约翰.卫斯理 英文讲道 第13篇

约翰.卫斯理 英文讲道 第13篇
约翰.卫斯理 英文讲道 第13篇

John Wesley

SERMON 13

ON SIN IN BELIEVERS

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." 2 Cor. 5:17.

I. 1. Is there then sin in him that is in Christ? Does sin remain in one that believes in him? Is there any sin in them that are born of God, or are they wholly delivered from it? Let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity; or that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. Rather it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian; the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness.

2. And yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive Church. Indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. And so far as I have observed, the whole body of ancient Christians, who have left us anything in writing, declare with one voice, that even believers in Christ, till they are "strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might," have need to "wrestle with flesh and blood," with an evil nature, as well as "with principalities and powers."

3. And herein our own Church (as indeed in most points) exactly copies after the primitive; declaring in her Ninth Article, "Original sin is the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek _phronEma sarkos_, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin."

4. The same testimony is given by all other Churches; not only by the Greek and Romish Church, but by every Reformed Church in Europe, of whatever denomination. Indeed some of these seem to carry the thing too far; so describing the corruption of heart in a believer, as scarce to allow that he has dominion over it, but rather is in bondage thereto; and, by this means, they leave hardly any distinction between a believer and an unbeliever.

5. To avoid this extreme, many well-meaning men, particularly those under the direction of the late Count Zinzendorf, ran into another; affirming, that "all true believers are not only saved from the dominion of sin, but from the being of inward as well as outward sin, so that it no longer remains in them:" And from them, about twenty years ago, many of our countrymen imbibed the same opinion, that even the corruption of nature is no more, in those who believe in Christ.

6. It is true that, when the Germans were pressed upon this head, they soon allowed, (many of them at least,) that "sin did still remain in the flesh, but not in the heart of a believer;" and, after a time, when the absurdity of this was shown, they fairly gave up the point; allowing that sin did still remain, though not reign, in him that is born of God.

7. But the English, who had received it from them, (some directly, some at second or third hand,) were not so easily prevailed upon to part with a favourite opinion: And even when the generality of them were convinced it was utterly indefensible, a few could not be persuaded to give it up, but maintain it to this day.

II. 1. For the sake of these who really fear God, and desire to know "the truth as it is in Jesus," it may not be amiss to consider the point with calmness and impartiality. In doing this, I use indifferently the words, regenerate, justified, or believers; since, though they have not precisely the same meaning, (the First implying an inward, actual change, the Second a relative one, and the Third the means whereby both the one and the other are wrought,) yet they come to one and the same thing; as everyone that believes, is both justified and born of God.

2. By sin, I here understand inward sin; any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ.

3. The question is not concerning outward sin; whether a child of God commits sin or no. We all agree and earnestly maintain, "He that committeth sin is of the devil." We agree, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." Neither do we now inquire whether inward sin will always remain in the children of God; whether sin will continue in the soul as long as it continues in the body: Nor yet do we inquire whether a justified person may relapse either into inward or outward sin; but simply this, Is a justified or regenerate man freed from all sin as soon as he is justified? Is there then no sin in his heart? -- nor ever after, unless he fall from grace?

4. We allow that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious. He is born again, "not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." He is a child of God, a member of Christ, an heir of the kingdom of heaven. "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keepeth his heart and mind in Christ Jesus." His very body is a "temple of the Holy Ghost," and an "habitation of God through the Spirit." He is "created anew in Christ Jesus:" He is washed, he is sanctified. His heart is purified by faith; he is cleansed "from the corruption that is in the world;" "the love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto him." And so long as he "walketh in love," (which he may always do,) he worships God in spirit and in truth. He keepeth the commandments of God, and doeth those things that are pleasing in his sight; so exercising himself as to "have a conscience void of offence, toward God and toward man:" And he has power both over outward and inward sin, even from the moment he is justified.

III. 1. "But was he not then freed from all sin, so that there is no sin in his heart?" I cannot say this; I cannot believe it; because St. Paul says the contrary. He is speaking to believers, and describing the state of believers in general, when he says, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: These are contrary the one to the other." (Gal. 5:17) Nothing can be more express. The Apostle here directly affirms that the flesh, evil nature, opposes the Spirit, even in believers; that even in the regenerate there are two principles, "contrary the one to the other."

