年轻女性，经历了施虐大师强加给她的所有变形。她被转变为一系列熟悉的物体：但关键在于，她穿越这些变形，从未采取贬低的姿态。她从自己的动作中汲取灵感，跟随变化的线条，使她能够逃脱大师的支配，并在整个系列中延续她的优雅，超越他的控制。向在巴黎扮演这个角色的女演员致敬。但卡梅洛·贝内的戏剧从不与力量和对立相关展开，无论其“强硬”和“残酷”如何。更好地说，力量和对抗的关系是仅仅被减去、扣除、抵消的部分。卡梅洛·本克对冲突并不太感兴趣。它们只是变异的简单道具。本克的戏剧仅在消除“主人”的变异关系中展开。”

What counts in variation are the relations of speed or sluggishness, the modifications of these relations as they carry the gestures and énoncés along a line of transformation; in accordante with variable coefficients. It is in this context that Bene’s writing and gestures are masical: because each form is deformed by modifications of speed. The result is that the same gesture or word is never repeated without obtaining different characteristics of time. This is the musical formula of continuity, or of form as transformation. The “operators” of Bene’s styie and staging are just such indicators of speed that no longer belong to theater cven though they are nor ourside of theater. And, precisely, Bene lias found the way to enunciate them clearly in the “text” of his plays, even though they are not part of the text. Physicians of the Middle Ages spoke of deformed movements and qualities that followed the distribution of speed among the different points of a body in motion, or the distribution of intensities among the different points of a subject.

^{18}

It seems to me that two essential aims of the arts should be the subordination of form to speed, to the variation of speed, and the subordination of the subject to intensity or to affect, to the intense variation of affects. Bene participates fully in this movement that produces the critique of form and subject (in the double sense of “theme” and “self”). Only affects and no subject, only speeds and not form. But again what counts are Bene’s means of realizing this aim: the continuity of variation. When he identifies grace with the movement of
在变异中，重要的是速度或迟缓的关系，以及这些关系在沿着转变的轨迹传递手势和表述时的变化；与可变系数相一致。在这个背景下，贝内的写作和手势是音乐性的：因为每种形式都因速度的变化而变形。结果是，同样的手势或词语在不同的时间特征下从未重复。这是连续性的音乐公式，或作为转变的形式。贝内的风格和舞台的“操作员”正是这样的速度指示器，它们不再属于戏剧，尽管它们并不在戏剧之外。而且，正是贝内找到了在他戏剧的“文本”中清晰表述它们的方法，尽管它们并不是文本的一部分。中世纪的医生谈到了变形的运动和品质，这些运动和品质遵循着在运动中的身体不同点之间速度的分布，或在一个主体的不同点之间强度的分布。在我看来，艺术的两个基本目标应该是将形式从属于速度、速度的变化，以及将主题从属于强度或情感、情感的强烈变化。贝内完全参与了这一运动，产生了对形式和主题的批判（在“主题”和“自我”的双重意义上）。只有情感而没有主题，只有速度而没有形式。但再次强调的是，贝内实现这一目标的手段是：变化的连续性。当他将恩典与运动认同时
disgrace (the “saint idiots” he adores), hc only wishes to subordinate qualified forms to the deformity of movement or of quality. There is a geometrical dimension to Bene’s theater, a geometry in the sense of Nicholas Oresme,

^{20}

a geometry of speeds, intensities, and affects.
耻辱（他崇拜的“圣傻瓜”），hc 只希望将合格的形式从属于运动或质量的畸形。贝内的戏剧具有几何维度，这里的几何是指尼古拉·奥雷斯梅的几何，

^{20}

一种速度、强度和情感的几何。

The films of Carmelo Benc are not filmed theatcr. Perhaps this is because the cincma does not use the same speeds of variation as does theater, and above all because the two variations, those of languagc and gesture, do not have the same relation in the two mediums. In particular, is it possible for cinema to directly construct a sort of visual music, as if it were the cyes that first grasped the sound, while theater has rrouble forsaking the primacy of theear through which actions are first heard?" (Already in his thearrical version of Notre Dame des Turs, Bene sought the means for theater to surpass this. domination of words and to arrive at a direct perception of the action: “The” audience had to follow the action through windows and heard nothing except when the actor deigned to open a small window…"). But the important thing, in any case, in theater as in cinema, is that the two variations must not remain parallel. In one way or another, they must be placed one writhin the other. The continuous variation of gestures and things, the continuous variation of language and sounds, can interrupt, cut, and recut one another; they. must nevertheless prolong each other, forming one and the same continum, which, depending on the case, will be cinematic, theatrical, musical, etc. A separate study of Bene’s films is nceded.

