【作者】 李会芳；

【导师】 李正栓；

【作者基本信息】 河北师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 许多人注意到在中西诗学领域中存在着一些相似的概念或模式，中国古代美学家庄子的“物化”论和英国十九世纪诗人济慈的“客体感受力”就是这样一对概念，它们之间的相似之处已有人著文指出，但目前还没有人对它们更大程度上的不同之处做出深入探讨。 本文拟就二者的差异出发，对其做进一步的比较。因为这两个概念都是针对作者提出的能力要求，本文也将主要从诗人的角度来论述其差别。本文分为四章：第一章从最明显和最外在的主体状态不同谈起，指出二者的区别在于前者要求一种貌似消极的精神贯注，而后者则专注于主体自身的否定能力；第二章将沿此上溯至二者不同的主体动机，即创作目的的不同。指出“物化”是以达到物我合一，进而探求隐含于客体中的“道”为目的的，带有很强的认识论色彩；而济慈的“客体感受力”则完全侧重于审美感受，诗人的意图也是为了得到纯粹的审美快感。第三章介绍二者在主体对所描述的客体的认知方式上的不同，庄子宣扬一种超越感性和理性的直觉体悟式的认知方式，而济慈则完全借助于自身的感触来完成对客体的创作。最后一章将进入历史层面来比较东西方长久以来的在主客体关系认识上的不同，中国传统的“天人合一”的认识模式和西方一贯的“人”“物”对立的哲学观念是造成上述一切差异的深层根源。更多还原

【Abstract】 Many have noticed that there are some similar ideas or concepts in Western and Chinese poetics, Zhuangzi’s "Materialization" and John Keats’ "Negative Capability" are examples of this kind. Some critics have noticed their similarities and mentioned this in their articles. However my thesis will focus on their contrasts and differences with a closer examination of their cultural background.Since both of these two terms were put up as a demand for the writer, I will arrange my comparisons from the poets’ perspective. This article will be divided into four chapters. The first chapter deals with the most superficial difference between the two, that is their different state of mind, with a simple mention of their commonness, I will focus my study on their difference, that is, "materialization" invites a kind of spiritual concentration besides the seeming passiveness, while "negative capability" put emphasis on the negative ability of the mind; I will explore this difference further into their different aims or intentions for art creation, that is the content of the second chapter, in this chapter, I will explain that the intention of those Chinese poets applying "materialization" is to find identification with the "Tao" lying behind, it has a very strong cognitive intention; but Keats’ aim was mainly aesthetic, he took the sense of beauty as his final aim.The third chapter will deal with their different modes of cognition, Zhuangzi adopted an intuitive method in observing his objects, while Keats fully trusted his perception. The last chapter will make a comparison of the historical views concerning the subject-object relationship, the traditional harmonious relationship between man and nature in China and the unbending belief of the conflicts between human and the world in western culture can serve as the most essential difference and contribute directly to all the differences above.更多还原