THE ACQUISITION AND CONTROL OF FIRE(1932)
陈明译
In a footnote to my Civilization and its Discontents I mentioned - though only incidentally - a conjecture which could be formed on the basis of psycho-analytic material, about primal man’s acquisition of control over fire. I am led to take up this theme again by Albrecht Schaeffer’s contradiction (1930) and by Erlenmeyer’s striking reference in the preceding paper to the Mongolian law against ‘pissing on ashes’.【1】
尽管我只是捎带脚的在《文明及其不满》及其脚注中提及原始人对火的控制之习得可能是形成精神分析的基础素材。这一假设致使我再次讨论如何处理 Albrecht Schaeffer的反驳（1930）和Erlenmeyer之前引用的蒙古法律引人注目的例子——禁止'在遂火上小便'。
For I think my hypothesis - that, in order to gain control over fire, men had to renounce the homosexually-tinged desire to put it out with a stream of urine - can be confirmed by an interpretation of the Greek myth of Prometheus, provided that we bear in mind the distortions which must be expected to occur in the transition from facts to the contents of a myth. These distortions are of the same sort as, and no worse than, those which we acknowledge every day, when we reconstruct from patients’ dreams the repressed but extremely important experiences of their childhood. The mechanisms employed in the distortions I have in mind are symbolic representation and turning into the opposite. I should not venture to explain all the features of our myth in this fashion; apart from the original set of facts, other and later occurrences may have contributed to its content. But the elements which admit of analytic interpretation are, after all, the most striking and important - viz. the manner in which Prometheus transported the fire, the character of his act (an outrage, a theft, a defrauding of the gods) and the meaning of his punishment.
人们为了获得对火的控制，不得不宣布放弃同性恋色彩的欲望，用一泡尿将其释放——我觉得我的这个假设能够通过对希腊神话普罗米修斯的解释得到确认，只要我们牢记曲解必然会出现在从神话到事实的过渡之中。这些曲解与我们从患者的梦境重建他们童年被压抑又极其重要的经验是同一类的，而且，并不逊于我们每天所收悉的。关于曲解采用机制，我考虑到的是象征性的符号以及翻转的对立面。 除了原有的一系列事实，我不应该以这种方式冒险解释我们神话的所有功能，其他和以后发生的事会对其作出贡献。但是，毕竟分析解释允许的元素是最引人注目的和重要的，即，普罗米修斯传递火种的方式，他行为的性质（愤慨，偷盗，对众神的诈骗）以及惩罚他的意思。
The myth tells us that Prometheus the Titan, a culture-hero who was still a god【2】 and who was perhaps originally himself a demiurge and a creator of men, brought fire to men, having stolen it from the gods, hidden in a hollow stick, a fennel-stalk. If we were interpreting a dream we should be inclined to regard such an object as a penis symbol, although the unusual stress laid on its hollowness might make us hesitate. But how can we bring this penis-tube into connection with the preservation of fire? There seems little chance of doing this, till we remember the procedure of reversal, of turning into the opposite, of inverting relationships, which is so common in dreams and which so often conceals their meaning from us. What a man harbours in his penis-tube is not fire. On the contrary, it is the means of quenching fire; it is the water of his stream of urine. This relationship between fire and water then connects up with a wealth of familiar analytic material.
神话告诉我们，勇往直前的文化英雄普罗米修仍然是一个神，而且，也许他本身是造物主和人创造者，将火种带到人间，偷自于众神，藏在空心棒，茴香梗之中。如果我们解释梦境，我们应该倾向于将其视为阴茎的符号，虽然置于中空之中不同寻常的压力可能让我们犹豫。但是，我们如何将这个阴茎管与火的保存相连接呢？貌似很难成功，直到我们想起翻转到对立面的逆转过程的反相关系，这在梦中是是很普遍的，它常常向我们掩盖其本身意思。怀藏在阴茎管中的竟然不是火，相反，他是指熄灭了的火；这是尿流之水。于是水火之间的关系，用丰富熟知的分析素材连接在一起。
Secondly, the acquisition of fire was a crime; it was accomplished by robbery or theft. This is a constant feature in all the legends about the acquiring of control over fire. It is found among the most different and widely separated peoples and not merely in the Greek myth of Prometheus the Bringer of Fire. Here, then, must be the essential content of mankind’s distorted recollection. But why is the acquisition of fire inseparably connected with the idea of a crime? Who is it that was injured or defrauded by it? The Promethean myth in Hesiod gives us a straight answer; for, in another story, not itself directly connected with fire, Prometheus so arranged the sacrifices to the gods as to give men the advantage over Zeus. It is the gods, then, who were defrauded. We know that in myths the gods are granted the satisfaction of all the desires which human creatures have to renounce, as we have learnt from the case of incest. Speaking in analytic terms, we should say that instinctual life - the id - is the god who is defrauded when the quenching of fire is renounced: in the legend, a human desire is transformed into a divine privilege. But in the legend the deity possesses nothing of the characteristics of a super-ego, he is still the representative of the paramount life of the instincts.
其次，火的获取是一宗罪；通过抢劫和偷盗完成。这是所有传说中关于获取和控制火的不变的特征。在不同的地区和广泛隔离的民族中都有发现，这不仅限于希腊神话中火的使者普罗米修斯。因此，那么，(这)必定是人类曲解的记忆的核心内容。但是为什么火的获得与犯罪的想法密不可分呢？他又欺骗和伤害了谁呢？赫西奥德独创性的的神话给了我们一个明确的答案；因为，在另一个故事中，其本身并没有直接和火相连，普罗米修斯为神灵安排的祭祀是为了给予男人宙斯的优势。这是众神，被欺骗的众神。我们知道，在神话中，众神被授予了所有欲望的满足，人们不得不放弃这些欲望，因为我们已经从乱伦中得到了教训。用分析的术语来说，我们说，当遂火被放弃之时，作为本能生活的本我是被欺骗的神：在传说中，人类的愿望转化为神圣的特权。但在传说中，神灵并不拥有超我的特征，他仍是本能生活的首要代表。
Transformation into the opposite is most radically present in a third feature of the legend, in the punishment of the Bringer of Fire. Prometheus was chained to a rock, and every day a vulture fed on his liver. In the fire-legends of other peoples, too, a bird plays a part, and it must have something to do with the matter; but for the moment I shall not attempt an interpretation. On the other hand, we feel on firm ground when it comes to explaining why the liver was selected as the location of the punishment. In ancient times the liver was regarded as the seat of all passions and desires; hence a punishment like that of Prometheus was the right one for a criminal driven by instinct, who had committed an offence at the prompting of evil desires. But the exact opposite is true of the Bringer of Fire: he had renounced an instinct and had shown how beneficent, and at the same time how indispensable, such a renunciation was for the purposes of civilization. And why should the legend treat a deed that was thus a benefit to civilization as a crime deserving punishment? Well, if, through all its distortions, it barely allows us to get a glimpse of the fact that the acquisition of control over fire presupposes an instinctual renunciation, at least it makes no secret of the resentment which the culture-hero could not fail to arouse in men driven by their instincts. And this is in accordance with what we know and expect. We know that a demand for a renunciation of instinct, and the enforcement of that demand, call out hostility and aggressiveness, which is only transformed into a sense of guilt in a later phase of psychical development.