^{22}

But, to remain with the theater works, I would like to investigate how Bene proceeds in Richard III, this very recent play in which he goes the farthest.
卡梅洛·本克的电影并不是拍摄的戏剧。也许这是因为电影并没有使用与戏剧相同的变化速度，尤其是因为语言和手势这两种变化在这两种媒介中并没有相同的关系。特别是，电影是否能够直接构建一种视觉音乐，就好像是眼睛首先理解了声音，而戏剧则难以放弃通过耳朵首先听到的动作的主导地位？（在他对《巴黎圣母院》的戏剧版本中，本克已经寻求戏剧超越这种对语言的支配，达到对动作的直接感知：“观众”必须通过窗户跟随动作，除了当演员愿意打开一个小窗户时，什么也听不见……）。但无论如何，在戏剧和电影中，重要的是这两种变化不能保持平行。无论以何种方式，它们必须相互交织。手势和事物的连续变化，语言和声音的连续变化，可以相互中断、切割和重新切割。必须相互延续，形成一个相同的连续体，这个连续体根据情况可以是电影的、戏剧的、音乐的等。需要对贝内的电影进行单独研究。

^{22}

但是，为了保持对戏剧作品的关注，我想探讨贝内在《理查三世》中是如何进行创作的，这部他走得最远的最新剧作。

Richard WI begins entirely on two lines of variation that blend and alternate while not yet coalescing. Richard’s gestures always slip, change height, fall in order to rise; and the gestures of the servant dressed as Buckingham are in keeping with his. Similarly, the voice of the duckess always changes tonalities, passing through all the variables of the mother, at the same time as Richard’s voice mumbles and is reduced to the “articulations of a troglodyte.” If the two variations still remain relatively separate, like two intersecting continuities, it is because Richard has not yet created himself on stage. In the beginning, he is still scarching for the elements of his coming creation among ideas and things. He is not yet the object of fear, love, and pity. He has not yet achieved his. “political election,” not yet mounted his war machinc. He has not yet achieved the disgrace of “his” grace, the deformity of his form… But in the great scene with Lady Anne, Richard will construct himself before our cyes. The sublime scene of Shakespeare, often accused of excess and lack of verisimilitude, will not be parodied by Bene, but multiplied according to the variable speeds or developments that will come together in a single continuity of creation (not a dramatic unity). (I) Richard, or rather the actor playing Richard, begins to “understand.” He begins to understand his own idea and the means of this idea. First he searches the drawers of the chest where he finds casts and prostheses, all the monstrosities of the human body. He takes them, drops them, takes yet another, tries them on, hides them from Anne, then sports them triumphantly. He accomplished the mivade when his good hand becomes just as stiff and twisted as the other. He wins his political election, he creates his deformities, his war machine. (2) Lady Anne, for her part, enters into this complicity with Richard: she insults him and hates him while he still maintains his “form” but becomes distressed with each deformity while already in love and approving. It is as if she were creating a new character for herself as well, one measuring its own variation in relation to the variation of Richard. She begins by aiding him irresolutely in his search for prostheses. Then, better and better; faster and faster, she herself will seek the loving deformity. She will marry a war machine instead of remaining in the shadow and power of a state apparatus.

