ドストエフスキーと「最初の暴力」 : 外国語の他者性と催眠術としての物語

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Before analyzing Dostoevsky's work, I have described the difficulty that arises when we treat the literature written in the language different from our mother tongue, i.e., Japanese. Some Japanese scholars, including those who are renowned, have come to neglect the difficulty involved with treating such literature. Dostoevsky wrote his work in Russian, while our mother tongue is Japanese. Russian belongs to Indo-European languages, while Japanese doesn't. There are high walls between Japanese and Indo-European languages. Therefore, for instance, American or French readers tend to understand what a Russian writer writes more easily than Japanese do. Consequently, a Japanese doesn't pay too much attention to the otherness of the foreign language when he researches a foreign writer who wrote in the language that belongs to Indo-European languages, like the Russian language. From my point of view, when a Japanese researches the foreign literature written in the language of the Indo-European languages, his role is limited to the following three points: 1) introduction of foreign writers, 2) introduction of their work, and 3) research of translated work. A scholar whose mother tongue belongs to Indo-European languages might think it strange that the role of Japanese scholars is the researching of translated work. However, when a Japanese, like me, who keeps living in Japan, reads in the original a foreign literature of which language belongs to Indo-European languages, it makes no difference whether he reads it in the original or reads its translation. To illustrate it, I have introduced the story of the recollection of Arimasa MORI, who was a famous scholar of French philosophy in Japan. He continued learning French from a French teacher since he was a child. When he became an associate professor of Tokyo University, he went to France to study French philosophy. But, to the astonishment of everybody, he didn't come back to Japan and discarded his family in Japan. He continued to stay in France until his death for the purpose to study French philosophy more perfectly. However, as he publicly mentioned, after all, he was not able to wipe out the otherness which the French language had to Japanese. That is, he was not able to acquire French's common sense. Such tragedy of Arimasa Mori shows clearly the following: the great majority of Japanese scholars of foreign literature, which are written in Indo-European languages, don't have the ability to research these writings. It is because, in continuing to live in Japan, they have studied foreign languages to research foreign literature. They cannot understand the common sense of such foreign languages. Therefore, I state that it is necessary for them to give up the ambition to discuss such foreign literature in the original. From my point of view, they should discuss the problem that can be shared with the readers whose mother tongues are both Japanese and the other languages. In other words, they should discuss the problems which exceed the wall of the language. In order to explain such problems in detail, I have used two pair concepts, i.e. Bergson's quality/qualitative and semantic concepts denotation/connotation. From my point of view, only the quality aspect (i.e. denotational aspect) of a story goes beyond the wall. After finishing such a long preface, at last, I will begin to discuss Dostoevsky's work. In beginning to talk about Dostoevsky, I point out that Dostoevsky is a kind of hypnotist, and that the majority of characters who appear in Dostoevsky's work are put under hypnotism. I will state in detail the nature of hypnotism employed by Dostoevsky in my following analysis.

ドストエフスキーと「最初の暴力」 : 外国語の他者性と催眠術としての物語

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク