2011年4月30日 星期六

Ice Castles


  2. Ice Castles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    - [ 翻譯這個網頁 ]
    Ice Castles is a 1978 American romantic drama, starring Lynn-Holly Johnson and Robby Benson. It is the story of Alexis, a young figure skater, ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Castles - 頁庫存檔 - 類似內容
In this sports melodrama that boldly illustrates the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, Lynn-Holly Johnson plays Iowa farm girl Alexis Winston, who has a God-given talent for ice skating. With the encouragement and training of the local ice-skating rink operator Beulah Smith (Colleen Dewhurst), she manages to win the first prize trophy at a regional ice-skating competition. At the competition, she is spotted by Olympic coach Deborah Machland (Jennifer Warren), who promotes her as an underdog competitor, and she skyrockets to fame. Her career is going like gangbusters, until she is blinded in a freak accident. But with the help of her caring boyfriend Nick (Robby Benson) and her encouraging father Marcus (Tom Skerritt), she overcomes her depression just in time to prove herself at a major competition. ~ Paul Brenner, Rovi


  1. 「ice castles」的圖片搜尋結果

    - 檢舉圖片
張貼者： 於 沒有留言:

2011年4月29日 星期五

陳從周畫集

為楊惠之塑象問題題陳從周君所繪《甪直閑吟圖》……………………顧頡剛



書　　名： 陳從周畫集
書　　號： 9787807254232 出版社　： 上海書畫
作　　者： 同濟大學建築與城市規劃學院 頁　　數： 151頁
譯　　者：
ＩＳＢＮ： 9787807254232
系列名稱：
商品條碼： 9787807254232
書目分類： 中國藝術(特) 初版時間： 2007/5/1



■作者/譯者/編者．簡介：
陳從周，浙江紹興人，1918年生於杭州，2000年卒於上海。早年畢業於之江大學，獲文學學士學位。曾任 蘇州美術專科學校副教 授、之江大學建築系副教授、聖約翰大學建築系教員、1952年秋開始執教於同濟大學建築系，先後任副教授、教授、博士生導師。主 講中國建築史、園林史、中國營造法、造園學等等。曾擔任中國園林學會顧問、中國建築學會建築史學術委員會副主任、上海市文物 保管委員會委員、美國貝聿銘建築師事務所顧問等職。先後加入中國美術家協會、中國作家協會及日本造園學會並參與工作。對中國 古代建築和園林，曾作大量鑒定與維修設計指導。曾參照蘇州網師園殿春移設計美國紐約大都會博物館之中國庭院“明軒”，設計並 重建上海豫園東部和水上遊廊及寧波天一閣東園等工程。著有《蘇州園林》、《蘇州舊住宅》、《漏窗》、《裝修集錄》、《江浙磚 刻選集》、《揚州園林》、《紹興石橋》、《園林談叢》、《說園》、《中國名園》、《中國民居》、《中國廳堂》、《園綜》、 《上海近代建築史稿》、《中國園林鑒賞辭典》等大量古建築園林專著和論文，出版有《書帶集》、《春苔集》、《簾青集》、《隨 宜集》、《世緣集》、《山湖處處》、《詩詞集》、《徐志摩年譜》、《梓室餘墨》等文學著作。陳從周先生以“詩情畫意”為研究 中國園林的著眼點，中國畫造詣尤深，為張大千先生的入室弟子，1949年曾在上海舉辦個人畫展。其作品自然瀟灑，格調高雅，強調 神韻意境，講究筆墨情趣，堪稱當代中國文人畫的代表。
　
■內容簡介：
陳從周教授是我國當代著名古建築學家、中國園林學家、散文家、畫家，是中國園林建築學的一代宗師。先生一生 摯愛中國文化， 融建築園林藝術與文學、書畫、戲曲文化為一體，登融會貫通之境界；先生一生鑽研中國文化，繼承中求新，碩果累累，著作等身； 先生終身傳授文化，桃李天下，國內外學者近悅遠來，為發展建築和教育事業，為弘揚傳統文化奉獻了畢生的精力。
陳從周先生是浙江杭州人，祖籍紹興， 生於1918年，卒於2000年。父陳清榮，母曹守貞。其兄弟七人，排行最末。原名鬱文，字 從周，出自《論語》“周監於二代，鬱鬱乎文哉，吾從周”，後以字行。晚年號梓翁，室名“梓室”，園名“梓園”。他1942年畢業 於之江大學文學院，先後任教於聖約翰高級中學、聖約翰大學、蘇州美術專科學校、蘇南工業專門學校、之江大學，1952年後，在同 濟大學建築系執教直至退休。
陳先生自幼受國學熏陶，其後又受訓於美國教會學校，身處東西教育，卻以西方研究推進國學傳統。他師從夏承燾、王蘧常先 生， 詩詞自成風格，所撰園林散文，更堪稱絕響，馮其庸盛贊“陳氏文章如晚明小品，清麗有深味”，錢仲聯贊其詞作“雅音落落，驚為 詞苑之射雕手”，更稱其為“雜文家之雄傑”。在繪畫方面，他是張大千先生的入室弟子，得大風堂真傳，仕女花鳥兼工，幽蘭修竹 齊名，尤以墨荷著稱。
先 生對中國古建築及園林情有獨鐘。早年刻苦學習中國營造法式，受業於中國營造學社創始人朱啟鈐，後受教於中國古建築學 家劉敦楨先生。在其厚實的文史和繪畫基礎上，先生在中國古典園林的學術研究領域登上了一個新的曆史高峰。20世紀50年代初，他 出版了《蘇州園林》一書，引起了國內外專業界的重視，其後四十餘年成果豐碩。1984年出版的《說園》一書，代表了先生學術思想 之巔峰。半個世紀中，他出版了重要古建築園林專著和文學著作近三十部，堪稱著作等身，對中國園林研究作出了傑出的貢獻。
先生一生遍訪名家學士，全 國各地都留下了他的足跡，也曾多次出訪歐美和東瀛。他調查勘測大量古建築和園林，呼籲修複大 批名勝古跡，他為呼籲“還我自然”、保護生態環境而不遺餘力，四處奔波。20世紀50年代，他為保護蘇州城牆、梁思成為保護北京 城牆而於南北兩地同受批判；20世紀70年代，他與葉聖陶、俞平伯等人聯名上書修複蘇州名園；他也為杭州郭莊修複、為保護嘉興南 北湖的環境、為保護上海徐家匯藏書樓古建築、為重建杭州西湖雷峰塔等等，作了自己最大的努力，真可謂“半生湖海，未了柔情。
陳從周先生被稱為中國 園林界的碩學泰鬥。他曾任中國建築學會建築史委員會副主任、中國園林學會顧問等學術職務，他又是中國作 家協會會員、中國美術家協會會員，文學和書畫是他學術和藝術造詣的源泉。他把中國傳統的詩情畫意，融八了園林建築之中。他主 持建造及修複的有美國紐約大都會博物館之“明軒”、上海豫園東部、雲南昆明楠園、江蘇如皋水繪園、上海龍華塔影園、松江方塔 園寺廟、杭州西湖郭莊、紹興東湖景點等。這些都是先生為我們留下的極為寶貴的遺產。
今在此所呈獻的雖然只是陳從周先生繪畫和書法作品中的一小部 分，但從中我們可以感受到先生的才情和智慧，體會到先生對藝 術和生活的熱愛，可以借此理解先生看待中國園林的深意。2007年適逢同濟大學建校一百年華誕，按照中國傳統算法，也是陳從周教 授九十歲誕辰。我們同濟大學建築與城市規劃學院謹以此書作為獻給同濟大學百年校慶的禮物，也是對陳從周教授最好的紀念。