^{23}

. She herself performs a variation close to Richard’s by continually undressing and dressing herself in a rhythm of regression-progression echoing Richard’s subtractions-constructions. (3) And each one’s vocal variations, phonemes and tonalities, form a tighter and tighter line infringing on each one’s gestures, and visa versa. The spectator must not only understand but unknowingly hear and see the aim aircady pursued by the earliest mumblings and falls: the Idea has become visible perceptible, the politics have become erotic. From this moment, there would not be two intersecting continuities but onc. and the same continuum in which the words and gestures play the role of variables in transformation . . . (the rest of the play and the admirable conceit of the ending deserves close analysis: where we realize that Richard’s purpose was not to conquer a state apparatus but to construct a war machine that is inseparably political and erotic).
理查德·WI 完全基于两条交替变化的线条，这些变化交融而尚未合并。理查德的手势总是滑动、改变高度、下降以便再上升；而身着巴金汉服装的仆人的手势与他的相一致。同样，公爵夫人的声音总是变化音调，穿越母亲的所有变量，同时理查德的声音则含糊不清，简化为“穴居人的发音”。如果这两种变化仍然相对独立，像两条交叉的连续体，那是因为理查德尚未在舞台上创造自己。在开始时，他仍在思想和事物中寻找即将到来的创造的元素。他还不是恐惧、爱和怜悯的对象。他尚未实现他的“政治选举”，还没有架起他的战争机器。他尚未获得“他的”恩典的耻辱，尚未形成他的畸形……但在与安妮夫人的伟大场景中，理查德将在我们面前构建自己。莎士比亚的崇高场景，常常被指责为过度和缺乏真实感，不会被贝尼模仿，而是根据将汇聚在一个创作的连续性中的可变速度或发展而被放大（而不是戏剧的统一性）。(I) 理查德，或者说扮演理查德的演员，开始“理解”。他开始理解自己的想法和这个想法的手段。首先，他在箱子的抽屉里寻找，发现了模具和假肢，所有人类身体的畸形。他拿起它们，扔掉它们，再拿起另一个，试穿，藏起来不让安妮看到，然后得意洋洋地展示出来。当他的好手变得和另一只手一样僵硬扭曲时，他完成了变形。他赢得了政治选举，创造了他的畸形和战争机器。(2) 安妮夫人则与理查德形成了这种共谋：她侮辱他，恨他，而他仍然保持着自己的“形态”，但随着每一个畸形而感到痛苦，同时已经爱上并表示赞同。就好像她也在为自己创造一个新角色，一个根据理查德的变化来衡量自身变化的角色。她开始时犹豫不决地帮助他寻找假肢。然后，越来越好；越来越快，她自己将寻求那种可爱的畸形。她将嫁给一台战争机器，而不是继续待在国家机器的阴影和权力之下。

^{23}

。她自己进行了一种接近理查德的变体，通过不断地脱衣和穿衣，以一种回归-进展的节奏，呼应理查德的减法-构建。(3) 每个人的声音变化、音素和音调，形成了一条越来越紧密的线，侵犯着每个人的手势，反之亦然。观众不仅必须理解，还必须在不知不觉中听到和看到最早的喃喃自语和跌倒所追求的目标：理念变得可见可感，政治变得情色化。从这一刻起，不再有两个交叉的连续体，而是一个相同的连续体，在这个连续体中，言语和手势扮演着变换中的变量角色…… （剧本的其余部分以及结尾的令人钦佩的构思值得深入分析：我们意识到理查德的目的不是征服一个国家机器，而是构建一个不可分割的政治和情色的战争机器。）

Theater and its Politics 戏剧及其政治

Suppose that Bene’s admirers agrce more or less with these functions of theater as

I

have tried to define them. That is, to eliminate the constants and invariants not only in language and gesture but also even in theatrical representation and what is represented on the stage. Thus to eliminate every occurrence of power: the power of what theater represents (the King, the Princes, the Masters, the System), but also the power of theater itself (the Text, the Dialogue, the Actor, the Director, the Structure). Consequently, to transmit everything through continuous variation as on a creative vanishing line that constitutes a minor tongue in language; a minor character on the
假设贝内的崇拜者或多或少同意这些剧院的功能，如

I

所尝试定义的那样。也就是说，不仅要消除语言和手势中的常量和不变因素，甚至还要消除戏剧表现和舞台上所表现的内容中的常量和不变因素。因此，要消除权力的每一个表现：戏剧所代表的权力（国王、王子、主人、体系），但也包括戏剧本身的权力（文本、对话、演员、导演、结构）。因此，通过持续的变化传递一切，就像在构成语言中小众语言的创造性消失线一样；在小众角色上。
stage, a set of minor transformation in relation to dominant forms and subjects. Suppose we agree on these points. We still must entertain some practical, basic questions: (1) what is the use of such theater for the outside world, since it is still a matter of theater, and nothing but theater? (2) and exactly how does Benc put into question the power of theater or theater as power? How is he less narcissistic tinan an actor, Iess authoritarian than a director, less despotic than a text? On the contrary, would he not be even more narcissistic, since he calls bimself the text, the actor, and the director (I am a mass, “see how politics becomes mass, the mass of

m y

atoms . . .”)?
舞台，与主导形式和主题相关的一系列小转变。假设我们在这些观点上达成一致。我们仍然必须考虑一些实际的基本问题：（1）这样的戏剧对外部世界有什么用，因为这仍然是戏剧，仅仅是戏剧？（2）Benc 究竟是如何质疑戏剧的权力或戏剧作为权力的？他如何比演员更少自恋，比导演更少专制，比文本更少暴虐？相反，他难道不是更自恋，因为他称自己为文本、演员和导演（我是一团，“看看政治如何变成群众，