2. Again: When he writes to the believers at Corinth, to those who were sanctified in Christ Jesus, (1 Cor. 1:2) he says, "I, brethren, could not speak unto you, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. Ye are yet carnal: For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal?" (1 Cor. 3:1-3) Now here the Apostle speaks unto those who were unquestionably believers, -- whom, in the same breath, he styles his brethren in Christ, -- as being still, in a measure, carnal. He affirms, there was envying, (an evil temper,) occasioning strife among them, and yet does not give the least intimation that they had lost their faith. Nay, he manifestly declares they had not; for then they would not have been babes in Christ. And (what is most remarkable of all) he speaks of being carnal, and babes in Christ, as one and the same thing; plainly showing that every believer is (in a degree) carnal, while he is only a babe in Christ.

3. Indeed this grand point, that there are two contrary principles in believers, -- nature and grace, the flesh and the Spirit, runs through all the Epistles of St. Paul, yea, through all the Holy Scriptures; almost all the directions and exhortations therein are founded on this

supposition; pointing at wrong tempers or practices in those who are, notwithstanding, acknowledged by the inspired writers to be believers. And they are continually exhorted to fight with and conquer these, by the power of the faith which was in them.

4. And who can doubt, but there was faith in the angel of the church of Ephesus, when our Lord said to him, "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience: Thou hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted?" (Rev. 2:2-4.) But was there, meantime, no sin in his heart? Yea, or Christ would not have added, "Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." This was real sin which God saw in his heart; of which, accordingly, he is exhorted to repent: And yet we have no authority to say, that even then he had no faith.

5. Nay, the angel of the church at Pergamos, also, is exhorted to repent, which implies sin, though our Lord expressly says, "Thou hast not denied my faith." (Rev. 2:13, 16) And to the angel of the church in Sardis, he says, "Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die." The good which remained was ready to die; but was not actually dead. (Rev. 3:2) So there was still a spark of faith even in him; which he is accordingly commanded to hold fast. (Rev. 3:3.)

6. Once more: When the Apostle exhorts believers to "cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit," (2 Cor. 7:1,) he plainly teaches, that those believers were not yet cleansed therefrom.

Will you answer, "He that abstains from all appearance of evil, does ipso facto cleanse himself from all filthiness?" Not in any wise. For instance: A man reviles me: I feel resentment, which is filthiness of spirit; yet I say not a word. Here I "abstain from all appearance of evil;" but this does not cleanse me from that filthiness of spirit, as I experience to my sorrow.

7. And as this position, "There is no sin in a believer, no carnal mind, no bent to backsliding," is thus contrary to the word of God, so it is to the experience of his children. These continually feel an heart bent to backsliding; a natural tendency to evil; a proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. They are daily sensible of sin remaining in their heart, -- pride, self-will, unbelief; and of sin cleaving to all they speak and do, even their best actions and holiest duties. Yet at the same time they "know that they are of God;" they cannot doubt of it for a moment. They feel his Spirit clearly "witnessing with their spirit, that they are the children of God." They "rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement." So

that they are equally assured, that sin is in them, and that "Christ is in them the hope of glory."

8. "But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is?" Undoubtedly he can; otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. Where the sickness is, there is the Physician,

Carrying on his work within,

Striving till he cast out sin.

Christ indeed cannot reign,where sin reigns;neither will he dwell where any sin is allowed. But he is and dwells in the heart of every believer, who is fighting against all sin; although it be not yet purified, according to the purification of the sanctuary.

9. It has been observed before, that the opposite doctrine, -- That there is no sin in believers, -- is quite new in the church of Christ; that it was never heard of for seventeen hundred years; never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendorf. I do not remember to have seen the least intimation of it, either in any ancient or modern writer; unless perhaps in some of the wild, ranting Antinomians. And these likewise say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin in their flesh,although no sin in their heart. But whatever doctrine is new must be wrong; for the old religion is the only true one; and no doctrine can be right, unless it is the very same "which was from the beginning."