目錄
繪畫
　蘭石圖
　黃山雲煙圖(張大千題款)
　山水
　山茶禽鳥
　臨宋畫(張大幹題款)
　仕女
　秋葉霜禽(陳從周謝稚柳合作)
　墨荷
　苔枝綴玉
　仿宋人花烏圖
　柳禽
　擬元人竹石圖
　同登壽域
　墨荷
　芍藥
　梅竹雙禽(陳從周鬱文華唐雲合作)
　玉峰凝翠
　蘭竹
　水木清華圖(俞平伯、吳玉如題)
　芙蓉
　牡丹
　墨菊
　水仙
　園林小景
　甪直閑吟圖(顧廷龍題)
　芙蓉
　前程無量
　苔枝綴玉
　墨荷圖
　雙幹淩雲
　彩梅圖
　蘭竹石
　竹梅
　芋香
　水仙
　蘭
　新篁得意圖
　墨竹
　芭蕉
　風篁成筠圖
　梅
　蘭
　竹
　菊
　葡萄(俞振飛跋)
　墨竹
　黃花晚節香
　桐橋倚棹圖(啟功題)
　墨竹
　墨竹(為香山飯店賦)
　墨梅(應貝聿銘之邀，宿香山飯店而作)
　雙松永壽友誼長青(贈德國總統卡斯滕斯)
　華德同輝(贈德國總理科爾)
　墨竹
　寒香
　葫蘆要小糊塗要少
　竹石圖(贈豫園)
　出穀芬芳
　春朝三安
　清芬遠播
　有竹是吾家
　幽篁圖
　石秀竹清
　松筠圖
　寒梅
　墨荷
　……
書法

張貼者： 於 沒有留言:

2011年4月28日 星期四

森嶋通夫著作Michio Morishima

Michio Morishima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michio Morishima

Birth July 18, 1923(1923-07-18)
Death July 13, 2004(2004-07-13) (aged 80)
Nationality Japan
Institution London School of Economics
Osaka University
Field Econometrics
Alma mater Kyoto University
Influenced Christopher A. Pissarides

Michio Morishima (森嶋 通夫 Morishima Michio?, July 18, 1923 – July 13, 2004) was a Japanese economist, mathematician and econometrician, who was a faculty member at the London School of Economics from 1970-88 as the Sir John Hicks Professor of Economics. He was also emeritus professor of Osaka University and a member of the British Academy.

He was a recipient of the Order of the Rising Sun, the highest civilian honour of Japan.

He studied economics and sociology under Yasuma Takada.In 1946 he graduated Kyoto University and taught at Kyoto University and Osaka University. And he established Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) of Osaka University with Yasuma Takada. In 1968, he went to Britain and taught at University of Essex, LSE.

In 1965, he became the first Japanese president of the Econometric Society. It is said that the most enthusiastic supporter of Morishima was John Hicks.

He was the originator of the project that resulted in the establishment of the Suntory-Toyota Foundation and the Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economic and Related Disciplines (STICERD) at LSE. He was STICERD's first chairman. In 1991 he was elected an Honorary Fellow of the LSE.[1]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Research

His principal interests were in general equilibrium theory, the history of economic thought, and capitalist economic systems. Morishima's economic theory worked towards the accommodation of von Neumann's 1937 multi-sectoral growth model to a general equilibrium model. His research reviewed the works of Marx and Walras. Considering the work of these theorists to be Ricardian, his research worked to show that the modification of them along von Neumann lines elucidates the theoretical similarities and differences between the positions.

His publications included Equilibrium, Stability and Growth (1964), Theory of Economic Growth (1969), Marx's Economics (1973), The Economic Theory of Modern Society (1976), Why has Japan 'succeeded'? (1982), and The Economics of Industrial Society (1984).

[edit] Education

1946 graduated Faculty of Economics, Kyoto University

[edit] Professional experience

  • 1948 - Assistant at Kyoto University
  • 1950 - Lecturer at Kyoto University
  • 1950 - Assistant professor at Kyoto University
  • 1951 - Assosiate professor at Osaka University
  • 1963 - Professor of Economics at Osaka University
  • 1966 - Professor of ISER (Institute of Social and Economic *Research) at Osaka University
  • 1968 - Visiting professor at University of Essex
  • 1969 - Keynes visiting professor at University of Essex
  • 1970 - Professor at London School of Economics
  • 1982 - Sir John Hicks professor at London school of Economics

[edit] Publications

Major works of Michio Morishima

  • "On the Laws of Change of the Price System in an Economy which Contains Complementary Goods", 1952, Osaka EP.
  • "Consumer Behavior and Liquidity Preference", 1952, Econometrica.
  • "An Analysis of the Capitalist Process of Reproduction", 1956, Metroeconomica.
  • "Notes on the Theory of Stability of Multiple Exchange", 1957, RES.
  • "A Contribution to the Non-Linear Theory of the Trade Cycle", 1958, ZfN.
  • "A Dynamic Analysis of Structural Change in a Leontief Model", 1958, Economica.
  • "Prices Interest and Profits in a Dynamic Leontief System", 1958, Econometrica.
  • "Some Properties of a Dynamic Leontief System with a Spectrum of Techniques", 1959, Econometrica.
  • "Existence of Solution to the Walrasian System of Capital Formation and Credit", 1960, ZfN.
  • "On the Three Hicksian Laws of Comparative Statics", 1960, RES.
  • "A Reconsideration of the Walras-Cassel-Leontief Model of General Equilibrium", 1960, in Arrow, Karlin and Suppes, editors, Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences.
  • "Economic Expansion and the Interest Rate in Generalized von Neumann Models", 1960, Econometrica.
  • "Proof of a Turnpike Theorem: The `No Joint Production' Case", 1961, RES.
  • "Aggregation in Leontief Matrices and the Labor Theory of Value", with F. Seton, 1961, Econometrica.
  • "Generalizations of the Frobenius-Wielandt Theorems for Non- Negative Square Matrices", 1961, J of London Mathematical Society.
  • "The Stability of Exchange Equilibrium: An alternative approach", 1962, IER.
  • Equilibrium, Stability and Growth: A multi-sectoral analysis, 1964.
  • "A Refutation of the Non-Switching Theorem", 1966, QJE.
  • "A Few Suggestions on the Theory of Elasticity", 1967, Keizai Hyoron
  • Theory of Economic Growth, 1969.
  • "A Generalization of the Gross Substitute System", 1970, RES.
  • "Consumption-Investment Frontier, Wage-Profit Frontier and the von Neumann Growth Equilibrium", 1971, ZfN.
  • The Working of Econometric Models, (in collaboration with Y. Murata, T. Nosse and M. Saito), 1972.
  • Marx's Economics: A dual theory of value and growth, 1973.
  • Theory of Demand: Real and monetary, with co-authors, 1973.
  • The Economic Theory of Modern Society, 1973.
  • "The Frobenius Theorem, Its Solow-Samuelson Extension and the Kuhn-Tucker Theorem", with T. Fujimoto, 1974, JMathE.
  • Walras's Economics: A pure theory of capital and money, 1977.
  • Value, Exploitation and Growth, with G. Catephores, 1978.
  • "The Cournot-Walras Arbitrage Resource Consuming Exchange and Competitive Equilibrium", with M. Majumdar, 1978, in Hommage a Francois Perroux. *Why Has Japan Succeeded? Western technology and the Japanese ethos, 1982.
  • "The Good and Bad Uses of Mathematics", 1984, in Wiles and Routh, editors, Economics in Disarray.
  • The Economics of Industrial Society, 1984.
  • Ricardo's Economics, 1989.
  • "General Equilibrium Theory in the 21st Century", 1991, EJ.
  • Capital and Credit: A new formulation of general equilibrium theory, 1992.
  • "Capital and Growth", 1994, in Homouda, The Legacy of Hicks.
  • Dynamic Economic Theory, 1996.
  • Why Will Japan Collapse?, 1999.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Refer to LSE HP

