In a 1937 letter to his friend Axel Kaun Samuel Beckett vents his frustration with language. He claims that “more and more language appears to me like a veil that must be torn apart in order to get at the things (or the Nothingness) behind it” (Beckett, “German Letter” 171). In this context, language is at best a disturbance, a barrier between the speaker and thing (or nothing). In this same letter, Beckett expresses his wish to “leave nothing undone [in language] thatmight contribute to its falling into disrepute. To bore one hole after another in it, until what lurks behind it – be it something or nothing, begins to seep through” (“German Letter” 172). He claims that there is, in fact, no “higher goal for a writer today” (“German Letter” 172). For Beckett, language not only fails to represent but functions to obscure the “something or nothing” of the world outside the speaking subject. The task of the writer is, then, not more accurate or encompassing mimesis through a new use of language, but the willed destruction of the very customs and habits of language that create an unclear relation between the world and mind. Though Beckett later disavowed this letter as a piece of juvenilia, or “German bilge” (“German Letter” 170), it provides a glimpse into how the young writer had already begun to grapple with the problem of language’s mediating role between the individual and the material world. Beckett claims that he wishes to use language against itself, in fact, to use language to create a “literature of the unword” through an “assault against words in the name of beauty” (Beckett, German Letter173). Here, Beckett puts a name to the activity that he would pursue until this death in 1989: “Wörtenstürmerei.”This word, translated occasionally as both “assault against words” and “word-storming,” is, according to Leland de la Durantaye, better translated as “logoclasm” (14). This logoclasm aims at the destruction of words as icons, stable stand-ins, or representatives of a supposedly “real.” The logoclastic impulse can be seen throughout Beckett’s work, though it appears most forcefully in 1949’s Three Dialogues. Nominally written with art critic George Duthuit 12 years after the “German Letter,” (Beckett, Three Dialogues 138) is an explicit statement, rare in his oeuvre, of the author’s own esthetic theory. In the Dialogues Beckett claims allegiance to a non-relational art, one not based on a gap between thought and reality, art and object, but on an intermingling of the two. Though Beckett uses them to

中文翻译：

---

“以美丽的名义进行的逻辑破灭”：贝尔萨尼和贝克特的神秘社交性

在1937年给他的朋友阿克塞尔·卡恩（Axel Kaun）的信中，塞缪尔·贝克特（Samuel Beckett）宣告了他对语言的沮丧。他声称：“越来越多的语言在我看来就像是面纱，为了弄清它背后的东西（或虚无），必须撕开它”（Beckett，“德国字母” 171）。在这种情况下，语言充其量是一种干扰，是说话者与事物（或什么都没有）之间的障碍。贝克特在同一封信中表示希望“在语言上不要做任何可能导致其声名狼藉的事情”。要在其中一个接一个地钻孔，直到潜伏在它后面-不管是什么还是什么都没有，开始渗入”（“德国字母” 172）。他声称，事实上，没有“今天作家的更高目标”（“德国信函” 172）。对于贝克特，语言不仅无法表达，而且还能掩盖言语主体之外的世界的“一无所有”。因此，作者的任务不是通过使用新的语言来更加准确或包含拟态，而是故意破坏语言的习俗和习惯，从而在世界和思维之间建立不清楚的关系。尽管贝克特后来否认这封信是一段少年，或“德国舱底”（“德国信” 170），但它让我们瞥见了这位年轻作家如何开始解决个人与人之间的语言调解作用问题。物质世界。贝克特声称，他希望使用语言来反抗自己，实际上是希望通过“以美丽为名对单词进行攻击”来使用语言来创造“无言的文学”（贝克特，德语Letter173）。在这里，贝克特（Beckett）为他在1989年去世前一直从事的活动取了个名字：“Wörtenstürmerei”。根据Leland de la Durantaye的说法，这个词有时被翻译为“攻击单词”和“猛攻单词”。 ，最好翻译为“ logoclasm”（14）。这种徽标的目的是破坏作为图标，稳定的替代物或所谓“真实”代表的词语。在贝克特的整个作品中都可以看到这种碎屑冲动，尽管它在1949年的《三个对话》中显得最为有力。在“德国信件”发表十二年后，他与艺术评论家乔治·杜特伊特（George Duthuit）名义上合写（Beckett，Three Dialogues 138），这是作者自己的美学理论的明确陈述，这在他的著作中很少见。贝克特在《对话》中宣称对非关系艺术的忠诚，这不是基于思想与现实，艺术与对象之间的鸿沟，但两者融合在一起。虽然贝克特用它们来