10. One argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. One says, "I felt anger to-day." Must I reply, "Then you have no faith?" Another says, "I know what you advise is good, but my will is quite averse to it." Must I tell him, "Then you are an unbeliever, under the wrath and the curse of God?" What will be the natural consequence of this? Why, if he believe what I say, his soul will not only be grieved and wounded, but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch as he will "cast away" that "confidence which hath great recompense of reward:" And having cast away his shield, how shall he "quench the fiery darts of the wicked one?" How shall he overcome the world? -- seeing "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." He stands disarmed in the midst of his enemies, open to all their assaults. What wonder then, if he be utterly overthrown; if they take him captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wickedness to another, and never see good any more? I cannot, therefore, by any means receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; First, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture; -- Secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children of God; -- Thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; -- and Lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal

consequences; not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.

IV. 1. However, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavour to support it. And it is, First, from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. They argue thus: "The Scripture says, Every believer is born of God, is clean, is holy, is sanctified, is pure in heart, has a new heart, is a temple of the Holy Ghost. Now, as `that which is born of the flesh is flesh,' is altogether evil, so `that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,' is altogether good. Again: A man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy. He cannot be pure and impure, or have a new and an old heart together. Neither can his soul be unholy, while it is a temple of the Holy Ghost.

I have put this objection as strong as possible, that its full weight may appear. Let us now examine it, part by part. And, 1. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, is altogether good." I allow the text, but not the comment. For the text affirms this, and no more, -- that every man who is "born of the Spirit," is a spiritual man. He is so: But so he may be, and yet not be altogether spiritual. The Christians at Corinth were spiritual men; else they had been no Christians at all; and yet they were not altogether spiritual: they were still, in part, carnal. -- "But they were fallen from grace." St. Paul says, No. They were even then babes in Christ. 2. "But a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy." Indeed he may. So the Corinthians were. "Ye are washed," says the Apostle, "ye are sanctified;" namely, cleansed from "fornication, idolatry, drunkenness," and all other outward sin; (1 Cor. 6:9, 10, 11;) and yet at the same time, in another sense of the word, they were unsanctified; they were not washed, not inwardly cleansed from envy, evil surmising, partiality. -- "But sure, they had not a new heart and an old heart together." It is most sure they had, for at that very time, their hearts were truly, yet not entirely, renewed. Their carnal mind was nailed to the cross; yet it was not wholly destroyed. -- "But could they be unholy while they were `temples of the Holy Ghost?'" Yes; that they were temples of the Holy Ghost, is certain; (1 Cor. 6:19;) and it is equally certain, they were, in some degree, carnal, that is, unholy.

2. "However, there is one Scripture more which will put the matter out of question: `If any man be' a believer `in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.' (2 Cor. 5:17.) Now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once." Yes, he may: He may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. They were doubtless "renewed in the spirit of their

mind," or they could not have been so much as "babes in Christ." yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they envied one another. "But it is said expressly, `Old things are passed away: All things are become new.'" But we must not so interpret the Apostle's words, as to make him contradict himself. And if we will make him consistent with himself, the plain meaning of the words is this: His old judgment concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed concerning the things of God in general, is now passed away; so are his old desires, designs, affections, tempers, and conversation. All these are undeniably become new, greatly changed from what they were; and yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. Still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the old man, too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, though they cannot gain any advantage over him, as long as he watches unto prayer.

3. This whole argument, "If he is clean, he is clean;" "If he is holy, he is holy;" (and twenty more expressions of the same kind may easily be heaped together;) is really no better than playing upon words: It is the fallacy of arguing from a particular to a general;of inferring a general conclusion from particular premises. Propose the sentence entire, and it runs thus: "If he is holy at all, he is holy altogether." That does not follow: Every babe in Christ is holy, and yet not altogether so. He is saved from sin; yet not entirely: It remains, though it does not reign. If you think it does not remain,(in babes at least, whatever be the case with young men, or fathers) you certainly have not considered the height, and depth, and length, and breadth of the law of God; (even the law of love, laid down by St. Paul in the thirteenth of Corinthians;) and that every_anomia_, disconformity to, or deviation from, this law is sin.Now, is there no disconformity to this in the heart or life of a believer? What may be in an adult Christian, is another question; but what a stranger must he be to human nature, who can possibly imagine, that this is the case with every babe in Christ!

4. "But believers walk after the Spirit, [What follows for some pages is an answer to a paper, published in the Christian Magazine, p. 577-582.