[edit] External links


森嶋通夫

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
移動： 案内, 検索
森嶋通夫
生誕 1923年7月18日
死没 2004年7月13日
研究分野 数理経済学
影響を
受けた人物		 高田保馬・青山秀夫
影響を
与えた人物		 久我清
実績 ワルラス・マルクス・リカード等の理論の動学的定式化

森嶋 通夫（もりしま みちお、1923年7月18日 - 2004年7月13日）は経済学者。大阪府生まれ。LSE（ロンドン・スクール・オブ・エコノミクス）名誉教授・元LSE Sir John Hicks Professor。大阪大学名誉教授。イギリス学士院（英語）会員。

目次

[非表示]

人物

高田保馬・青山秀夫について経済学・社会学を学ぶ。大阪大学社会経済研究所（以下、阪大社研）においては、同僚の安井琢磨、畠中道雄、二階堂副包らと共に、阪大社研の黄金期を現出させた。その後、研究所内部での意見対立もあって、1968年に渡英、エセックス大学、ロンドン・スクール・オブ・エコノミクス（LSE）の教授を歴任した。

数理経済学者としてワルラス、マルクス、リカード等の理論の動学的定式化に業績を残した。最も影響力を持つ研究はワルラス理論だが、マルクス理論を数理化させた業績は大きい。ノーベル経済学賞の候補にも何度か名前が挙がる。

LSEにおいては、1978年に Suntory Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines (STICERD - 「スティカード」と発音) という研究所の設立に貢献し、初代所長となる。名前が示すとおり、サントリーとトヨタか らの寄付金を元に設立された研究所だが、イギリス学界では私企業からお金をもらって研究をすることは伝統的にタブーとされていて、そうした固定観念を変え るべく同僚の教授たちの説得に奔走した（その後、現在に至るまで、STICERDは、公共経済学、開発経済学、政治経済学の分野で多数の研究成果を経済学 界に送り出している）。

著作も多く、専門的な経済学書の他に『イギリスと日本』『なぜ日本は「成功」したか』などの日本社会論・『自分流に考える』『サッチャー時代のイギリス』などの政策評論など幅広い。1979年には、専門外の分野ではあるが、関嘉彦との間で防衛問題論争を行い、大きな話題を呼んだ。

2004年8月には英タイムズ誌が紙面を半ページ割いて追悼記事を載せた。

学歴

職歴

  • 1948年10月 京都大学経済学部助手
  • 1950年1月 京都大学経済学部講師
  • 1950年4月 京都大学教養部助教授
  • 1951年 人事に抗議し京都大学退職、大阪大学法経学部助教授
  • 1963年 大阪大学経済学部附属社会経済研究施設（現・社会経済研究所）教授
  • 1966年 大阪大学社会経済研究所教授
  • 1968年 英国エセックス大学客員教授
  • 1969年 同大学ケインズ客員教授
  • 1969年 大阪大学退職
  • 1970年 ロンドン・スクール・オブ・エコノミクス教授
  • 1982年 ロンドン・スクール・オブ・エコノミクスジョン・ヒックス卿教授
  • 1989年 停年退官

学外における役職

恩師・弟子

恩師に高田保馬、青山秀夫。弟子に久我清（大阪大学名誉教授）、阪大時代の弟子に小室直樹（朝日新聞社の月刊誌『論座』の連載「終わりよければすべてよし」による）がいる。

受賞歴・叙勲歴

著書

単著

  • 『動學的經濟理論』（弘文堂, 1950年）
Dynamic economic theory,(Cambridge University Press, 1996).
  • 『資本主義経済の変動理論――循環と進歩の経済学』（創文社, 1955年）
  • 『産業連関と経済変動』（有斐閣, 1955年）
  • 『産業連關論入門――新しい現実分析の理論的背景』（創文社, 1956年）
  • Equilibrium stability, and growth: a multi-sectoral analysis, (Oxford University Press, 1964).
  • Theory of economic growth, (Clarendon Press, 1969).
  • Marx's economics: a dual theory of value and growth, (Cambridge University Press, 1973).
『マルクスの経済学――価値と成長の二重の理論』（高須賀義博訳, 東洋経済新報社, 1974年）
  • 『近代社会の経済理論』（創文社, 1973年）
The economic theory of modern society, translated by D.W. Anthony , (Cambridge University Press, 1976).
  • 『イギリスと日本――その教育と経済』（岩波書店［岩波新書］, 1977年）
  • 『続イギリスと日本――その国民性と社会』（岩波書店［岩波新書］, 1978年）
  • Walras' economics: a pure theory of capital and money, (Cambridge University Press, 1977).
『ワルラスの経済学――資本と貨幣の純粋理論』（西村和雄訳, 東洋経済新報社, 1983年）
  • 『自分流に考える――新・新軍備計画論』（文藝春秋, 1981年）
  • The industrial state without natural resources: a new introduction to economics, (International Centre for Economics and Related Disciplines The LSEPS, 1983).
『無資源国の経済学――新しい経済学入門』（岩波書店, 1984年）
  • Why has Japan succeeded: western technology and the Japanese ethos, (Cambridge University Press, 1982).
『なぜ日本は「成功」したか?――先進技術と日本的心情』（TBSブリタニカ, 1984年）
  • The economics of industrial society, translated by Douglas Anthony, John Clark, and Janet Hunter, (Cambridge University Press, 1984).
  • 『学校・学歴・人生――私の教育提言』（岩波書店［岩波ジュニア新書］, 1985年）
  • 『サッチャー時代のイギリス――その政治、経済、教育』（岩波書店［岩波新書］, 1988年）
  • Ricardo's economics: a general equilibrium theory of distribution and growth, (Cambridge University Press, 1989).
『リカードの経済学――分配と成長の一般均衡理論』（高増明・堂目卓生・吉田雅明訳, 東洋経済新報社, 1991年）
  • 『政治家の条件――イギリス、EC、日本』（岩波書店［岩波新書］, 1991年）
  • 『思想としての近代経済学』（岩波書店［岩波新書］, 1994年）
  • Capital and credit: a new formulation of general equilibrium theory, (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
『新しい一般均衡理論――資本と信用の経済学』（安冨歩訳, 創文社, 1994年）
  • 『日本の選択――新しい国造りにむけて』（岩波書店［同時代ライブラリー］, 1995年）
  • 『血にコクリコの花咲けば――ある人生の記録』（朝日新聞社, 1997年／朝日文庫, 2007年）
  • 『智にはたらけば角が立つ――ある人生の記録』（朝日新聞社, 1999年）
  • 『なぜ日本は没落するか』（岩波書店, 1999年）
  • Collaborative development in Northeast Asia, translated by Janet Hunter, (Macmillan Press, 2000).
  • Japan at a deadlock (Macmillan Press, 2000).
  • 『日本にできることは何か――東アジア共同体を提案する』（岩波書店, 2001年）
  • 『終わりよければすべてよし――ある人生の記録』（朝日新聞社, 2001年）
  • 『なぜ日本は行き詰まったか』（岩波書店, 2004年）