神话呈现的最彻底第三个特征是转换为反面，惩罚火的使者。普罗米修斯被锁在一块岩石上，秃鹫每天啄食他的肝脏。其他民族关于火的传说中，鸟扮演着同样的角色，而且它一定与此事有关；但此刻我不打算试图去解释。相反，当开始解释为什么肝脏被选为惩罚位置的时候我们感觉处于安全的地位。在古代，肝脏被视为所有激情和欲望的场所；因此，对普罗米修斯的处罚是正确的。因为罪犯受本能的驱使，他受邪恶欲望的煽动，犯了罪。但是火的使者的事实正好相反：他放弃了本能，展示善行，同时又是如此的不可或缺，这样的放弃曾是为了文明的目的。那么，为什么神话将犯罪应受惩罚的行为视为文明的恩泽？好吧，如果通过所有其他的曲解，它勉强允许我们瞥见的事实是，获取和控制火预示着本能的放弃，至少，他让文化英雄不能激发本能被驱使的男人的愤恨秘而不宣。而且这与我们所知所盼望的相一致。我们知道本能放弃的需求和这种需求的施行，召唤出敌意和攻击，也就是心智发展后期被转化的内疚感。
The obscurity of the Prometheus legend, as of other fire myths, is increased by the fact that primitive man was bound to regard fire as something analogous to the passion of love - or, as we should say, as a symbol of the libido. The warmth that is radiated by fire calls up the same sensation that accompanies a state of sexual excitation, and the shape and movements of a flame suggest a phallus in activity. There can be no doubt about the mythological significance of flame as a phallus; we have further evidence of it in the legend of the parentage of Servius Tullius, the Roman king. When we ourselves speak of the ‘devouring fire’ of love and of ‘licking’ flames - thus comparing the flame to a tongue - we have not moved so very far away from the mode of thinking of our primitive ancestors. One of the presuppositions on which we based our account of the myth of the acquisition of fire was, indeed, that to primal man the attempt to quench fire with his own water had the meaning of a pleasurable struggle with another phallus.
正如其他关于火的神话，普罗米修斯传说中的朦胧，增进了以下的事实，原始人类注定视火为类似于爱的激情，或者，我们可以说，作为利比多的象征。火散发的温暖唤起同样的感觉：伴随着性兴奋的状态，形状和火焰的闪动暗示着阴茎的活动。可以毫不怀疑火焰作为阴茎的神话学意义。当我们自己说话“吞噬火（热）” 的爱和“舔”火焰的时候——将火焰比作舌头——我们还未如此的远离原始祖先的思维方式。我们基于获取火的神话的预设曾经的确如此，原始人类企图用他自己的水熄灭火具有的意思是与另一阳具搏斗的愉悦。
It may thus well be that, by way of this symbolic analogy, other elements, of a purely imaginative sort, have made their may into the myth and become interwoven with its historical elements. It is difficult to resist the notion that, if the liver is the seat of passion, its significance, symbolically, is the same as that of fire itself; and that, if this is so, its being daily consumed and renewed gives an apt picture of the behaviour of the erotic desires, which, though daily satisfied, are daily revived. The bird which sates itself on the liver would then have the meaning of a penis - a meaning which is not strange to it in other connections, as we know from legends, dreams, linguistic usage and plastic representations in ancient times. A short step further brings us to the phoenix, the bird which, as often as it is consumed by fire, emerges rejuvenated once more, and which probably bore the significance of a penis revivified after its collapse rather than, and earlier than, that of the sun setting in the glow of evening and afterwards rising once again.
情况也许是这样的，通过这个类比的象征，纯粹富有想象力的一群其他的元素，已经使得他们可能进入这个神话并交织着其历史元素。难以抗拒的想法是，如果肝脏是激情的处所，它的意义、象征与火的本身一样；而且如果它如实如此，它每天被消耗，并且重新赋予了性爱欲望行为倾向的情景，纵然每天满足，每天又重生。鸟对肝的自身状态具有阴茎的意义，其含义对于与另一个人链接而言，并不陌生了，因为我们从传说，梦、语言的运用以及远古时表现的塑形中得知了这些。跬步进一步带我们涅磐，如同鸟常常被火烧死，又一次的恢复活力，这些大概承担了阴茎软瘫后再次雄起的重要的意义，而不是之前的意义：太阳在黄昏落在余辉之中，之后再次升起。
The question may be asked whether we may attribute to the mythopoeic activity an attempt to give (in play, as it were) a disguised representation to universally familiar, though also extremely interesting, mental processes that are accompanied by physical manifestations, with no motive other than the sheer pleasure of representation. We can certainly give no decided answer to this question without having fully grasped the nature of myths; but in the two instances before us, it is easy to recognize the same content and, with it, a definite purpose. Each describes the revival of libidinal desires after they have been quenched through being sated. That is to say, each brings out the indestructibility of those desires; and this emphasis is particularly appropriate as a consolation where the historical core of the myth deals with a defeat of instinctual life, with a renunciation of instinct that has become necessary. It is, as it were, the second part of primal man’s understandable reaction when he has suffered a blow in his instinctual life: after the punishment of the offender comes the assurance that after all at bottom he has done no damage.