m y

原子的群众……”）？

Nothing is accomplished without realizing how someone’s genius is fused with extreme modesty, the extent of humility. Carnclo Bene makes all of his arrogant declarations to express something very humble. First of all, that the theatcr, even that of which he dreams, amounts to almost nothing. That theater apparently does nor change the world or cause a revolution. Bene does not believe in the avant-garde. Nor does he believe in a popular theater, in a theater for cveryone, in a form of communication between the theater maker and the people. That is because, when one speaks of a popular theater, one always privileges a certain representation of conficts, conflicts of the individual and society, of life and history, contradictions and oppositions of all kinds that cur across a society as well as its individuals. But, whether naturalist or hyperrealist, ctc., this representation of conflicts is truly narcissistic and everyonc’s affair. There is a popular theatcr analogous to the narcissism of the worker. Without a doubt, there is Brecht’s attempt to make. contradictions and oppositions something other than represented; but Brecht himself orily wants theri to be “understood” and for the spectator to have the elements of possible “solution.” This is not to leave the domain of representation but only to pass from one dramatic pole of bourgeois representation to an epic pole of popular representation. Brecht does not push the “critique” far enough. As a substitute for the representation of conflicts, Bene proposes the presence of variation as a more active, more aggressive element. But why do conflicts generally depend on representation? Why does theater remain representative each time it focuses on confficts, contradictions, and oppositions? It is because conflicts are alrcady normalized, codified, and institutionalized. They are “products.” They are already a representation that can be represented so much the better on stage. A confict that is not yet normalized depends on something more profound. It is like lightning coming from somewhere else and announcing something else-a sidden emergence of creative, unexpected, and subrepresentative variation. Institutions are the organs of the representation of recognizable conflicts. And theater is an institution. Theater is “official,” even when avant-garde or popular: By what destiny have Brechtians taken power over an important aspect of theater? The critic
没有人能完成任何事情，而不意识到某人的天才与极度谦逊、谦卑的程度是如何融合在一起的。卡尔克洛·贝内所做的所有傲慢声明都是为了表达一些非常谦卑的东西。首先，连他梦想中的剧院几乎也算不了什么。显然，这个剧院并没有改变世界或引发革命。贝内不相信先锋派。他也不相信大众剧院，不相信为每个人而设的剧院，也不相信剧作家与观众之间的沟通形式。这是因为，当谈到大众剧院时，总是优先考虑某种冲突的表现，个体与社会、生活与历史之间的冲突，以及各种在社会和个体中交错的矛盾和对立。但是，无论是自然主义者还是超现实主义者，这种冲突的表现实际上都是自恋的，关乎每个人的事务。确实存在一种与工人的自恋相似的大众剧院。毫无疑问，布莱希特试图做到这一点。矛盾和对立是某种超越表现的东西；但布莱希特自己只希望它们被“理解”，并希望观众拥有可能“解决”的元素。这并不是要离开表现的领域，而只是从资产阶级表现的戏剧极转向大众表现的史诗极。布莱希特并没有将“批判”推得足够远。作为冲突表现的替代，贝内提出了变化的存在，作为一种更积极、更具攻击性的元素。但为什么冲突通常依赖于表现？为什么每当戏剧聚焦于冲突、矛盾和对立时，它仍然保持代表性？这是因为冲突已经被规范化、编码化和制度化。它们是“产品”。它们已经是一种可以在舞台上更好地表现的表现。尚未规范化的冲突依赖于更深层次的东西。它就像来自其他地方的闪电，预示着其他东西——一种创造性、意外和次代表性变化的突然出现。机构是可识别冲突表现的器官。戏剧是一种机构。即使在先锋或流行时，戏剧也是“官方的”：布莱希特主义者是凭借什么命运掌握了戏剧一个重要方面的权力？评论家
Giuseppe Bertolucci described the situation of theater in Italy (and elsewhere) at the time Bene undertook his experiments: because the social reality escapes us, “a theater for all has become an ideological lure and an objective factor of immobility”