共著

  • The Working of econometric models, with Y. Murata, T. Nosse and M. Saito, (Cambridge University Press, 1972).
  • Theory of demand:real and monetary, with M. G. Allingham et al., (Clarendon Press, 1973).
  • Value, exploitation and growth: Marx in the light of modern economic theory, with George Catephores, (McGraw-Hill, 1978).
『価値・搾取・成長――現代の経済理論からみたマルクス』（高須賀義博・池尾和人訳, 創文社, 1980年）

共編著

  • （篠原三代平・内田忠夫）『新しい経済分析――理論・計量・予測』（創文社, 1960年）
  • （川口慎二・熊谷尚夫）『経済学入門』（有斐閣, 1967年／新版, 1975年）
  • （伊藤史朗）『経済成長論――リーディングス』（創文社, 1970年）
  • （能勢哲也）『サービス産業と福祉政策――イギリスの経験』（創文社, 1987年）

著作集

  • 『森嶋通夫著作集』（岩波書店, 2003年-2005年）
  1. 「動学的経済理論」
  2. 「均衡・安定・成長」
  3. 「経済成長の理論」
  4. 「資本と信用」
  5. 「需要理論――実物と金融」
  6. 「リカードの経済学」
  7. 「マルクスの経済学」
  8. 「価値・搾取・成長」
  9. 「ワルラスの経済学」
  10. 「ケインズの経済学」
  11. 「計量経済モデルはどう作動するか」
  12. 「近代社会の経済理論」
  13. 「なぜ日本は「成功」したか?」
  14. 「なぜ日本は行き詰ったか」


森嶋　通夫
思想としての近代経済学
定価 840円（本体 800円 + 税5%）　1994年2月21日発行
　
思想としての近代経済学
森嶋　通夫
■新赤版　321
■体裁＝新書判
■定価 840円（本体 800円 + 税5%）
■1994年2月21日
■ISBN4-00-430321-4 C0233
近代経済学はどのような価値観，社会像にもとづいて形成されたのか．ワルラス，シュンペーター，ケインズ，ヒックスらの描いたビジョンを検討するととも に，壮大な理論体系の構築をめざしたマルクス，ウェーバーらの思想をも根底から問い直す．現代社会の激しい変貌を見すえつつ従来の通説にとらわれずに展開 する，創見に満ちた経済学観．


［品切重版未定書目］

◆ 森嶋　通夫
イギリスと日本
品切重版未定　1977年11月21日発行

イギリスと日本
―― その教育と経済 ――
森嶋　通夫
■黄版　29
■体裁＝新書判
■品切重版未定
■1977年11月21日
■ISBN4-00-420029-6 C0233
日本は高度成長を遂げて経済大国になったが，一方，英国はかつての大英帝国から小さな福祉国家へと変貌した．長年，ロンドン大学で理論経済学を講じている 著者は，英国の中等・高等教育の実際の姿と，日本の画一的な教育の現状とを対比しながら，教育の社会における在り方を論じ，これからの日本の教育と経済の 方途を示す．


◆ 森嶋　通夫
続 イギリスと日本
品切重版未定　1978年12月20日発行

続　 イギリスと日本
―― その国民性と社会 ――
森嶋　通夫
■黄版　67
■体裁＝新書判
■品切重版未定
■1978年12月20日
■ISBN4-00-420067-9 C0233
イギリスは日本に比べてはるかに固定的な階級社会であると一般にいわれるが，果してそうであろうか．長年ロンドン大学で理論経済学を講じている著者が，前 著における教育と経済についての鋭い問題提起をふまえて，テーマを両国の国民性と社会の比較に発展させて論ずる．イギリスとの対比の中で日本近代の特質が 浮き彫りにされる．



◆ 森嶋　通夫
サッチャー時代のイギリス
品切重版未定　1988年12月20日発行

　
サッチャー時代のイギリス
―― その政治，経済，教育 ――
森嶋　通夫
■新赤版　49
■体裁＝新書判
■品切重版未定
■1988年12月20日
■ISBN4-00-430049-5 C0233
一九七九年にマーガレット・サッチャーが首相の座について以来，イギリスはどのように変わりつつあるか．経済・防衛から教育・福祉まで，「利潤」と「効 率」の旗をかかげる“鉄の宰相”は，この国に何をもたらしたのか．激しい変化をロンドン大学教授として現地で見すえてきた著者が『イギリスと日本』（正・ 続）以来久々に問う，鮮やかな分析．



◆ 森嶋　通夫
政治家の条件
品切重版未定　1991年12月20日発行
　
政治家の条件
―― イギリス，EC，日本 ――
森嶋　通夫
■新赤版　199
■体裁＝新書判
■品切重版未定
■1991年12月20日
■ISBN4-00-430199-8 C0231
政治の指導者には，燃えるような信念とともに冷静な現実感覚が求められる．では，イギリスのサッチャー，日本の海部前首相の場合はどうであったか．M． ウェーバーの名著『職業としての政治』を手がかりにして二人の対照的な言動を痛烈に批判し，「国家」が揺らぐ時代に求められる政治家像や政治・政党のあり 方を熱っぽく論じる．
張貼者： 於 沒有留言:

陳德文譯幸田露伴 (Koda Rohan) 書齋閒話 hc 努力論

日本語
日語原文 幸田露伴
假名 こうだ ろはん
罗马字 Koda Rohan

作品

[编辑] 小説

  • 風流仏（1889年、吉岡書籍店）
  • 露団団（1890年、金港堂）
  • 五重塔（1892年、嵩山堂『小説 尾花集』収録）
  • 連環記
  • 雪たたき
  • 新羽衣物語（1897年8月、村井商会）
  • 天うつ浪（1906年1月 - 07年1月、春陽堂）

[编辑] 史傳

  • 運命
  • 頼朝
  • 蒲生氏郷
  • 平将門

[编辑] 随筆與評論

  • 潮待ち草（1906年、東亜堂）
  • 蝸牛庵夜譚（1907年11月、春陽堂）
  • 小品十種（1908年6月、成功雑誌社）
  • 普通文章論（1980年10月、博文館）

[编辑] 俳諧

  • 冬の日記抄（1924年9月、岩波書店）
  • 春の日・曠野抄（1927年6月、岩波書店）
  • ひさご・猿蓑抄（1929年12月、岩波書店）
  • 炭俵・続猿蓑抄（1930年1月、岩波書店）

[编辑] 日記

  • 枕頭山水（1893年9月、博文館）
  • 蝸牛庵日記（1949年8月、中央公論社）


-----
嬲(ㄋㄧㄠˇ)
hc: 嬲(ㄋㄧㄠˇ) --幸田露伴 說出自佛典
幸田露伴著《書齋閒話》32開.平裝.簡體橫排..北京中華書局. 2008第9頁

Ken Su 解答.......:
說是「出自佛經」，不是很切確(東漢《說文》已收此字，
佛經的翻譯年代在說文之後五十年，才開始草創。)，應該說佛經有用過此字。
又，小時聽哥哥解說過，『嬲』字，一女挑二男，這是(淫ㄏㄧㄠˊ, hiau5)，『嫐』字，一男弄二女，這是(ㄑ一ㄜ, tshio1)。

這種類似王安石的「自由聯想」解字法，不足深論，一笑置之，可也。


逗

參考 幸田露伴 p.117 之討論
幸田露伴(1867～1947)是日本著名的汉学大家，本书是他的一些随笔，主要介绍有关中国的一些历史人物、器物、古代文学作品的考证和随想。