或许问题应该是，我们是否可以将神话时代活动的企图归因为试图给出（用戏剧的方式，就像它所展现的）普遍熟悉的伪装表现，虽说也非常有趣，心智过程伴随着身体的临床表现，除了纯粹的享乐之外，没有其他动机。我们当然可以给出不确定的答案，而不必完全掌握神话的性质;但我们面前有两个实例，很容易认出内容的相同，并且具有一个明确的目的。每次对力比多愿望重生的描述，都是通过他们快速冷却的饱食体现。也就是说，每一次带出了这些愿望的不灭；这一着重点是特别适当的，作为安慰，基于史实的神话核心带有失利本能生活，兼具本能的放弃，已成为必要。它已经是，就像其曾经是，第二个原始人类可理解的部分，当他的本能生活遭受打击的时候：犯罪分子的处罚之后，随之而来的是保证，毕竟他骨子里的坏事已经做完了。
A reversal into the opposite is unexpectedly found in another myth which in appearance has very little to do with the fire myth. The Lernaean hydra with its countless flickering serpent’s heads - one of which was immortal - was, as its name tells us, a water-dragon. Heracles, the culture-hero, fought it by cutting off its heads; but they always grew again, and it was only after he had burnt up the immortal head with fire that he overcame the monster. A water-dragon subdued by fire - that surely makes no sense. But, as in so many dreams, sense emerges if we reverse the manifest content. In that case the hydra is a brand of fire and the flickering serpent’s heads are the flames; and these, in proof of their libidinal nature, once more display, like Prometheus’s liver, the phenomenon of re-growth, of renewal after attempted destruction. Heracles, then, extinguishes this brand of fire with - water. (The immortal head is no doubt the phallus itself, and its destruction signifies castration.) But Heracles was also the deliverer of Prometheus and slew the bird which devoured his liver. Should we not suspect a deeper connection between the two myths? It is as though the deed of the one hero was made up for by the other. Prometheus (like the Mongolian law) had forbidden the quenching of fire; Heracles permitted it in the case in which the brand of fire threatened disaster. The second myth seems to correspond to the reaction of a later epoch of civilization to the events of the acquisition of power over fire. It looks as though this line of approach might take us quite a distance into the secrets of the myth; but admittedly we should carry a feeling of certainty with us only a short way.
逆转进入到对立面的意外是发现了一个表面上与火无关的神话。九头蛇有着无数的忽隐忽现的蛇头——其中之一曾是不死的，——正如它名字告诉我们，水龙。文化英雄赫拉克勒斯与之搏斗，切下了它的头，却总是重新再长了出来，直到他用火烧毁了那个不朽的头，他才战胜了怪物。水龙被火制服，这肯定是没有意义的。但是，在如此众多的梦中，如果我们对显而易见的内容进行批驳，意识便会浮现。在此情形下，水龙是火的烙印，憧憧忽隐忽现的蛇头是火焰；而这些，又一次展现的是利比多原欲的证明，正如普罗米修的肝脏，再生长的现象是企图被破坏后的复兴。赫拉克勒斯接着用水剿灭了这个火的烙印（无疑不朽的头是石祖本身，拆毁它意味着阉割）但是赫拉克勒斯也是普罗米修斯救星，杀死了啄食他肝脏的鸟。难道我们不应该怀疑这两个神话之间更深的联系么？就好象，一个英雄的行为是建立在另一个之上。普罗米修斯（如蒙古法律）被禁止在遂火上小便；赫拉克勒斯允许其在在火的烙印的灾难性的威胁下发生。第二个神话似乎与随后文明时代获取火的力量的事件相对应。看起来好像这样的方法可以引领我们通向神话的秘境；同时，我们固然应当带着这种短暂的确定性的感觉。
In the antithesis between fire and water, which dominates the entire field of these myths, yet a third factor can be demonstrated in addition to the historical factor and the factor of symbolic phantasy. This is a physiological fact, which the poet Heine describes in the following lines:
水与火的对立在这些神话的整个领域中拥有最重要的位置，然而在历史因素和幻想符号的因素之外，第三个因素同样拥有最重要的位置，这就是心理因素，就像海涅所描述的：
Was dem Menschen dient zum Seichen 人的信仰是什么
Damit schafft er Seinesgleichen. 因此他创造了他自己
The sexual organ of the male has two functions; and there are those to whom this association is an annoyance. It serves for the evacuation of the bladder, and it carries out the act of love which sets the craving of the genital libido at rest. The child still believes that he can unite the two functions. According to a theory of his, babies are made by the man urinating into the woman’s body. But the adult knows that in reality the acts are mutually incompatible - as incompatible as fire and water. When the penis is in the state of excitation which led to its comparison with a bird, and while the sensations are being experienced which suggest the warmth of fire, urination is impossible; and conversely, when the organ is serving to evacuate urine (the water of the body) all its connections with the genital function seem to be quenched. The antithesis between the two functions might lead us to say that man quenches his own fire with his own water. And primal man, who had to understand the external world by the help of his own bodily sensations and states, would surely not have failed to notice and utilize the analogies pointed out to him by the behaviour of fire.
