頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 「生れ出づゐ□み」におけゐ「自然」と「生活」=「誕生之苦惱」中的--「自然」與「生活」=The "Nature" and "Life" in "The Distress of Birth" |
---|---|
作者 | 黃錦容; Huang, Jin-jung; |
期刊 | 東吳外語學報 |
出版日期 | 19990100 |
卷期 | 14 1999.01[民88.01] |
頁次 | 頁125-168 |
分類號 | 861.57 |
語文 | jpn |
關鍵詞 | 誕生之苦惱; 君; 我; 自然; 生活; 藝術; 命運; 愛; 同化願望; 苦惱; 靈; 肉; 自己; 他人; 有產階段; 勞動者; 藝術的欲求; 本能; 鄰人愛; The distress of birth; You; I; Nature; Life; Art; Fate; Love; Wish to be assimilated; Distress; Soul; Flesh; Oneself; Other people; Bourgeois; Working people; The desire of art; Instinct; Love of neighbor; |
中文摘要 | 「誕生之苦惱」此作品是有島武郎大正7年9月完成的作品。主題是描寫由「自 然」中等待誕生的「高貴靈魂」 -- 木本青年在漁夫激烈的海上勞動生活中,依然無法忘情 繪畫的藝術創作,而在創作熱情與「生活」其間無法平衡所激盪產生的苦惱,作者有島武郎 作為一個作家在藝術與生活、理想與現實的矛盾相剋中苦惱的心情與同感.同情也同樣影射 其中。本論文由以下觀點做探討: ヾ本作品與其他一系列作品用同樣的表現法 -- 「愛」的諸相的一個側面「對他者的同感」 之原理寫成,此種有島武郎企圖與主角木本青年同化的深層願望在描寫上是否成功? ゝ針對上述問題在第二章掌握<君>與<我>兩者的「自然」面相,舉出兩者的「自然」觀 點之不同處,解明其間瓜葛。 ゞ在第三章引証有島武郎的藝術觀,考察<君>與<我>兩者的「生活」內容與「藝術」相 克的面相。 々討論與影射對象的同化願望可能成立否?由<君>與<我>兩者的「藝術」.「生活」. 「自然」.「命運」四個觀點來看,歸納出本作品中有島武郎的「愛」(同感.鄰人愛)的 課題實踐到何種程度? 結論歸納出作者的同化願望由於不同的階級的「生活」與「自然」觀.「命運」的不同,最 終兩者依然無法重疊同等觀之,而且有島武郎藉由木本青年<與他人生活相關連>的積極「 生活」改造.自我提昇的企圖可惜並沒有完成,但有島武郎純粹的文學理念、以及對勞動者 的贊美.同情.悔恨的諸樣心情也經由上述四個角度考察出的異同點,得以捕捉出其全貌。 |
英文摘要 | "The distress of birth" is the work completed by Arishima Takeo in September, 1917. The theme of the book is about a "noble soul" waiting for to be born in the nature--A young man whose name is Kimoto, although being in the intense and hard-working life of fisherman on the sea, still can not forget the art creation of painting. This work is about the distress arose from the clash due to the unbalance between his pasion of creation and "life". The author, Arishima Takeo, also reflected in the work his mood, the same feeling, and compassion as a writer toward the distress coming from the contradiction between art and life and between the ideal and the reality. The investigation of this thesis comes from the following points of view: 1. This work used the same way of expression with other series of works--a side description based on the principle of "the same feeling toward other people", which is among one of the various faces of "love". Is this a successful description of the deep wish that Arishima Takeo tried to assimilate himself with the main role, the young Kimoto? 2. With an aim at the problem above, in the second chapter I capture the "nature" face of both "you" and "I", the difference of both of which is pointed out from the point of view of "nature" and I clarify the interrelation between them. 3. In the third chapter I cite by supporting facts Arishima Takeo's view of art and examine the face of the "life" contents of both "you" and "I" which contradict with "art". 4. I discuss that if the wish of being assimilated with the counterpart that is suggestively associated can be recognized as irrefutable? From the four points of view of "art", "life", "nature", and "fate" of both "you" and "I", I induct that to what degree that Arishima Takeo realized the subject of "love" (the same feeling, love of the neighbor) in this work. The conclusion inducts that the feeling of being assimilated of the author came from the points of view of "life" and "nature" due to different classes. The difference of the "fate" made one unable to treat both of "life" and "nature" with the same weight and in a way of overlap in the end. Moreover, it is a pity that Arishima Takeo's purpose of leveling himself up was not successful, which he tried to rely on the active reform of "life" of "being connected with other people's life" of the young Kimoto. However, with the differences examined from the four angles mentioned above, I can capture the whole picture of Arishima Takeo's pure literature concept and his various moods of compliment, compassion, and regret toward the working people. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。