(日本)幸田露伴著、陳德文譯; 出版社： 百花文藝出版社; 2003/199

　內容簡介 　

某一德高老僧日：勿以為參寺之姣好少女比參寺之尋常少女殊勝，藝人、藝妓、流氓、泥水商等輩，手執線香者出奇得多。
一個沒有孩子也沒有可依靠的親戚，一直被人所役使而度過漫長日月’的女子對我說：我在有很多人出入的家庭度過很長日子，見慣了各色人等的變化過程。如今每 當看到青年男女便在心中暗自思忖，此人行末是好是壞？你究竟在想什麼?那個叫做松山的青年出出進進，每一次把別人的木屐踢散踢翻，真是個胡作非為的人。但 有時囊中有點錢，就立即穿上光彩照人的衣服，耀武揚威一番。這種人若是冒富，就會將妻子棄置家中，自己到外邊去過尋花問柳的日子。若是受窮，就會數度去舊 妻迎新妻，賣舊友求新友。還有梅山這個人，他總是親自提著木屐放置於脫靴場的一邊，不讓別人踩著。他穿的衣服隨隨便便，從不講究。這種人既不會立身顯要， 也不至於落魄潦倒，淚灑襟衲。雖說有點吝嗇，但也不是不講義理人情。還有一個姓櫻山的人，將一雙係著花裏胡哨帶子的木屐換成了廉價的，替換著穿，而這木屐 嶄新的時候，總是脫下來擺得整整齊齊。等到稍微有點舊，就隨地亂脫亂放了。此人心中雖無毒，但卻是個世上閒漢。作這號人的妻子實在太可悲了。但此人也有可 取之處，就是不大認輸，只要不受惡人調唆，行末會逐漸變好。你瞧栗山這個人，他有沒有用自己的錢買過東西？他總穿著舊木屐。世諺上說：迎著潮頭上，身子任 漂浮。尿壺的鼻兒是自己搓成的線捻兒，稚拙可笑。橫樑鼻兒斷了，就用小石子充填，僅保持著原樣，愈顯稚拙可笑。看他穿的木屐，也時時有失笑的事，但他卻購 買了許多書籍。不僅如此，他言語雖少而不驕人，起居似田舍郎，但經常費斟酌。此人必能成業成名，富而不忘過去。你以為如何？這些都是我以所穿之物觀人，事 甚粗鄙，但要比占卜靈驗得多。——她自豪地說。
一女子日，過去的女人，欲顯示脖頸之美，而盡拔髮際之毛。今之女子欲顯示前額之美，細心描畫，而不用心於頸項，即用心於人皆可見之處，而遺忘不易見之處。世界前進了，但猴子一般的人也越來越多了。
一位出身微賤、心地堅強的女子說：乘火車時，人多找不到位子，女人尤難。過去，女人看到無伴的青年男子，聊作微笑，並帶著痛苦的面色接近他，那男子一般都 會讓給你座位。如今，我穿著寒磣，蓬頭垢面，自覺卑淺，這時，即使有人給我讓座，我也裝作不知道。由此我感到，要度過艱難時世，一個無所仗恃的女子，應當 如何注意容貌、講究衣飾啊！尤其隨著年齡漸老，易於忽略待人接 　本書目錄 　

蝸牛庵雜筆
喜歡的事
一日無事
夫婦茶碗的本家
花兒種種
火桶
二人地爐
古之淺草
被世人遺忘的草木
雲的種種
人言
指甲
花鳥
栗子之喻
寄語微笑
樂地
苦境
損
勿急
人之姿
樹之相
偽北齋
名畫畫中有詩
語言
羞恥
女人的信
蛇與女人
點心
十千
道路
正直
命運
讀書的態度
……
譯後記



三つの『福』をご存知ですか？ （僕は知りませんでした）
惜福：福を惜しむ、すなわち、幸せを無駄遣いしないようにする。
分福：幸せを分け与えること。自分ひとりの幸せなんてありえない。 　　　　楽しいことがあったら、その楽しみを人と話したくなるものです。
そして、一番なるほど！と思ったのは、 植福：幸せの種をまくこと。幸せの種まきをしないと、幸せはこない。
お金は使わないと入ってこないのと同じで、幸せを噛み締め（惜福）、幸せを分かち合い（分福）、そして幸せの種を撒いて（植福）初めて幸せは永続的なものとなる。
今の幸せは過去の植福の結果。 将来の幸せは、今の植福の先にある。
もっと言えば、今私たちがここにあるのは、祖先の植福の果実ということ。
努力論（どりょくろん）
―幸田露伴の説く幸福論― 幸田露伴（こうだろはん）（1867～1947）著。大正2年（1913）刊。 冒頭において、努力には「直接の努力」と「間接の努力」の二種類あることを説いている。直接の努力とは当面の努力のことであり、その時その時を力を尽くして精いっぱい頑張ること。間接の努力とは準備する努力であり、基礎・源泉の努力のことをいう。 また、本書の中で特筆すべきは幸福三説の思想である。すなわち、人生において幸福になるには「惜福」「分福」「植福」の３つを実践すればよいと説いている。 「惜福」とは福を惜しむこと。福を使い果たしてしまわないことをいう。
「分福」とは自分の得た福を他人に分け与えること。
「植福」とは福を植えること。植えられた福は徐々に成長して社会の発展に貢献することとなる。 この幸福三説こそ、本書の中でもっとも重要な思想であると言えよう。 惜福とは何様（どう）いうのかというと、福を使い尽くし取り尽くしてしまわぬをいうのである。たとえば掌中に百金を有するとして、これを浪費に使い尽くして半文銭もなきに至るがごときは、惜福の工夫のないのである。
分福とは何様（どう）いうことであるかというに、自己の得るところの福を他人に分ち与うるをいうのである。たとえば自己が大なる西瓜（すいか）を得たとすると、その全顆（ぜんか）を飽食し尽すことをせずしてその幾分を残し留むるのは惜福である。その幾分を他人に分ち与えて自己と共にその美を味わうの幸（さいわい）を得せしむるのは分福である。
植福とは何であるかというに、我が力や情や智を以て、人世に吉慶幸福となるべき物質や情趣や智識を寄与する事をいうのである。即ち人世の慶福を増進長育するところの行為を植福というのである。
書齋閒話 [日]幸田露伴 [日]幸田露伴 2008.06 中華書局 　出版日期： 2008.06幸田露伴是日本著名的漢學大家，原名成行，別號蝸牛庵。他從小受到中日古典文學的熏陶，學識淵博，文學造詣頗深，與尾崎紅葉、坪內逍遙、森鷗外等人齊名。 在創作方法上，幸田受井原西鶴的影響較大。作品主題多為歌頌藝術的強韌生命力，以及藝術創造者的頑強意志。 本書是幸田露伴分散于各個時期的一些隨筆，內容主要分為三大類︰一是論學；二是同中國有關係；三是有他獨特的感想和見解。大致介紹有關中國的一些歷史人 物、器物、古代文學作品的考証和隨想。


目錄
瑣言
夏夜問答
字義數則
李昌谷的詩
《西遊記》的作者
甘甜古今
論簡素治新
釣車考
漱玉記
大葉子
說羊
福
老皮囊
顧炎武
袁了凡
快川和尚和杜苟鶴
《料理物語》和《草木子》
《今昔物語》和《劍南詩稿》
張良和蔡邕
古書新法
帶妻宿外家
少言老評
水
酒
蝸牛庵聯話
月、霜
青瓷、白瓷、音樂
琵琶、箜篌、纈
餅
茶
檄
苜蓿
飯
骨董
讀史后語
張俊供進御筵食單
芭蕉和黃山谷
話苑
讀史后語
蘇東坡和海南島
楊貴妃和香
書齋閒話
修文談
《仁山智水帖》序
露伴談片
我執筆的時間和場所
日本百科大詞典解題
《西廂記》
《琵琶記》
《桃花扇傳奇》
《長生殿傳奇》
《聊齋志異》
《十二樓》
《紅雪樓九種曲》
《彈詞》
《中國的俳優》
夏日的讀物
處女的自豪
表現于容貌上的心靈美
歌的作詞與作曲
命運的鑰匙
文藝作品中的馬
民謠裡的歌
旅行家
傳說的真相
《紅樓夢》解題
《水滸傳》雜話
新福祉觀
日本的文學和復仇譚
福祉樹和不幸樹
無難
書齋閒話
邦人豈能不解中國詩味
《漢文叢書》序
春日抄
字眼兒
譯后記
張貼者： 於 沒有留言:

2011年4月27日 星期三

尼古拉·果戈理 --纳博科夫

要了解 Gogol 必須學俄文

這本書年譜末頁寫他臨終燒稿 是住在莫斯科的A. P. Tolstoy伯爵 家 他是馬修之崇拜者--此A. P.是何人


Nikolai Gogol - Google 圖書結果

Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov - 1961 - Biography & Autobiography - 172 頁

尼古拉·果戈理 　 作者: (美) 纳博科夫
译者: 刘佳林
出版社: 广西师范大学出版社
出版年: 2010年12月
页数: 220
定价: 28.00元
装帧: 平装
ISBN: 9787549501274


内容简介 · · · · · ·

　　纳博科夫是一个创造性作家，也是一个创造性读者。众多评论家在果戈理那里看到了 社会批判与同情，纳博科夫却看到了由种种次级人物构成的次级世界。无数读者在果戈理那里看到了喜剧性的天才形象，纳博科夫却体味到了深沉的悲伤。人们说晚 年的果戈理迷恋说教，纳博科夫却洞察出江郎才尽的焦虑与挣扎。《尼古拉•果戈理》向世人讲述了一个异样新奇的果戈理。因为慧眼独具，所以别开生面。

作者简介 · · · · · ·

　　符拉基米尔•纳博科夫（1899—1977），俄裔美籍作家，二十世纪公认的杰 出小说家、诗人、批评家、翻译家，同时也是罕见的文体家，代表作有小说《洛丽塔》、《普宁》、《微暗的火》、《阿达》等，另有系列讲稿《文学讲稿》、《俄 罗斯文学讲稿》、《堂吉诃德讲稿》等。

目录 · · · · · ·

果戈理的另一幅肖像（代译序）
他的死，他的青春
钦差幽魂
我们的乞乞科夫先生
导师与向导
面具的范本
评论
年表
索引

果戈里全集 (九卷本 1999) Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol


NABOKOV'S RUSSIANS

Date: October 25, 1981, Sunday, Late City Final Edition Section 7; Page 1, Column 3; Book Review Desk
Byline: By LEONARD MICHAELS; Leonard Michaels, who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley, is the author of ''The Men's Club,'' a novel.
Lead:

LECTURES ON RUSSIAN LITERATURE By Vladimir Nabokov. Edited, With an Introduction, by Fredson Bowers. Illustrated. 324 pp. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. $19.95

AFTER years of lecturing in universities, one of my colleagues was discovered bent over a Xerox machine making copies of his head. I once began a lecture and talked for several minutes before noticing that I was in the wrong room. I'd have noticed sooner if the students weren't taking notes.

It is difficult work, year after year, listening to your own voice. Nevertheless, some do it magnificently. One still hears remarks like ''I sat at the feet of Heidegger.'' Such abject adoration is a mysterious thing, a sort of religious phenomenon. Father Ong, the great literary scholar, has written an essay called ''Voice As a Summons for Belief.'' Something like this can be heard in the published lectures of Vladimir Nabokov. His voice summons us to a belief in high art.
Text:

The first volume, ''Lectures on Literature'' (1980), was received with much praise. The second, ''Lectures on Russian Literature,'' will be similarly received. It deals mainly with Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov and Gorki. The lectures are very learned, very rich in critical insight, and often funny, but they are most extraordinary for the way Nabokov re-creates, in concrete sensuous detail, his experience of reading these Russian writers.

Fredson Bowers, who edited both volumes, says Nabokov's lectures were mainly handwritten. Sometimes they lacked clear organization, and parts remained in rough notes. Though Mr. Bowers has made them into excellently readable essays, you wouldn't appreciate his achievement if you believed Nabokov's remark in ''Strong Opinions'':

''Every lecture I delivered had been carefully, lovingly handwritten and typed out, and I leisurely read it out in class.''

This humorous pretension, or curious lie, is not entirely inconsistent with the lectures themselves, for it indicates a certain complexity in Nabokov's attitude toward matters of fact. In his Chekhov lecture, for example, he says:

''On the 2nd of July, 1904, he died far from his family and friends, amidst strangers, in a strange town.'' Nabokov was aware that Chekhov's wife claimed to be present and to remember, in poignant detail, the hours preceding Chekhov's death.Presumably, Nabokov doesn't believe her, and, with magnificent courtesy, chooses never to say as much, though he does say the marriage was unhappy.

It is also possible that Nabokov wants to believe in the ultimate isolation of artistic genius, somewhat as he wants to believe in the complete and careful preparation of every lecture he delivered. ''My method of teaching,'' he says in ''Strange Opinions,'' ''precluded genuine contact with my students.'' Genius is always alone, even in the classroom; certainly in the deathbed. Whatever the case, Nabokov definitely believes in the dialectical relation of reality and illusion. Discussing Tolstoy, he says:

''Some of you may still wonder why I and Tolstoy mention such trifles (historical data contemporary with the time in novels). To make his magic, fiction, look real the artist sometimes places it, as Tolstoy does, within a definite, specific historical frame, citing facts that can be checked in a library - that citadel of illusion.''

Given this notion of a library, a novelist might as well invent everything. More relevant is that Nabokov presents Tolstoy - a ''moralist'' who invented enormously yet resisted inventing - as someone who shares Nabokov's ontological vision, and, like him, captures the unreal in the very fabric of the real. But while Nabokov's word for fiction is ''magic,'' he tells us that, for Tolstoy, the word is ''Truth.''

''What obsessed Tolstoy, what obscured his genius, what now distresses the good reader, was that, somehow, the process of seeking the Truth seemed more important to him than the easy, vivid, brilliant discovery of the illusion of truth through the medium of his artistic genius. Old Russian Truth was never a comfortable companion; it had a violent temper and a heavy tread. It was not simply truth, not merely everyday pravda but immortal istina - not truth but the inner light of truth. When Tolstoy did happen to find it in himself, in the splendor of his creative imagination, then, almost unconsciously, he was on the right path. What does his tussle with the ruling Greek-Catholic Church matter, what importance do his ethical opinions have, in the light of this or that imaginative passage in any of his novels?''

If Tolstoy leans too far one way, maybe Nabokov leans too far the other way, but the difference between them doesn't prevent Nabokov from making Tolstoy similar to himself without, thereby, betraying Tolstoy. For example, on ideas in literature generally and in Tolstoy particularly, he says:

''... we should always bear in mind that literature is not a pattern of ideas but a pattern of images. Ideas do not matter much in comparison to a book's imagery and magic. What interests us here is not what Lyovin thought (as he watched a bug creep up a blade of grass) ... but that little bug that expresses so neatly the turn, the switch, the gesture of thought.''

This is a lovely perception, and, whether or not moral Tolstoy would agree, it feels true. In Nabokov's Gogol essay, excerpted from his book on Gogol and reprinted in the ''Lectures,'' he observes something similar to the above:

''The faceless saloon-walker ... is again seen a minute later coming down from Chichikov's room and spelling out the name on a slip of paper as he walks down the steps. 'Pa-vel I-va-no-vich Chi-chikov'; and these syllables have a taxonomic value for the identification of that particular staircase.''