^{2 +}

the same applies to Italian cinema with its pseudopolitical ambitions. In the words of Marco Montesano, “despite its conflictual appearances, it is an institutional cinema because the conflict ir portrays is the confict foreseen and controtled by the institution.” It is a theater, a narcissistic, historicist, and moralizing cinema. Bene describes even the rich and the poor as belonging to the same system of power and domination that divides them into “poor slaves” and “rich slaves” and that casts the artist in the role of indellectual slave, on one side or on the other. But just how do we break free of this situation of confictual, official, and instifutionalized representation? How do we account for the underground workings of a free and present variation that slips through the nets of slavery and cludes the entire situation?
朱塞佩·贝尔托鲁奇描述了贝内进行实验时意大利（及其他地方）戏剧的状况：因为社会现实逃避了我们，“一个为所有人服务的剧院已成为一种意识形态的诱饵和一种客观的静止因素”

^{2 +}

，意大利电影的伪政治野心同样如此。马尔科·蒙特萨诺的话说：“尽管它表面上存在冲突，但它是一种制度化的电影，因为它所描绘的冲突是由制度预见和控制的冲突。”这是一种自恋的、历史主义的和道德化的电影。贝内甚至将富人和穷人描述为属于同一权力和统治体系，这一体系将他们划分为“贫穷的奴隶”和“富有的奴隶”，并将艺术家置于知识奴隶的角色，无论是站在一方还是另一方。但我们如何才能打破这种冲突的、官方的和制度化的表现状况？我们如何解释一种自由和当下的变体在奴役的网中滑落并涵盖整个局势的地下运作？

Would there, then, not be other directions: The lived theater in which conflicts are experienced rather than represented, as in a psychodrama? The aesthetic theater in which formalized conficts become abstract, geometrical, and ornamental? The mystical theater that tends to abandon representation to arrive at communal and ascetic life “beyond spectacle”? None of these directions suits Carmelo Bene, who would still prefer pure and simple representation . . . Like Hamlet, he searches for a simpler, humbler formula.
那么，是否还有其他方向：体验冲突的生活剧场，而不是像心理剧那样表现冲突？形式化冲突变得抽象、几何和装饰的美学剧场？倾向于放弃表现以达到“超越景观”的共同体和禁欲生活的神秘剧场？这些方向都不适合卡梅洛·贝内，他仍然更喜欢纯粹简单的表现……就像哈姆雷特一样，他在寻找一种更简单、更谦卑的公式。

The entire question turns around majority inule. Since theater for all, the popular theater, is a litte like democracy, it summons majority rule. Except that this rule is very ambiguous. It presupposes a state of power or domination and not the opposite. It is obvious that there can exist more flies and mosquitoes than men. Man is nonetheless a standard measure in relation to which mankind is necessarily the majority. The majority does not designate a larger quantity but, rather, the measure by which other quantities of any kind are deemed to be smaller. For example, women and children, blacks and Native Americans, etc. are minorities in relation to the measure established by Man-white, Christian, average-male-adult-inhabitant of contempotary: American or European cities (Ulysses). But, at this point, everything reverses itself. For if the majority rejects an historical or structural model of power, it must also be said that the entire world is minority, potentially minority, as much as it deviates from this model. But might not continuous variation be just such an amplitude that always overflows, by excess or lack, the representative threshold of majority measure? Might not continuous variation be the minority becoming of everybody in contrast to the majority rule of Nobody Might not theater, thus, discover a sufficiently modest, but nevertheless, effective function? This antirepresentational function would be to trace, to construct in some way, a figure of the minority consciousness as each one’s
整个问题围绕着多数原则展开。由于大众剧院是一个类似于民主的概念，它召唤多数统治。只不过这种统治非常模糊。它假设了一种权力或统治的状态，而不是相反。显然，苍蝇和蚊子的数量可能比人类还多。然而，人类仍然是一个标准度量，依据这个标准，人类必然是多数。多数并不指代更大的数量，而是指其他任何数量被视为更小的度量。例如，女性和儿童、黑人和美洲原住民等在与由白人男性、基督徒、普通成年居民所建立的标准相比时，都是少数群体（尤利西斯）。但在这一点上，一切都发生了逆转。因为如果多数拒绝一个历史或结构性的权力模型，那么也必须说，整个世界都是少数，潜在的少数，越是偏离这个模型。难道持续的变化不会是这样一种幅度，总是因过多或不足而超出多数度量的代表性阈值吗？或许连续变异并不是少数人变成每个人，而是与无人统治的多数规则形成对比。剧院是否因此能够发现一个足够谦逊但仍然有效的功能？这种反表现功能将是追踪，以某种方式构建少数意识的形象
potential. To render a potentiality present and actual is a completely different matter from representing a conflict.

