权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

The Impact of Modern European Thought on American Renaissance

现代欧洲思想对美国文艺复兴的影响

基本信息

批准号：
19520241
负责人：
TAKEUCHI Katsunori
金额：
$ 0.75万
依托单位：
Kagoshima University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
2007
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2007 至 2009
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-19520241/
关键词：
ナサニエル・ホーソーンハーマン・メルヴィル西洋思想アメリカン・ルネッサンスアメリカ文学『白鯨』イマニュエル・カントジョン・ロックホーソーンエマソンメルヴィルソローヘーゲルカントヨーロッパ思想英米文学ホーソン

项目摘要

This study brought forth two main achievements : "'Clap eye on' Captain Pe(g)leg/Ahab : Herman Melville's Anti-Nationalistic Revision of the 1850 Manuscript of Moby-Dick" submitted to The Journal of the American Literature Society of Japan and "Development of American Dialectics : Resonance and Contrast between Herman Melville's Billy Budd and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Marble Faun" submitted to Studies in English Literature. In the former article, I began the arguments from the question of whether Melville reflected on Captain Ahab the Cartesian dualism of spirit and body or the thing itself, and surmised that Melville's revision of the manuscripts of Moby-Dick was the manifestation of his instable attitude toward the textual "thing." On the basis of this surmise, I developed the thesis that the revision of Moby-Dick was in close relation to the political situation of those days, and Melville shifted the role of an one-legged captain from Pe(g)leg to Ahab in order to alienate himself f … More rom the ideology of American democracy. This shift shows Melville's instable response to the body or the thing itself, or to the text as a thing, which is the evidence of his noticing of ontological ineffability of the body or the thing itself incapable of being resolved by the Cartesian spiritualism.In the latter article, I analyzed Herman Melville's Billy Budd and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Marble Faun, their last novels published many years apart and long after the fading of their ardent friendship. Above all, the two works deal with the same motif, an innocent young man's murderous act. Behind this motif lies an important socio-philosophic issue : if there lurks fierce violence beneath a natural mind, how can human beings guide that animalistic impulse to a tamed, harmless condition? To put it in a simple way, how can wild nature be reconfigured through civilizing process? Upon this, they propose opposite answers ; while Hawthorne's Donatello changes into an intelligent being through penitence, Billy Budd is executed to death. Significantly, Billy's original innocence remains the same.Before the two writers reached such difference, their texts had resonated and contrasted with each other through the discovery of untamable nature concealed behind the Kantian phenomena and the acceptance of the Hegelian progressivism. By explicating the process of this development and locating the two writers in a stream of Western philosophy, this essay looks into their views of human growth from natural states to social beings, and then makes clear what Donatello and Billy's different destinies signify. In analyzing their ideas, this essay uses Hegel's terms, "mediation" which means an act of connecting an object with spiritual or linguistic meanings and "immediacy" which means a state of an object disconnected with any spiritual or linguistic meanings.Kant defines the external phenomena as reflection of a human being's inner state, and states that what lies behind reflection, or "the thing itself" cannot be recognized. Hawthorne and Melville criticize this idea in their early works. For example, Hawthorne looks beyond this reflection, creating Pearl both as another scarlet letter signifying Hester's sinful mind and as a character who loses "reference and adaptation to the world." Though Pearl is being built into the society, her wild nature resists being codified in the Kantian externalization of the inner state. Melville's Captain Ahab looks at Moby Dick as the reflection of his own evil nature, and at the same time, tries to step beyond "[a]ll visible objects" or the limit of human experience, merging with nature itself.Obviously, Donatello's "savage fierceness" follows Pearl's case. He cannot repress his wild nature and tries to murder Antonio. However, after the incident, Donatello learns to sense the reflection of his sinful mind, and recovers "the sweet and delightful characteristics of the antique Faun" in a new way, which means his past nature reflected on the Faun has been mediated with his newly gained intellect. Now he is not what he was. Thus, his existence is placed in the constant mediation between the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, the past and the present, and his personality is always renewed. Here, Hawthorne went over the Kantian phenomenology and adopted the Hegelian progressivism. On the other hand, though Melville's characterization of Billy Budd is analogous to Hawthorne's Donatello and Billy commits the same crime as Donatello, Billy's natural state does not change. In a meaning, Billy's stutter can be interpreted as the case of failure in the Hegelian mediation. Rather, Melville, by describing a sailor who composes a ballad from Billy's tragedy, finds a way of recovering beauty not through spiritual operation, but through immediate integration of past experiences by the workings of memory. At the final stage, the two writers found the highly different aesthetics. Less