Thus a physical action paralleling a mental action renders it kinesthetically. Nabokov's concentration on the poetics of superlative prose recalls his own prose. He does such Gogolian things himself.

My point is that Nabokov lectures in a very personal way. What he sees, he is equipped to see by virtue of his peculiar genius, and this gives special illumination and pleasure to his lectures. One also detects a faintly distorting pressure sometimes in his generalizations, which is again attributable to the personal note. For example, on Chekhov's technique:

''Exact and rich characterization is attained by careful selection and careful distribution of minute but striking features, with perfect contempt for the sustained descriptions, repetition, and strong emphasis of ordinary authors.''

Much of this description, even the phrase ''exact and rich characterization,'' and especially ''perfect contempt,'' seems more appropriate to the spirit of Nabokov's writing than to Chekhov's. Chekhov is always plain. It is ironically relevant to notice that Nabokov's writing is often thrilling in ''sustained descriptions'' and ''strong emphasis,'' but he is not by any means an ''ordinary'' author. ''

It is interesting, though probably meaningless, that while Nabokov says he is indifferent to anyone's praise or dispraise of his fiction, which he calls ''my circles, my special islands, infinitely safe from exasperated readers'' (''Strong Opinions''), he dispenses his own judgments liberally:

''... we might list the greatest artists in Russian prose thus: first, Tolstoy; second, Gogol; third, Chekhov; fourth, Turgenev. This is rather like grading students' papers and no doubt Dostoevski and Saltykov are waiting at the door of my office to discuss their low marks.''

Surely, in his dialectical imagination, Nabokov wondered what the great Russian artists might think of his work. If so, it occurred to him that Tolstoy and Chekhov would have found it objectionable, especially ''Lolita,'' a novel that Dostoyevsky - whom Nabokov virtually hates - would have hugely envied and perversely loved.

The joke about Dostoyevsky and Saltykov, however silly, touches on another of Nabokov's aversions - pedantic professorial distance. Literature must be taught, he believes, from within:

''... you may have seen, you must have seen, some of those awful text books written not by educators but by educationalists, by people who talk about books instead of talking within books.''

This notion of how properly to talk about books is repeated elsewhere. In the lectures on Tolstoy it is both insisted upon and demonstrated. First the insistence:

''Tolstoy keeps a keen eye on his characters. He makes them speak and move - but their speech and motion produce their own reaction in the world he has made for them. Is that clear? It is.''

It is? But, to insist it is ignores the difficulty of reconciling a novelist's artistic control with the freedom and spontaneity that should belong to his characters. Tolstoy ''makes them speak and move.'' Are they not therefore puppets? Notice what else Nabokov says Tolstoy does to a character:

''In the course of the novel, Tolstoy refers several times to Vronski's splendid regular teeth ... which make a smooth solid ivory front when he smiles; but before he disappears from the pages of the novel in part eight, his creator, punishing Vronski in his brilliant physique, inflicts upon him a marvelously described toothache.''

Could there be criticism given more from within? One quite forgets to ask for an explanation of how Vronski might enjoy his fictional freedom with no fear of doing anything that might incur the moral wrath of Tolstoy. His toothache is ''marvelously described.'' In effect, then, even if inflicted by Tolstoy, one feels it is the natural consequence of Vronski's character, built into the very cruelty of his brilliant mouth, the place where reality and literary art coincide. Nabokov says that to read a book properly, you eat it up. This is like what people mean when they say, to learn a foreign language, you sleep with a native speaker. The most precious understanding is acquired always from within.

Here is Nabokov again talking about Vronski as if he were a real person and yet a fictional hypothesis to be dealt with, even punished, by his creator: ''Vronski, a strikingly handsome but somewhat stockily built fellow, very intelligent but devoid of talent, socially charming but individually rather mediocre, reveals in his behavior toward Kitty a streak of bland insensitivity which may easily grade into callousness and even brutality later on.'' In the art of Tolstoy is the freedom of Vronski to be in the pain he deserves.

Inevitably, what Nabokov says of several Russian writers, can be made to apply to himself: ''Most Russian writers have been tremendously interested in Truth's exact whereabouts and essential properties. To Pushkin it was of marble under a noble sun; Dostoevski, a much inferior artist, saw it as a thing of blood and tears and hysterical and topical politics and sweat; and Chekhov kept a quizzical eye upon it, while seemingly engrossed in the hazy scenery all around. Tolstoy marched straight at it, head bent and fists clenched, and found the place where the cross had once stood, or found - the image of his own self.''

The energy and wit of these images, the convergence of feeling and learning that makes them cogent, is the truth as rendered by Nabokov, and the image of himself. Here are some other examples:

''What do I mean by the ingredients of a dream? Let me make this quite clear. A dream is a show - a theatrical piece staged within the brain in a subdued light before a somewhat muddleheaded audience. The show is generally a very mediocre one, carelessly performed, with amateur actors and haphazard props and a wobbly backdrop.'' *

''Cases of flushing, blushing, reddening, crimsoning, coloring, etc. (and the opposite action of growing pale), are prodigiously frequent throughout this novel (''Anna Karenina'') and, generally, in the literature of the time. It might be speciously argued that in the nineteenth century people blushed and blanched more readily and more noticeably than today, mankind then being as it were younger; actually, Tolstoy is only following an old literary tradition of using the act of flushing, etc., as a kind of code or banner that informs or reminds the reader of this or that character's feelings.''

''I hate tampering with the precious lives of great writers and I hate Tom-peeping over the fence of those lives - I hate the vulgarity of 'human interest,' I hate the rustle of skirts and giggles in the corridors of time -and no biographer will ever catch a glimpse of my private life; but this I must say. Dostoevski's gloating pity for people - pity for the humble and humiliated - this pity was purely emotional and his special lurid brand of the Christian faith by no means prevented him from leading a life extremely removed from his teachings. On the other hand, Leo Tolstoy like his representative Lyovin was organically unable to allow his conscience to strike a bargain with his animal nature - and he suffered cruelly whenever this animal nature temporarily triumphed over his better self.''

Nabokov argues for attention to mental or imaginative experience, created by individual artistic genius, in the concrete, technical minutiae of specific literary phenomena. He demonstrates the value and pleasure of this kind of attention, this kind of understanding. He will be celebrated for doing so, and yet people will continue to prefer hearing about real persons, and about the personal lives of artists; and ''human interest,'' a degrading passion, will prevail over the more desirable unreal-reality of art. To make these generalizations concrete, consider Nabokov's translation and analysis of Gogol:

'' 'A drowning man, it is said, will catch at the smallest chip of wood because at the moment he has not the presence of mind to reflect that hardly even a fly could hope to ride astride that chip, whereas he weighs almost a hundred and fifty pounds if not a good two hundred.'

''Who is that unfortunate bather, steadily and uncannily growing, adding weight, fattening himself on the marrow of a metaphor? We never shall know - but he almost managed to gain a footing.''

The chip of wood is art, the bather is Nabokov. In his hands the chip becomes a log, a raft, and he gains a footing, and he beckons us to come aboard. But the din of the ocean is the din of this real world. Still, we want to hear him and we might even come aboard. For in the fierce isolation of his genius - in his personal voice, his humor, his huge scholarly labors - he makes room for us.
張貼者： 於 沒有留言:

《伊凡‧伊列區之死》托爾斯泰 The Death of Ivan Ilyich

But remember that "simplicity" is a buncombe. (V. Nabokov, On Ivan Ilych's Life by Tolstoy)
buncombe/bunkum

Tolstoy's War and Peace / Short Fiction (Norton C...