^{2 s}

It could no longer be said that art has power, that it is still a matter of power, even when it criticizes Power. For, by shaping the form of a minority consciousness, art speaks to the strengths of becoming that are of another domain than that of Power and measured representation. “Art is not a form of power except when it ceases to be art and begins to become demagoguery.” Art is subject to many powers, but it is not a form of power. It is of little consequence that the actor-author-director exerts influence and assumes an authoritarian manner, even a very authoritarian onc. This would be the authority of perpetual variation in contrast to the power or despotism of the invariant. This would be the authority, the autonorny of the stammerer who has acquired the right to stammer in contrast to the “well-spoken”. majority. Of course there is always a great risk that the minority form will restore a majority, remake a measurement (when art begins again to become demagoguery…). Variation must always vary itself. That is, it must travel through new and always unexpected routes.
潜力。使潜能变得现实和实际与表现冲突是完全不同的事情。

^{2 s}

不能再说艺术有力量，即使在批评权力时，它仍然是权力的问题。因为，通过塑造少数意识的形式，艺术诉说的是与权力和量化表现不同领域的成为的力量。“艺术不是一种权力，除非它不再是艺术，开始变成煽动主义。”艺术受到许多权力的影响，但它不是一种权力。演员-作者-导演施加影响并采取专制态度，甚至是非常专制的态度，这几乎没有什么关系。这将是与不变的权力或专制相对的永恒变化的权威。这将是口吃者的权威，口吃者获得了在与“口齿伶俐”的多数相对的情况下口吃的权利。当然，少数形式恢复多数、重新测量（当艺术再次开始变成煽动主义时）总是存在很大的风险……变化必须始终自我变化。也就是说，它必须通过新的和总是意想不到的路线旅行。

What are these routes from the point of view of a politics of theater? Who is this man of the minority-with the word man (lhomme) no longer pertaining since it carries the sign of the majority: Why not woman’or transestite, except that they also are already too codified? The traces of a politics are clearly evident in the declarations and positions of Carmelo Bene. The border, that is to say, the line of variation, does not divide masters and slaves, rich and poor. This is because an entire regime of relations and oppositions is woven from one and the other that makes the master into a rich slave, and the slave into a poor master, at the heart of the same majority system. The border is not inscribed in History, neither inside an established structure, nor even in “the people.” Everyone appeals to the people in the name of the majority language. But where are the people? “The people are missing.” In truth, the border divides History and antihistoricism, that is to say specifically, “those that History does not take into account.” It divides the structure and the vanishing lines that traverse it. It divides the people and the ethnic. The ethnic is the minority, the vanishing line in the structure, the antihistorical element in History. Carmelo Bene himself leads a minority life in solidarity with the people of Puglia: his South or third world, in the sense that everyone has a South or third world. But when he speaks of the peoples of Puglia, of whom he is one, he knows that the word poor is completely unsuitable. How can you call a people “poor” who would rather starve than work? How you can call a people “slaves” who refuse to play the game of master and slave? How can you speak of a conflict where there was something. very different, a fiery variation, an antihistorical variant-the mad riot of Campi Salentina, such as Bene describes it. But we have subjected them to a strange graft, to a strange operation: we have mapped, represented, normalized, historicized them, integrated them into majority rule. And there, indeed, we have made them poor. We have made them slaves. We have turned them into the people. We have rendered them major in History.
这些路线从戏剧政治的角度来看是什么？这个少数群体的男人是谁——“男人”（lhomme）这个词不再适用，因为它带有多数的标志：为什么不说女人或跨性别者，除了他们也已经被过于编码？卡梅洛·贝内的声明和立场中清晰地显现出一种政治的痕迹。边界，也就是说，变化的界线，并不划分主人和奴隶，富人和穷人。这是因为一种完整的关系和对立的制度是由两者编织而成，使得主人变成富有的奴隶，而奴隶变成贫穷的主人，处于同一多数体系的核心。边界并未铭刻在历史中，既不在一个既定的结构内，也不在“人民”之中。每个人都以多数语言的名义呼吁人民。但人民在哪里？“人民缺席。”实际上，边界划分了历史和反历史主义，也就是说，具体来说，“那些历史不予考虑的人。”它划分了结构和穿越它的消失线。它划分了人民和民族。民族是少数，是结构中的消失线，是历史中的反历史元素。卡梅洛·贝内本人在与普利亚人民的团结中过着少数人的生活：他的南方或第三世界，意味着每个人都有自己的南方或第三世界。但当他谈到普利亚的人民时，他知道“贫穷”这个词完全不合适。怎么能称一个宁愿挨饿也不愿工作的民族为“贫穷”？怎么能称一个拒绝玩主奴游戏的民族为“奴隶”？怎么能谈论一个存在着截然不同的冲突，一个火热的变奏，一个反历史的变体——贝内所描述的坎皮萨伦蒂纳的疯狂骚乱。但我们对他们进行了奇怪的嫁接，进行了奇怪的操作：我们对他们进行了映射、表现、规范、历史化，将他们纳入了多数统治之中。而在这里，我们确实让他们变得贫穷。我们让他们成为奴隶。我们把他们变成了人民。我们使他们在历史中变得重要。