I am surprised Mr. Dodd should give such a paper a place in his Magazine, which is directly contrary to our Ninth Article. -- Editor] (Rom. 8:1,) and the Spirit of God dwells in them; consequently, they are delivered from the guilt, the power, or, in one word, the being of sin."

These are coupled together, as if they were the same thing. But they are not the same thing. The guilt is one thing, the power another, and the being yet another. That believers are delivered from the guilt and power of sin we allow; that they are delivered from the being of it we deny. Nor does it in any wise follow from these texts. A man may have the Spirit

of God dwelling in him, and may "walk after the Spirit," though he still feels "the flesh lusting against the Spirit."

5. "But the `church is the body of Christ;' (Col. 1:24;) this implies, that its members are washed from all filthiness; otherwise it will follow, that Christ and Belial are incorporated with each other."

Nay, it will not follow from hence, "Those who are the mystical body of Christ, still feel the flesh lusting against the Spirit," that Christ has any fellowship with the devil; or with that sin which he enables them to resist and overcome.

6. "But are not Christians `come to the heavenly Jerusalem,' where

`nothing defiled can enter?'" (Heb. 12:22.) Yes; "and to an innumerable company of angels, and to the spirits of just men made perfect:" That is,

Earth and heaven all agree;

All is one great family.

And they are likewise holy and undefiled, while they "walk after the Spirit;" although sensible there is another principle in them, and that "these are contrary to each other."

7. "But Christians are reconciled to God. Now this could not be, if any of the carnal mind remained; for this is enmity against God: Consequently, no reconciliation can be effected, but by its total destruction."

We are "reconciled to God through the blood of the cross:" And in that moment the _phronEma sarkos_, the corruption of nature, which is enmity with God, is put under our feet; the flesh has no more dominion over us. But it still _exists;_ and it is still in its nature enmity with God, lusting against his Spirit.

8. "But `they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts.'" (Gal. 5:24.) They have so; yet it remains in them still, and often struggles to break from the cross. "Nay, but they have `put off the old man with his deeds.'" (Col. 3:9.) They have; and, in the sense above described, "old things are passed away; all things are become new." A hundred texts may be cited to the same effect; and they will all admit of the same answer. -- "But, to say all in one word, `Christ gave himself for the Church, that it might be holy and without blemish.'" (Eph. 5:25, 27.) And so it will be in the end: But it never was yet, from the beginning to this day.

9. "But let experience speak: All who are justified do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin." That I doubt; But, if they do, do they

find it ever after? Else you gain nothing. -- "If they do not, it is their own fault." That remains to be proved.

10. "But, in the very nature of things, can a man have pride in him, and not be proud; anger, and yet not be angry?"

A man may have pride in him, may think of himself in some particulars above what he ought to think, (and so be proud in that particular,) and yet not be a proud man in his general character. He may have anger in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, without giving way to it. -- "But can anger and pride be in that heart, where only meekness and humility are felt?" No; but some pride and anger may be in that heart, where there is much humility and meekness.

"It avails not to say, These tempers are there, but they do not reign: For sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign; for guilt and power are essential properties of sin. Therefore, where one of them is, all must be."

Strange indeed! "Sin cannot, in any kind or degree, exist where it does not reign?" Absolutely contrary this to all experience, all Scripture, all common sense. Resentment of an affront is sin; it is _anomia,_ disconformity to the law of love. This has existed in me a thousand times. Yet it did not, and does not, reign.-- "But guilt and power are essential properties of sin; therefore where one is, all must be." No: In the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all, no condemnation from God upon that account. And in this case, it has no power: though it "lusteth against the Spirit," it cannot prevail. Here, therefore, as in ten thousand instances, there is sin without either guilt or power.

11. "But the supposing sin in a believer is pregnant with everything frightful and discouraging. It implies the contending with a power that has the possession of our strength; maintains his usurpation of our hearts; and there prosecutes the war in defiance of our Redeemer." Not so: The supposing sin is in us, does not imply that it has the possession of our strength; no more than a man crucified has the possession of those that crucify him. As little does it imply, that "sin maintains its usurpation of our hearts." The usurper is dethroned. He remains indeed where he once reigned; but remains in chains.So that he does, in some sense, "prosecute the war," yet he grows weaker and weaker; while the believer goes on from strength to strength, conquering and to conquer.