男性的性器官有两个功能；这也是同时具有这两个功能的人的烦恼。它服务于膀胱的排空，并进行爱的行为以安息生殖器性欲的渴求。 儿童还是相信他能够合并这两种功能。根据他的理论，婴儿来自于男人在女人身体里小便。但成人都知道，这二者在现实中是互不相容的——就如水和火的对立。当阴茎处于兴奋状态而导致其与鸟类比，并且，当这种感觉被体验为暖和火焰的意味的时候，排尿是不可能的；反之，当器官正在排出尿液（身体的水）的时候，与生殖器功能的所有连接似乎被扑灭了。这两个功能之间的对立可能会让我们说，人们用他自己的水浇灭了欲望。而原始人，用他们自己身体的感觉和状态来帮助了解外部世界，他们肯定不是没有注意到，并且利用火的行为的类比方式点明。
——————
【1】This refers no doubt to hot ashes, from which fire can still be obtained, and not to ashes which are quite extinct. - The objection raised by Lorenz (1931) is based on the assumption that man’s subjugation of fire only began when he discovered that he could produce it at will by some sort of manipulation. As against this, Dr. J. Hárnik refers me to a remark made by Dr. Richard Lasch (in Georg Buschan’s compilation Illustrierte V.lkerkunde, 1922, 1, 24), who writes: ‘Presumably the art of conserving fire was understood long before that of kindling it; we have evidence of this in the fact that, although the present-day pygmy-like aborigines of the Andamans possess and conserve fire, they have no indigenous method of kindling it.’
无疑这是指遂火，仍然可以从这里可以获得火种，而不是完全熄灭的葭灰。洛伦茨1931的反对意见所基于的假设是：男性对火的征服是在其发现自己可以通过一些操作手法随意生火。作为对此的反对，Dr. J. Hárnik zhide 引用我对Dr. Richard Lasch的标注(in Georg Buschan’s compilation Illustrierte V.lkerkunde, 1922, 1, 24)，他写道：“我们对这一事实所拥有证据是，尽管现今像俾格米人的安达曼群岛原住民拥有和保存火种，但是他们没有固有的方法引燃它。”
【2】 Heracles, at a later time, was a demi-god, and Theseus wholly human.
赫拉克勒斯，后来是神的化身，然后，珀尔修斯完全是个人
神恩赐的欲望之火，何以能？
唯实原则下的超我获得了对欲望的控制，而其前提是对他者石祖的控制，否则神话不需要吃普罗米修斯肝脏的鸟了，唯实原则也无法实现。
也就是说，唯实原则是唯乐原则在熄灭他者之火之后才得以转化。这，是个伦理问题。
Heracles熄灭了欲望之火——用水熄灭了火，并释放了普罗米修斯，杀掉了吃他肝的鸟。这个幻想控制感是精神层面的文明的开端？
文明来源于我们自身
早期人类用火与结核病
论文 #16-03224: "Controlled fire use in early humans might have triggered the evolutionary emergence of tuberculosis," 作者Rebecca H. Chisholm, James M. Trauer, Darren Curnoe和Mark M. Tanaka.