*****

《伊凡‧伊列區之死》托爾斯泰著 孟祥森譯 (根據 Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude) 台北:水牛 1969

"這本書獻給你"

----

"俄國大文豪托爾斯泰寫的小說《伊凡‧伊列區之死》裡的情節。故事主角伊凡．伊列區直到「死前」，都可以算作「非常成功」，至少是那種他「自以為是」 的成功！他做到令人欽羨的高等法院檢察長，有一個人人羨慕的漂亮太太，交往的都是聖彼得堡的上流階級和貴族。他聰明伶俐，善於討好長官，立志要在官場裡出 人頭地。出身貧苦的他，平步青雲、財富迅速累積、好不威風得意。

然而，這個「成功」的故事卻急轉而下，有一次當他掛窗簾的時候，竟從梯子跌下，從此臥病不起。臥病後，他才發現，正如他以往一般從沒有關心過別人一樣，身邊沒有一個人真正關心他。

醫生毫不在乎他的疼痛與憂慮，不把他當作一個有感覺有思想的人，只是機械化地用專業角度在處理他的身體。這就像他在法院一貫風格，他只想從專業角度把所有案件冷漠而優雅地處理掉，冷漠到近乎無情與殘酷。

同事知道他遭難後只想打探他遺下的空缺會讓誰升上，像禿鷹一般貪婪地等待著從他的不幸中得到好處。而以前的他也是一隻一模一樣的禿鷹。

不甘於平凡的他，一生都在追求財富、名利以及與眾不同。但直到將死才發現，他從沒有得到過一件與人不同的東西，他從沒留下會讓人銘記在心的功勳，他一生的官運亨通、功成名就，都是只不過是「庸俗至極」的集合。他很想從頭來過。但上天已不再給他第二次機會！"


The Death of Ivan Ilyich
Author Leo Tolstoy
Original title Смерть Ивана Ильича, Smert' Ivana Ilyicha'
Illustrator Oto Antonini (1892-1959)
Country Russia
Language Russian
Subject(s) Truth and falsity of life, meaning of life and death
Publication date 1886

The Death of Ivan Ilyich (Russian: Смерть Ивана Ильича, Smert' Ivana Ilyicha), first published in 1886, is a novella by Leo Tolstoy, and is considered to be one of the masterpieces of his late fiction, written shortly after his religious conversion of the late 1870s.[1]

The novella tells the story of the life and death, at the age of 45, of a high-court judge in 19th-century Russia—a miserable husband, proud father, and upwardly-mobile member of Russia's professional class, the object of Tolstoy's unremitting satire. Living what seems to be a good life, his dreadful relationship with his wife notwithstanding, Ivan Ilyich Golovin bangs his side while putting up curtains in a new apartment intended to reflect his family's superior status in society. Within weeks, he has developed a strange taste in his mouth and a pain that will not go away. Numerous expensive doctors—friends of friends of friends—are visited in their surgeries or called to the judge's bedside, but beyond muttering about blind gut and floating kidneys, they can neither explain nor treat his condition, and it soon becomes clear that Ivan Ilyich is dying.

The second half of the novella records his terror as he battles with the idea of his own death. "I have been here. Now I am going there. Where? ... No, I won't have it!"[2] Oppressed by the length of the process, his wife, daughter, and colleagues—even the physicians—decide not to speak of it, but advise him to stay calm and follow doctors' orders, leaving him to wrestle with how this terrible thing could befall a man who has lived so well.[3]

He spends his last three days screaming. He realizes he is "done for, there was no way back, the end was here, the absolute end ..."[4] Two hours before his death, in a moment of clarity, he sees that he has not, after all, lived well, but has lived only for himself. After months of dwelling on his own anguish, he suddenly feels pity for the people he's leaving behind, and hopes his death will set them free. With that thought, his pain disappears. He hears someone say, "He's gone." He whispers to himself, "Death has gone," and draws his last breath.[5]

Contents

Plot summary

Ivan Ilyich Golovin, a high court judge in St. Petersburg with a wife and family, lives a carefree life that is "most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible." Like everyone he is aware of, he lives a life spent almost entirely in climbing the social ladder, and his life begins to amass more hypocrisy as it goes on. Enduring life with a wife whom he often finds too demanding, he works his way up to be a magistrate owing to the influence he has over a friend who has just been promoted, focusing more and more on his work as family life becomes more miserable.

While hanging curtains for his new home one day, Ivan Ilyich falls awkwardly and hurts his side. Though he does not think much of it at first, he begins to suffer from a pain in his side. As Ilyich's discomfort increases, his behavior towards his family becomes more irritable. His wife finally insists that he visit a physician. The physician cannot pinpoint the source of his malady, but soon it becomes clear that his condition is terminal. He is brought face to face with his mortality, and realizes that although he knows of it, he does not truly grasp it.

During the long and painful process of death, Ivan dwells on the idea that he does not deserve his suffering because he has lived rightly. If he had not lived a good life, there could be reason for his pain; but he has, so pain and death must be arbitrary and senseless. As he begins to hate his family for avoiding the subject of his death, for pretending he is only sick and not dying, he finds his only comfort in his peasant boy servant Gerasim, the only person in Ivan’s life who does not fear death, and also the only one who, apart from his own son, shows compassion for him. Ivan begins to question whether he has, in fact, lived a good life.

In the final days of his life, Ivan makes a clear split between an artificial life, such as his own, which masks the true meaning of life and makes one fear death, and an authentic life, the life of Gerasim. Authentic life is marked by compassion and sympathy; the artificial life by self-interest. Then “some force” strikes Ivan in the chest and side, and he is brought into the presence of a bright light. His hand falls onto his nearby son’s head, and he pities him. He no longer hates his daughter or wife, but rather feels sorry for them, because he has found at last a joy in authentic life and they will continue their artificial lives, fearing death. In the middle of a sigh, Ivan dies.

Interpretation

Many people have different interpretations for the end of the novella. One such interpretation is that Ivan Ilyich's whole struggle and agony ends with the great gift of a cessation of suffering. Another interpretation is that Ivan Ilyich's breakthrough is the freedom that comes with truth – in his case, seeing the falsity of his life, which enables him to have a brief moment of unselfish love or at least compassion for his wife and children. It can also be interpreted that Ivan did not feel compassion towards his wife, but pity, and saw the truth of humanity in his son, that is, what it meant to be truly human.

In his lectures on Russian literature, Russian-born novelist and critic Vladimir Nabokov argues that, for Tolstoy, a sinful life (such as Ivan's) is moral death. Therefore death, the return of the soul to God is, for Tolstoy, moral life. To quote Nabokov: "The Tolstoyan formula is: Ivan lived a bad life and since the bad life is nothing but the death of the soul, then Ivan lived a living death; and since beyond death is God's living light, then Ivan died into a new life – Life with a capital L."[6]

See also

Book collection.jpg Novels portal

Notes

  1. ^ Jahn 1999, p. 3.
  2. ^ Tolstoy, p. 57.
  3. ^ Tolstoy, p. 61.
  4. ^ Tolstoy, p. 103.
  5. ^ Tolstoy, p. 106.
  6. ^ Nabokov, p. 237

References

  • Jahn, Gary R. (1999). Tolstoy's the Death of Ivan Ilʹich: A Critical Companion. Northwestern University Press.
  • Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Lectures On Russian Literature. Harcourt Edition.
  • Tolstoy, Leo (1886). The Death of Ivan Ilyich. Penguin Red Classic edition, 2006.

External links



張貼者： 於 沒有留言:
訂閱： 文章 (Atom)

網誌存檔