12. "I am not satisfied yet: He that has sin in him, is a slave to sin. Therefore you suppose a man to be justified, while he is a slave to sin.

Now, if you allow men may be justified while they have pride, anger, or unbelief in them; nay, if you aver, these are (at least for a time) in all that are justified; what wonder that we have so many proud, angry, unbelieving believers!

I do not suppose any man who is justified is a slave to sin: Yet I do suppose sin remains (at least for a time) in all that are justified.

"But, if sin remains in a believer, he is a sinful man: If pride, for instance, then he is proud; if self-will, then he is self-willed; if unbelief, then he is an unbeliever; consequently, no believer at all. How then does he differ from unbelievers, from unregenerate men?" This is still mere playing upon words. It means no more than, if there is sin, pride, self-will in him, then -- there is sin, pride, self-will. And this nobody can deny. In that sense then he is proud, or self-willed. But he is not proud or self-willed in the same sense that unbelievers are; that is, governed by pride or self-will. Herein he differs from unregenerate men. They obey sin; he does not. Flesh is in them both. But they "walk after the flesh;" he "walks after the Spirit."

"But how can unbelief be in a believer?" That word has two meanings. It means either no faith, or little faith; either the absence of faith or the weakness of it. In the former sense, unbelief is not in a believer; in the latter, it is in all babes. Their faith is commonly mixed with doubt or fear; that is, in the latter sense, with unbelief. "Why are ye fearful," says our Lord, "O ye of little faith?" Again: "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" You see here was unbelief in believers; little faith and much unbelief.

13. "But this doctrine, that sin remains in a believer; that a man may be in the favour of God, while he has sin in his heart; certainly tends to encourage men in sin." Understand the proposition right, and no such consequence follows. A man may be in God's favour though he feel sin; but not if he yields to it. Having sin does not forfeit the favour of God; giving way to sin does. Though the flesh in you "lust against the Spirit," you may still be a child of God; but if you "walk after the flesh," you are a child of the devil. Now this doctrine does not encourage to obey sin, but to resist it with all our might.

V. 1. The sum of all is this: There are in every person, even after he is justified, two contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul the flesh and the Spirit. Hence, although even babes in Christ are sanctified,yet it is only in part. In a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet, in a degree they are carnal. Accordingly, believers are continually exhorted to watch against the

flesh, as well as the world and the devil. And to this agrees the constant experience of the children of God. While they feel this witness in themselves, they feel a will not wholly resigned to the will of God. They know they are in him; and yet find an heart ready to depart from him, a proneness to evil in many instances, and a backwardness to that which is good. The contrary doctrine is wholly new; never heard of in the church of Christ, from the time of his coming into the world, till the time of Count Zinzendorf; and it is attended with the most fatal consequences. It cuts off all watching against our evil nature, against the Delilah which we are told is gone, though she is still lying in our bosom. It tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

2. Let us, therefore, hold fast the sound doctrine "once delivered to the saints," and delivered down by them with the written word to all succeeding generations: That although we are renewed, cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether; but the flesh, the evil nature, still remains (though subdued) and wars against the Spirit. So much the more let us use all diligence in "fighting the good fight of faith." So much the more earnestly let us "watch and pray" against the enemy within. The more carefully let us take to ourselves, and "put on, the whole armor of God;" that, although "we wrestle" both "with flesh, and blood, and with the principalities, and with powers, and wicked spirits in high places," we may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

[Edited by Angel Miller, student at Northwest Nazarene College (Nampa, ID), with corrections by George Lyons for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.]

