批判精神与中庸之道的两重唱对谢阁兰及梁启超笔下袁世凯形象的对比研究

发布时间：2018-01-18 06:37

  本文关键词：批判精神与中庸之道的两重唱对谢阁兰及梁启超笔下袁世凯形象的对比研究　出处：《中国海洋大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

  更多相关文章： 批判 中庸 袁世凯 谢阁兰 梁启超 交织

【摘要】：整个十九世纪及二十世纪初,中国社会经历着翻天覆地的变化。西方多个国家的入侵使原本自给自足的封建经济体制改变,帝国主义统治不能再满足现实社会对政治体制、经济形态和艺术文化需求,旧制度的灭亡,·新体制的诞生即在眼前。此后,鸦片战争爆发、八国联军入京、中俄战争、中法战争、直到1949年新中国的成立,中国人民经受着战争的痛苦,成百上千的军人和百姓为国家的独立和自由献出了宝贵的生命。其中,不少历史人物在这个进程中起着重要作用,并令人至今仍然印象深刻。袁世凯便是其中一位。他在历史中的地位及影响众说纷纭。 法国作家、诗人、海军医生、考古学家,谢阁兰曾两次来到中国,正时这一复杂的历史阶段。谢阁兰以不用的视角见证着这一历史时期。他的小说、散文、诗歌都或多或少的与中国文化、中国历史有关。由于他对中国文化的迷恋,对汉语了解,他的作品成为了日后研究当时中法两国文化的重要参本。谢阁兰亦曾是袁世凯长子,袁克定的私人医生。与袁世凯近距离的相处,使谢阁兰这位法国友人对袁世凯有了自己的认识,同时也体现在其作品各处。细读起谢阁兰的作品,袁世凯的形象散落各处,却大多对人以机智、儒雅的形象示人。然而,在中国作家、教育家、维新革命家梁启超的笔下,同样一位历史人物的形象却大相径庭。袁世凯奸诈、盗取民主革命果实的形象深入人心,他更是在列强帝国主义控制下的傀儡领导人。做为袁世凯政府中的司法总长,梁启超对袁的看法亦不应为空穴来风。两位作家,同处一个时代,同对中西两方文化和袁世凯有一定的了解,为何其笔下袁世凯的形象却有如此大的差别?谢阁兰这位深受中国文化影响的法国作家是否仍保留着典型法国的批斗精神；而梁启超这位深谙西方文化、应时代大流而求新求变的维新革命家,是否还保留着中国传统的中庸之道?如果是,两者对袁世凯形象的反映为何又与其本身所应具有的民族特征背道而驰呢? 该论文将分为三个部分(历史背景、两位作家及其与袁世凯的关系及文学节选对比)试着阐述作者的观点、解决上述问题。
[Abstract]:In 19th century and early 20th century, Chinese society experienced tremendous changes. The invasion of many western countries changed the feudal economic system which was originally self-sufficient. The imperialist rule could no longer meet the needs of the real society for political system, economic form, art and culture, the demise of the old system, and the birth of the new system. After that, the Opium War broke out and the allied forces of the eight powers entered Beijing. The Sino-Russian War, the Sino-French War, until the founding of the people's Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese people are suffering from the war, hundreds of soldiers and people for the independence and freedom of the country gave their precious lives. Many historical figures play an important role in this process and are still impressive. Yuan Shikai is one of them. His position and influence in history vary widely. French writer, poet, naval doctor, archaeologist, and Chegelan have come to China twice, at this complicated stage of history. Chegelan witnessed this historical period in an unneeded perspective. His novels, prose. Poetry is more or less related to Chinese culture, Chinese history. Because of his fascination with Chinese culture, understanding of Chinese. His works became an important reference for the later study of the cultures of China and France at that time. Chegelan was also Yuan Shikai's eldest son, Yuan Keding's private doctor and his close relationship with Yuan Shikai. So that the French friend Cheige Lan has his own understanding of Yuan Shikai, but also reflected in his works everywhere. Read the works of Xie GE Lan, the image of Yuan Shikai scattered everywhere, but most of the people with witty. However, in the works of Liang Qichao, a Chinese writer, educator and reform revolutionary, the image of the same historical figure is quite different. Yuan Shikai is treacherous. The image of stealing the fruits of the democratic revolution was deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. He was a puppet leader under the control of the imperialist powers and was the chief justice minister in Yuan Shikai's government. Liang Qichao's view of Yuan should not be groundless. The two writers are in the same time and have a certain understanding of the Chinese and Western cultures and Yuan Shikai. Why is there such a big difference in the image of Yuan Shikai in his works? Whether Cheige Lan, a French writer deeply influenced by Chinese culture, still retains the critical spirit of typical France; And Liang Qichao, who is well versed in western culture and is seeking for new and new changes in response to the great tide of the times, still retains the traditional Chinese doctrine of the mean? If so, why does the reflection of Yuan Shikai's image run counter to its own national identity? This paper will be divided into three parts (historical background, the relationship between the two writers and Yuan Shikai and the comparison of literary excerpts) to try to explain the author's views and solve the above problems.
【学位授予单位】：中国海洋大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：I106.5;I0-03
，

本文编号：1439885