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

这项研究产生了两项主要成果：向日本美国文学学会期刊提交的《Pe(G)Leg/Ahab船长：赫尔曼·梅尔维尔对1850年《白鲸》手稿的反民族主义修改》和向《英国文学研究》提交的《美国辩证法的发展：赫尔曼·梅尔维尔的比利·巴德和纳撒尼尔·霍桑的大理石牧神之间的共鸣和对比》。在前一篇文章中，我从梅尔维尔是否对亚哈船长反思了笛卡尔的精神与肉体二元论还是事物本身的问题开始争论，并推测梅尔维尔对《白鲸》手稿的修改是他对文本中的“事物”的不稳定态度的表现。在这个猜测的基础上，我提出了这样的论断，即《白鲸》的修订与当时的政治形势密切相关，梅尔维尔为了疏远自己而将独腿船长的角色从Pe(G)腿转移到了Ahab身上更多来自美国民主的意识形态。这种转变显示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的反应，这是他注意到身体或事物本身无法被笛卡尔精神主义解决的本体论不可言喻的证据。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相隔多年出版，在他们热情的友谊消退很久之后。最重要的是，这两部作品处理的是同一个主题，一个无辜的年轻人的谋杀行为。在这一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藏着激烈的暴力，人类如何将这种兽性冲动引导到一种驯服的、无害的状态？简单地说，野生自然如何通过文明化的过程来重构？在这一点上，他们提出了相反的答案：霍桑的多纳泰罗通过忏悔变成了一个聪明的人，而比利·巴德被处决了。值得注意的是，比利最初的纯真依然存在。在两位作家达成这样的差异之前，他们的文本已经通过发现隐藏在康德现象背后的不可驯服的本性和接受黑格尔进步主义而产生了共鸣和反差。本文通过对多纳泰罗和比利这一发展过程的阐释，将两位作家置身于西方哲学的大潮之中，考察了他们对人类从自然状态到社会存在的成长的看法，从而明确了多纳泰罗和比利不同的命运意味着什么。在分析他们的思想时，本文引用了黑格尔的术语，“中介”是指将具有精神或语言意义的对象联系起来的行为，“直接性”是指对象的状态与任何精神或语言意义脱节。康德将外部现象定义为对人的内在状态的反映，并指出反思背后的东西或“事物本身”是不能被认识的。霍桑和梅尔维尔在他们的早期作品中批评了这一观点。例如，霍桑超越了这种反思，将珀尔塑造成另一个象征海丝特罪恶心灵的红字，并将其塑造成一个失去了对世界的参考和适应的角色。尽管珀尔正在融入社会，但她的狂野本性拒绝在康德对内心状态的外化中被编纂。梅尔维尔饰演的《亚哈船长》把《白鲸》看作是他邪恶本性的反映，同时又试图超越人类经验的局限，融入自然之中。显然，多纳泰罗的《野蛮的凶残》与珀尔的情况如出一辙。他无法克制自己的野性，试图谋杀安东尼奥。然而，在事件发生后，多纳泰罗学会了感知自己罪恶的心灵的反映，并以一种新的方式恢复了“古董牧神的甜蜜和愉悦的特征”，这意味着他在牧神身上所反映的过去的本性已经被他新获得的智力所调和。现在，他已经不是过去的他了。因此，他的存在被置于精神与物质、内在与外在、过去与现在之间的不断调停中，他的人格总是更新的。在这里，霍桑超越了康德现象学，采纳了黑格尔进步主义。另一方面，虽然梅尔维尔对比利·巴德的刻画类似于霍桑的《多纳泰罗》，比利与多纳泰罗犯了同样的罪行，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从比利的悲剧中创作出民谣的水手，找到了一种恢复美的方法，不是通过精神上的操作，而是通过记忆的运作直接整合过去的经历。在最后阶段，两位作家发现了截然不同的美学。较少