A last danger, before we believe we have understood the words of Carmelo Benc. He has absolutely no interest in becoming the head of a regional troupe. To the contrary, he demands and requires state theaters. He fights for them. He fosters no cult of poverty in his work. It would take a lor of bad political faith to see this as a “contradiction” or sellout. Bene has never pretended to launch a regional theater. A minority alrcady begins to become normalized when one encloses it on itself or when onc encircles it in a nostalgic dance (it thereby becomes a subcomponent of the majority). Carmelo Bene is never more Puglian, more a southerner, than when he creates a universal theater with English, French, and American combinations. What he takes from Puglia is a line of variation, air, carth, sun, colors, lights, and sounds that he himself will vary in a completely different manner, along other lines. Consider Notre Dame des Tures, which is more complicitous with the Puglians than if he had staged a play as their representative poet.
最后一个危险，在我们相信自己理解了卡梅洛·本克的话之前。他对成为一个地区剧团的负责人毫无兴趣。相反，他要求并需要国家剧院。他为此而斗争。他的作品中并没有崇尚贫困的文化。将这视为“矛盾”或出卖灵魂需要极大的政治恶意。本内从未假装要创办一个地区剧院。当一个少数群体被封闭在自身之内，或被包围在怀旧的舞蹈中时，它就开始变得正常化（因此成为多数群体的一个子成分）。卡梅洛·本内在创造一个包含英语、法语和美语组合的普遍剧院时，绝不会比他更具普利亚人或南方人的身份。他从普利亚带来的，是一种变化的线条、空气、大地、阳光、色彩、光线和声音，而他将以完全不同的方式、沿着其他的线条来变化它们。考虑一下《巴黎圣母院》，它与普利亚人之间的关系比他作为他们代表诗人所演出的剧作更为密切。

To conclude, minority has two meanings that are relared, no doubt, but very distinct. First of all, minorizy denotes a state of rulc, that is to say, the situation of a group that, whatever its size, is excluded from the majority, or even included, but as a subordinate fraction in relation to the standard of measure that regulates the law and establishes the majority. In this context, we can say that women, children, the South; the third world, etc., are still minorities, as numerous as they are. But, then, let us take this first meaning literally. There follows a second meaning: minority no longer denotes a state of rule, but a becoming in which one enlists. To become-minority. This is a goal, a goal that concerns the entire world since the entire world is included in this goal and in this becoming inasmuch as everyone creates his or her variation of the unity of despotic measure and escapes, from one side or the other, from the system of power that is part of the majority. In the second sense, it is obvious that the minority is much more numerous than the majority. For example, women are a minority in the first sense. But, in the second sense, everyone is a becoming-woman, a becoming-woman who acts as everyone’s potentiality. In this context, women are no more becomingwomen than men themselves. A universal becoming-minority. Minority here denotes the strength of a becoming while majority designates the power or weakness of a state, of a situation. Here is where theater or at can surge forward with a specific, political function. This is on the condition that minority represents norhing regionalist, nor anything aristocratic, aesthetic, or mystical.
总之，少数有两个相关但非常不同的含义。首先，少数指的是一种统治状态，也就是说，一个群体的情况，无论其规模如何，都被排除在多数之外，或者即使被包括在内，但作为相对于规范的从属部分，规范调节法律并确立多数。在这个背景下，我们可以说女性、儿童、南方国家、第三世界等仍然是少数，尽管他们人数众多。但接下来，让我们字面理解这个第一个含义。接着出现第二个含义：少数不再指一种统治状态，而是一种参与的过程。成为少数。这是一个目标，一个关乎整个世界的目标，因为整个世界都包含在这个目标和这个过程之中，因为每个人都创造了自己对专制标准的变体，并从某种程度上逃离了作为多数一部分的权力体系。从第二个意义上看，显然少数比多数要多得多。例如，女性在第一个意义上是少数。但是，从第二个意义上说，每个人都是一个正在成为女性的存在，一个作为每个人潜能的正在成为女性。在这个背景下，女性并不比男性更成为女性。一个普遍的正在成为少数群体。这里的少数群体表示一种正在成为的力量，而多数群体则指代一种状态或情况的权力或弱点。在这里，戏剧或艺术可以以特定的政治功能向前推进。这是以少数群体不代表任何地方主义、也不代表任何贵族、审美或神秘的东西为前提。

