[1]吴 鹏.天人迷思——泰戈尔与冯唐的文明观比较[J].西安建筑科技大学学报(社会科学版),2022,41(05):90-100.[doi:10.15986/j.1008-7192.2022.05.012 ]
　WU Peng.Myth of Heaven and Man——Comparison of Tagore and Feng Tang's views on civilization[J].Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology(Social Science Edition),2022,41(05):90-100.[doi:10.15986/j.1008-7192.2022.05.012 ]
点击复制

天人迷思——泰戈尔与冯唐的文明观比较()
分享到：

西安建筑科技大学学报（社会科学版）[ISSN:1008-7192/CN:61-1330/C]

卷:
41
期数:
2022年05期
页码:
90-100
栏目:
文学
出版日期:
2022-10-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Myth of Heaven and Man——Comparison of Tagore and Feng Tang's views on civilization
文章编号:
1008-7192(2022)05-0090-11
作者:
吴 鹏
(中国社会科学院大学 文学院，北京 102488)
Author(s):
WU Peng
(School of Chinese Language & Literature, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 102488, China)
关键词:
泰戈尔; 冯唐; 文明观; 自然神性; 人工智巧
Keywords:
Tagore;  Feng Tang;  views on civilization;  natural divinity;  human ingenuity
分类号:
I046
DOI:
10.15986/j.1008-7192.2022.05.012
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
中国当代作家冯唐因其对《飞鸟集》争议性的翻译引发了广泛的讨论，但其翻译选择显示了他与泰戈尔之间思想上的共契。冯唐与泰戈尔的思想联系主要体现在他们对文明与自然的思考，即两人的文明观上。泰戈尔的文明观主要表现在针对个人和针对人类两个向度，他要求在个体和群体的层面克服对权力的迷恋，皈依自然神性。冯唐的文明观主要通过他的小说创作体现出来，他将文明视为同时容纳欲望和仰望自由的存在形态。两位作家文明观的异同集中在对待融通自然和人工智巧的态度上，二者都有着对自然的强烈追求，泰戈尔将其发展为对人工智巧的排斥，冯唐则将其与人工智巧整合为内在统一的整体。泰戈尔与冯唐文明观的分异，源于他们不同的历史时代语境、家庭成长背景和创作本位观念。阐明泰戈尔与冯唐跨越时代和民族的文明观对话，有助于从更深的层面理解泰戈尔的思想体系及其对于当代文化建设的意义。
Abstract:
An extensive discussion has been aroused about the contemporary Chinese writer Feng Tang due to his controversial translation of Stray Birds, although the choice of translation also shows an ideological agreement between him and Tagore. The ideological connection between Feng Tang and Tagore lies primarily in their views on civilization, namely their thinking about civilization and nature. Tagore's idea revolves around individual-oriented and human-targeted dimensions. He demands that both individuals and groups should shed the fascination with power and convert to natural divinity. Feng Tang's thoughts of civilization are mainly reflected in his creation of novels. He regards civilization as a form of coexistence that embraces desire and at the same time looks forward to freedom. The similarities and differences between the two writers' views on civilization are highlighted by their attitudes towards the integration of nature and human ingenuity. They both have a strong passion for nature. Tagore develops it into a rejection of human ingenuity, while Feng Tang unifies them into an intrinsic whole. Their disparate views on civilization stem from their varied historical context, family background, and writing standard idea. To clarify the dialogue between Tagore and Feng Tang's views on civilization across times and nations will contribute to a deeper understanding of Tagore's ideological system and its significance for contemporary cultural development.

参考文献/References:

[1]雷蒙德·威廉斯.关键词:文化与社会的词汇[M].2版.刘建基,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2016.
[2]泰戈尔.人的宗教[M]//泰戈尔.泰戈尔全集:第20卷.刘建,译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2000.
[3]尹锡南.泰戈尔的文明观及其在东西方的反响[D].成都:四川大学,2002.
[4]任文惠.中国知识分子对泰戈尔来华事件的误读[D].北京:首都师范大学,2005.
[5]祝薪闲,高健.泰戈尔的文明观——对非西方国家现代化道路的思考[J].学术交流,2017,(11):66-70.
[6]孙宜学.泰戈尔的中国印象和文明观[J].书屋,2020,(10):11-14.
[7]于笑竹.泰戈尔与民族主义[D].福州:福建师范大学,2012.
[8]虞乐仲.“印度精神”的召唤——作为政治理想主义者的泰戈尔研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2014.
[9]泰戈尔.人生的亲证[M].宫静,译.北京:商务印书馆,1992.
[10]泰戈尔.论创作[M]//刘湛秋.泰戈尔文集:1.合肥:安徽文艺出版社,1997.
[11]泰戈尔.在爱中亲证[M]//倪培耕.泰戈尔集.上海:上海远东出版社,1997.
[12]泰戈尔.民族主义[M].谭仁侠,译.北京:商务印书馆,1982.
[13]冯唐.十八岁给我一个姑娘[M].天津:天津人民出版社,2012.
[14]冯唐.万物生长[M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2017.
[15]冯唐.活着活着就老了[M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2013.
[16]泰戈尔.我的回忆录[M].李鲜红,涂帅,译.南京:江苏文艺出版社,2012.
[17]泰戈尔.飞鸟集[M].陆晋德,译.南京:译林出版社,2011.
[18]冯唐.北京,北京[M].天津:天津人民出版社,2012.
[19]袁永平.泰戈尔的大爱思想[M].兰州:兰州大学出版社,2016.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2021-12-26
基金项目:国家社科基金项目“泰戈尔与20世纪中国文学”(14BWW022)
作者简介:吴 鹏(1994-)，男，中国社会科学院大学文学院博士研究生，研究方向为东方文学与比较文学。E-mail:1597130707@qq.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2022-10-25