工业革命时期英国卫斯理宗

暨南学报(哲学社会科学) 第22卷 第5期JOURNAL OF JINAN UNIVERSITY Vol.22 No.5 2000年9月(Philosophy&Social Sciences Edition) Sep., 2000 工业革命时期英国卫斯理宗(1740-1840) 周文英 (中国人民公安大学马列部,北京 100038) [摘 要] 卫斯理宗(又称循道宗)诞生于18世纪的英国,它是国教牧师约翰·卫斯理创立的, 卫斯理宗既是一场宗教革命———福音主义运动,又是一场声势浩大的群众运动,广泛地影响了英 国工业革命前后时期的社会生活,具有巨大的社会整合功能。 [关键词] 卫斯理宗;英国;社会整合功能 [中图分类号]B928 [文献标识码]A [文章编号]1000-5072(2000)05-0078-06 近世英国,尤其是18世纪,经历了新旧社会的转变。在这期间,国教衰落,卫斯理宗应运而生,随着它的不断发展,它广泛地影响了当时的社会,引出了许多连其创始人———国教牧师约翰·卫斯理(1703-1791)本人也未曾料到的后果。因此,有的史学家把卫斯理宗和法国大革命并列为震撼18世纪的两件大事。 一、卫斯理宗的产生 卫斯理宗诞生于18世纪的英国社会,它是当时的国教牧师约翰·卫斯理创立的,是当时特定条件下的产物。 不管人们是否承认,18世纪是英国历史上的重要时期。此时,那些统治现代社会的因素,如经济、政治、宗教、社会等等,各呈纷异,各显异彩。即使人们当时没有意识到这些变化着的因素,却也无法否认,这个时期是新旧英国社会转型的典型时期,新兴产业兴起,国教受到起来越激烈的挑战,“旧体制”痛苦而艰难地走向衰落,而在精神领域,整个18世纪的国教及其神职人员除少数几个牧师有惊人的献身精神外,一般不以基督信念关心社会,因而没能成为“教化社区的道德楷模”。这是一个精神疲软、希望破灭的时代,它充满惰性又缺乏远见,又由于理性主义的盛行,人们宗教情感淡漠。 卫斯理生活的时代,在英国历史上是一个动荡和大变迁的时代。当时的英格兰,一方面交通落后,政治腐败,人亿贫病交加,在贵族队级的统治下过着悲惨的生活;另一方面,新兴产业出现萌芽,乡村人口逐渐移向城市,工人以低价出卖劳动力,工作时间长,工作环境恶劣,他们的子弟没有接受教育的机会。立法及行政权力完全操纵在贵族手中,平民无权过问,法律成为压迫平民的工具。如13岁的小偷若偷3先令就会被处死,因此,许多史学家称18世纪为英国最不同情平民的世纪。 英国穷人悲惨命运的造成,在于他们被当成了牺牲品,这也正是社会不安、精神空虚的原因。不管是农业革命,还是随后的工业革命,虽然创造了巨大的物质财富,而平民生活未见变好。为逃避痛苦的现实,他们把希望转寄于宗教———一种关心他们,并令他们共鸣的新宗教,而“一生,无论言行,非常关心穷人,并时时为他们考虑的卫理斯创立的宗教,正适应了平民的希求。 18世纪前半期,由于首相沃尔波尔及佩勒姆兄弟发展了一套不依赖国教的行政管理机构,国教在贵族阶 [收稿日期] 2000-07-10 [作者简介] 周文英(1965—),女,江苏连云港人,讲师,主要研究欧洲史。

浅谈氓中女主人公的婚姻悲剧

浅谈《氓》中女主人的婚姻悲剧 梅凡 新课改标准教材必修2中,有一篇脍炙人口的名篇《氓》,它可说是《诗经》中的代表,通过学与教我深深为女主人公的婚姻感到不平与同情。为此,我就《氓》中的女主人公的婚姻悲剧略谈一二。 (一)其婚姻不幸是由社会制度决定的 在奴隶社会向封建社会转型期间,造成女主人公的悲剧具有一定的必然性和普普遍性,这是由当时社会制度决定的。在男权社会中,女性在经济、政治都处于附属地位。她们没有什么经济来源,地位也很低下。其生活的天地狭小。在家相夫教子,生活的幸福与否都维系在丈夫的身上。 尽管《氓》中的女主人公十分勤劳、善良。正象文中所写:“三岁为妇,靡室劳矣。夙兴夜寐,靡有朝矣。”女主人公整天起早贪黑,辛勤劳作,干尽家里的劳苦活儿。一年四季,天天如此,但经济的主要来源毕竟来自丈夫氓身上。在漫长的封建社会甚至氓所处的奴隶社会末期,女人在经济上没有独立。经济上的依附关系,就必然形成人格上的尊严。大家知道,日本和韩国妇女地位较低,因为这两个国家的女子结婚后往往在家做专职主妇。 在政治方面,女主人工的地位是非常低下的。正像政治经济学所说,经济基础决定上层建筑。氓中的女主人公同样也一样,男主内,女主外。女性往往被称为“内人”,“屋内人”,甚至连名字也没有。比如刘氏、李氏等。就好比文中的女主人公连姓氏也没有一样。这些都可以看出女性的地位是由所处

的社会制定的。 (二)婚姻的不幸也与当时婚姻制度、社会伦理道德有关系 婚前,女主人与氓是自由恋爱,这与当时所推行的“父母之命,媒妁之言”有点不符。因为当两人婚姻不稳定时,父母及媒人可从中调和,维持婚姻的稳定。然而,婚后,女主人与氓两人的距离越来越远,家人对女主人不了解,不同情。正像文中所写“兄弟不知,唏其笑矣”。自己婚后起早贪黑,天天如此,年年如此。女主人嫁给氓本想平平淡淡度完一生,哪知氓“二三其德”,喜新厌旧。丈夫的背信离弃,家人的不了解,所有的痛只有自己默默承受着。就像《孔雀东南飞》中兰芝被休,其刘兄的逼婚,兰芝只好口是心非的答应了太守的求婚。社会伦理道德无疑是对女主人公的婚姻雪上加霜。在婚姻悲剧中,受伤的总是女子。加之当时社会所处于奴隶社会向封建社会转型期,其婚姻制度、社会伦理道德都不健全。男子一人可娶几个老婆,女子终身则只能嫁一个丈夫。女子与丈夫氓由于对婚姻有着不同的认识,“士之耽兮,犹可说也;女之耽兮,不可说也。”一旦女子认定一个丈夫后,便从一而终,把感情看成生命的全部;而男子则不同,他只不过把感情看成生命的一部分,男子在外面寻花问柳都有可能。婚姻制度、社会伦理道德的不健全,不能有效的保护女子婚姻的合法权益。一旦遇人不淑,她的婚姻必然是悲剧的。 (三)朝三暮四的男子也是导致女主人婚姻悲剧的原因之一《氓》中的男主人氓是一个负心汉的形象。婚前,他们是有着真挚的感情基础。“总

浅论《骆驼祥子》的悲剧性

浅论《骆驼祥子》的悲剧性 2002中文李书山学号3990202052 摘要:悲剧作品总是呼唤着人们共同正视生活的残酷、斗争的艰巨和精神上的痛苦。《骆驼祥子》这部作品典型化地塑造了主人公祥子的悲剧形象。对祥子悲剧性的揭示表现在三个方面,即:从“人”到“牲口”的蜕变,社会的黑暗,婚姻的不幸。祥子这一形象向人们提出了一个十分严肃和迫切的社会问题,那就是下层人民的命运和道路问题。祥子的悲剧显示了这部悲剧作品的深刻思想意义和现实意义。 关键词:黑暗社会酿成悲剧 “小说的成败,是以人物为准,不仗着事实。世事万千,都转眼即逝,一时新颖,不久即归陈腐,只有人物永垂不朽。”[1]老舍的长篇小说《骆驼祥子》是个悲剧作品,半个世纪以来一直以它的悲剧性激动和启发着读者。小说主人公祥子被公认为现代文学史上人力车夫以至于其它城市个体劳动者的典型形象,被普遍的当作这类苦力的代名词,同义词。作者对祥子形象的刻画使人们从中感到艺术的巨大力量和深远影响,这不是一般意义上的艺术吸引或者思想触动,而是穿透心灵的震撼,通向现实的思考。读者能够从中记忆起曾经一再发生过的悲剧,由此激起的“怜悯与恐惧”的悲剧效果,自然也就格外沉重,使人久久难以忘怀! 一、从“人”到“牲口”的蜕变。 《骆驼祥子》写的是旧中国北平一个外号叫“骆驼”,名叫祥子的人力车夫的悲剧。 1、祥子原先具有许多劳动人民的优秀品质。 A、他有骆驼一般坚韧不拔的毅力。自从他选中了拉车这一行之后,最大的希望就是买上一辆自己的车。买一辆车得一百块钱。他想到“一天要是能剩一角的话,一百元就是一千天!把一千天堆到一块,他几乎算不过来这该有多么远。”但是他下定了决心,一千天,一万天也得买车。他买的第一辆车被大兵抢去了,他又得从零开始“挣扎和困苦”。看到别人喝酒抽烟跑土窑子,他也动过心,但他咬了牙还是不动一动自己攒的那点钱,坚持要买车,“即使今天买了,明天就丢了,他也得买。” B、他勤劳本分,不愿吃剥削饭。在曹宅拉包月时,高妈虽劝他把钱放出去,放给那些“时常为一块钱急得红着眼转磨的人”“钱就会下钱”。祥子可不愿意。祥子和虎妞结婚后,虎

