论文部分内容阅读
法国诗人圣—琼·佩斯称誉齐奥朗是“瓦莱里以后法国最出色的散文家之一”。不过,对瓦莱里,齐奥朗也算是一个拆台的人。《瓦莱里面对他的偶像》在1970年由厄尔纳出版社出版,1986年和其他论文一起收入散文集《赞誉的习作》,由伽里玛出版社出版。齐奥朗本人在谈到这篇文字时说:“瓦莱里以严谨使人入迷。任何心跳、任何过火都跟他的名字沾不上边。他只是失之高雅。我对他所作的不公正的评论出自一种不纯正的愤激,这是我应该在这里加以揭发的。”他指摘瓦莱里什么呢?瓦莱里追求清醒,过分强调意识,排斥神秘,抹杀心曲的闪念;把心智奉为偶像,在创作方面,步武马拉美,作不近情理的逾分之想;压根儿不是诗人,他的要求是一个艺术家的要求,不是一个诗人的要求,抬高艺术手段和技巧而贬低天禀;把计划看得高于行为,梦想的作品高于实在的;永远记住语言是独一无二的现实,漠视即兴或灵感,字斟句酌,剖毫析厘,在字句上向无穷小的精确求索;赋予语言以异常的地位,使词语替代了意念,追求形式的严格,不是题材的严格,把思想的手段提升为惟一的对象,甚至提升为绝对的替代物,扼杀了活的、丰饶的、现实的思想;过多思考自己心力的活动,混淆了“知识”与“明察”。齐奥朗的文章言简意赅,他的散文得力于瓦莱里不少,其语气的猛烈,也许使读者忽略了作者头脑清楚,思想坚定有力。他评论瓦莱里的时候至少使我们窥见瓦莱里思考的方向与创造的企图及手法。至于瓦莱里的成就,应根据他的作品作出评价。第二次世界大战后二十年间,法国文坛上文艺理论和文学批评家百家并起,理论家和诠释家趾高气扬,搬弄概念之徒被目为思想家或哲学家,严肃认真的作家反遭冷落,前者中一部分人标榜马拉美或瓦莱里的主张,把它们推到极端,或者加以歪曲,齐奥朗的批评对于这些人,倒是比较合适的。
The French poet Saint-Joan Pace praised Chiorang as “one of France’s best prose essays after Valeria.” However, for Valery, Cholang can also be regarded as a dismantling of the people. Valletta’s Face to His Idol was published by Erna Publishing in 1970, and in 1986 along with other essays, the essay The Praise of Exercises, published by Galima Press. When Cholalon himself spoke of the text, he said: “Valeria is so obtrusive. Any heartbeat, anything over his head, does not touch his name. The fair comment comes from an impure resentment, which I should expose here. ”“ What does he mean by Valery? Valery pursues soberness, overemphasis on consciousness, exclusion of mystery, obliteration of the heart of music; His mind is regarded as an idol. In terms of creation, he strove to march toward Latin America. He is not a poet at all. His request is an artist’s request. It is not a poet’s request to raise artistic means and techniques While belittle the innate; the plan is higher than the behavior of behavior, the dream of the work is higher than the real; always remember the language is a unique reality, ignoring improvisation or inspiration, ; Giving the language an anomalous status, replacing words with ideas, pursuing strict forms, not strictly subject matter, elevating the means of thought as the sole object and even the absolute substitute, strangling the living, fertile, reality Thought; think too much about the activities of their own efforts, confused ”knowledge “ and ”clear grasp ." Qi Long’s article concise, his essay force Valery a lot, its tone is fierce, perhaps the reader ignored the author clear-headed, firm and powerful thinking. When we comment on Valery, we at least give us a glimpse of the directions and ideas of Valery’s thinking. Valery’s achievements should be based on his work. In the two decades after the Second World War, literary and art critics of the French literary world came together in hundreds, the archetypes of theorists and interpreters, mentors or philosophers, serious writers, counter neglect . Some of the former people flaunt Malaya or Valery’s proposition, pushed them to the extreme or distorted them, and Chiolon’s criticism would be more appropriate for these people.