本研究取得了两项主要成果：《对佩莱格船长/亚哈的“注目”：赫尔曼梅尔维尔对《白鲸》1850年版的反民族主义修订》和《美国辩证法的发展：赫尔曼梅尔维尔的《比利巴德》与纳撒尼尔霍桑的《大理石牧神》的共鸣与对比。在前一篇文章中，我从梅尔维尔对亚哈船长的反思是笛卡尔式的精神与肉体的二元论还是物本身的问题展开论证，并推测梅尔维尔对《白鲸》手稿的修改是他对文本“物”的不稳定态度的表现。“在此基础上，我进一步论证了《白鲸》的修改与当时的政治形势密切相关，梅尔维尔把独腿船长的角色从”瘸腿船长“转移到”亚哈“身上，目的是使自己与当时的政治形势疏远。 ...更多信息美国民主的意识形态。这一转变体现了梅尔维尔对身体或事物本身，或对作为事物的文本的不稳定反应，这是他注意到笛卡尔唯心主义无法解决的身体或事物本身的本体论不可言说性的证据。在后一篇文章中，我分析了赫尔曼梅尔维尔的比利巴德和纳撒尼尔霍桑的《大理石牧神》，他们的最后一部小说出版相隔多年，而且是在他们热烈的友谊褪色很久之后。最重要的是，这两部作品处理了同一个主题，一个无辜的年轻人的杀人行为。在这个主题的背后，隐藏着一个重要的社会哲学问题：如果在一个自然的心灵之下潜伏着激烈的暴力，人类如何才能引导这种动物性的冲动到一个驯服的、无害的状态？简单地说，野生自然如何通过文明化过程重新配置？在这一点上，他们提出了相反的答案;而霍桑的多纳泰罗通过忏悔变成一个智能的变化，比利巴德是执行死刑。值得注意的是，比利的纯真本性并没有改变，在两位作家产生这种差异之前，他们的文本已经通过对康德现象背后不可驯服的本性的发现和对黑格尔进步主义的接受而产生了共鸣和对比。本文通过对这一发展过程的梳理，并将两位作家置于西方哲学思潮中，考察了他们对人从自然状态到社会人的成长的看法，进而阐明多纳泰罗和比利的不同命运意味着什么。本文运用黑格尔的“中介”和“直接性”两个术语来分析他们的思想，“中介”指的是将对象与精神意义或语言意义联系起来的行为，“直接性”指的是对象与任何精神意义或语言意义相分离的状态，而康德则将外部现象定义为人的内在状态的反映，并指出反映背后的东西或“事物本身”是无法被认识的。霍桑和梅尔维尔在他们的早期作品中批评了这种观点。例如，霍桑超越了这一反思，把珠儿塑造成另一个红字，象征着海丝特罪恶的心灵，同时也是一个失去了“对世界的参照和适应”的人物。“虽然珠儿正在融入社会，但她的野性拒绝被编入康德的内在状态的外在化。梅尔维尔的《亚哈船长》把《白鲸》看作是他自身邪恶本性的反映，同时又试图超越“所有可见的物体”或人类经验的极限，与自然融为一体。显然，多纳泰罗的“野蛮凶猛”是沿袭了珀尔的情况。他无法抑制自己的野性，试图谋杀安东尼奥。然而，在事件发生后，多纳泰罗学会了感觉到他罪恶心灵的反映，并以一种新的方式恢复了“古老的农牧神的甜美和令人愉快的特征”，这意味着他过去的本性反映在农牧神身上，并与他新获得的智力相协调。现在他不是他是什么。因此，他的存在被置于精神和物质，内在和外在，过去和现在之间的不断调解中，他的个性总是更新的。在这里，霍桑超越了康德的现象学，采用了黑格尔的进步主义。另一方面，尽管梅尔维尔对比利巴德的刻画与霍桑笔下的多纳泰罗相似，比利也犯了与多纳泰罗同样的罪行，但比利的自然状态并没有改变。在某种意义上，比利的口吃可以被解释为黑格尔调解失败的案例。相反，梅尔维尔通过描述一个水手根据比利的悲剧创作了一首民谣，找到了一种恢复美的方法，不是通过精神运作，而是通过记忆的运作直接整合过去的经历。在最后阶段，两位作家发现了高度不同的美学。少