Theater will surge forward as something representing nothing but what presents and crcates a minority consciousness as a universal-becoming. It forges alliances here and there according to the circumstances, following the lines of transformation that exceed theater and take on another form, or else that transform themselves back into theater for another leap. It is truly a matter of consciousness-raising, even though it bears no relation to a psychoanalytic consciousness, nor to a Marxist political censciousncss, nor even to a Brechtian one. Consciousness; consciousness-raising is a tremendous strength but one made neither for solutions nor for interpretations. When consciousness abandons solutions and interpretations, it thus acquires its light, its gestures and its sounds, its decisive transformation. Henry James wrote: “She ended up knowing more than she could ever interpret; there were no more obscurities clouding her clear vision. There renained only a raw light.” The more we attain this form of minority consciousness, the less isolated we feel. Light. We are our own mass, by ourselves, “the mass of my atoms.” Under the ambition of formulas, there is the most modest appreciation of what might be a revolutionary theater, a simple loving potentiality, an element for a new becoming of consciousness.
剧院将作为一种仅代表呈现和创造少数意识的普遍化而向前发展。它根据情况在这里和那里建立联盟，遵循超越剧院并采取另一种形式的转变线，或者又将自己转变回剧院以进行另一次飞跃。这确实是一个提升意识的问题，尽管它与精神分析意识、马克思主义政治意识，甚至与布莱希特意识都无关。意识；提升意识是一种巨大的力量，但既不是为了解决方案，也不是为了解释。当意识放弃解决方案和解释时，它便获得了光、手势和声音，以及决定性的转变。亨利·詹姆斯写道：“她最终知道的比她能解释的要多；没有更多的模糊遮蔽她清晰的视野。只剩下原始的光。”我们越是获得这种少数意识的形式，我们感到的孤立就越少。光。我们是自己的整体，独自一人，“我原子的整体。”在公式的雄心之下，存在着对可能成为革命性剧场的最谦逊的欣赏，一种简单的爱之潜能，一个意识新生的元素。

NOTES 笔记

Translated by Eliane dal Molin and Timothy Murray. The notes are the translators’. 1. Deleuze’s essay is accompanied by the folliowing bibliographical notice about the work of Carmelo Bene that may be of assistance to re’aders: "José Guinot and the International Center of Dramaturgy introduced the work of Carmelo Benc in France, and dedicated a publication to it which includes the play S.A.D.E., writings by Carmelo Benc; and a gencral bibliography: cf. Cannelo Bene, dvamatugic, 1977 . In XXe siecte, 50 , there is a beautiful analysis of the theater and cinema of Carmelo Bene by Jear-Paul Manganaro. Bene presented his comic operas Romzo and Julict and S.A.D.E. in Paris during the Festival d’Automae, 1977. These films have been projected in France: Notre Dame des Turrs, Capricci, Don Yuan, Satomé.
翻译由埃莉安娜·达尔·莫林和蒂莫西·穆雷完成。注释为翻译者所作。1. 德勒兹的文章附有关于卡梅洛·贝内作品的以下书目说明，可能对读者有所帮助：“何塞·吉诺和国际戏剧中心在法国介绍了卡梅洛·贝内的作品，并为其专门出版了一本书，其中包括剧本《S.A.D.E.》，卡梅洛·贝内的著作；以及一份综合书目：参见卡梅洛·贝内，戏剧学，1977 年。在《XX 世纪》第 50 期中，贾尔-保罗·曼甘纳罗对卡梅洛·贝内的戏剧和电影进行了精彩的分析。贝内在 1977 年巴黎的自动节上展示了他的喜歌剧《罗密欧与朱丽叶》和《S.A.D.E.》。这些电影在法国放映过：《巴黎圣母院》、《卡普里奇》、《唐璜》、《萨托梅》。