浅谈《红楼梦》的婚姻爱情悲剧

浅谈《红楼梦》的婚姻爱情悲剧 “开谈不说《红楼梦》,纵读诗书也枉然。”从这句话,可以看出人们对《红楼梦》的高度赞赏,以及对它的推崇。从《红楼梦》现世到今,已有一两百年的时间。我们也说了一两百年,不但没有说完,还成了现今社会的一大热点;《红楼梦》增删了五次,披阅了十载的,不仅没有写完,作者还泪尽而逝。《红楼梦》是曹雪芹“呕心沥血”,长期艰辛劳动才给子孙后世留传下来的一件宝贵的艺术珍品。 自《红楼梦》出世以来,人们一直在读红楼,说红楼。因它的美而惊叹连连,因它的悲而悄然落泪,甚至因对它的品评而“遂相龃龌,几挥老拳”。《红楼梦》的出现,可以毫不夸张的说让当时的整个社会都为之一振,甚至影响至今。从而引起了人们人们对其品评、研究的极大兴趣。下面我就以宝、黛、钗尤其是宝黛之间的爱情,来浅谈一下《红楼梦》中的爱情婚姻悲剧。 自《红楼梦》问世以来,关于宝、钗、黛爱情的评论就从来没有停止过。可以说,这是一个古老而常新的话题。贾宝玉、林黛玉、薛宝钗最终是以不幸作结的。宝玉出家、黛玉悲死、宝钗守寡,他们同样成了封建礼教的殉葬品。尽管宝玉对黛玉爱得死去活来,终究免不了黛玉一死的命运;尽管宝玉如何的与宝钗不融合,也终究免不了娶她为妻的结局。整个梦终成一场空。贾宝玉,林黛玉和薛宝钗的爱情婚姻悲剧,是《红楼梦》悲剧的主线。其是贯穿全书的一条主线。我们首先看宝黛钗三人之间的爱情关系:宝玉深爱着青梅竹马的黛玉,但他却不能与之生死相守。宝玉视黛玉为红尘知己,但黛玉的飘然而逝,令宝玉心如死灰。可以说,黛玉的死对宝玉来说不仅是爱的破灭,而且也是人生价值的彻底毁灭。再来看宝玉和宝钗,虽然宝玉在丢失了通灵宝玉、神志不清的情况下被迫与宝钗成亲,但他却不爱宝钗,不愿与之厮守一生。宝钗虽然与贾宝玉成婚了,但也只是得到贾宝玉毫无灵气的空壳躯体。相比较之下,也许薛宝钗的命运比林黛玉更富有悲剧性。 我们先看宝黛的悲剧,《红楼梦》所提供的金玉姻缘和木石前盟的故事框架,其意义要远远超出故事本身。薛宝钗的“金”是草“木”之人林黛玉的克星,而贾宝玉的“石”有两重性,既可化为土而生木,又可采炼而成金,所以有“木石前盟”和“金玉因缘”两种可能。薛林二人是作为两种对立的审美、理想和精神的化身而出现的,贾宝玉存在的意义,是尝试某种取舍的可能性。他负担者巨大的精神矛盾,贾宝玉和林黛玉悲剧,实际上是无从选择的。

托尔斯泰与福楼拜笔下的爱情悲剧

憧憬美好·现实残酷 托尔斯泰和福楼拜笔下的两种爱情悲剧 20101443 戏文牛乐耕内容简要: 列夫.托尔斯泰和福楼拜都是19世纪著名的现实主义作家。而他们的代表作《安娜卡列尼娜》和《包法利夫人》也都是流传千古的佳篇。其中的俩位女主人公有惊人的相似性,她们生活在近似的年代,她们在外人看来表面上都过着幸福的生活,但是她们内心空虚,有着不美满的婚姻。她们都追求个性的解放,都有着对爱情的理想,都在最后因爱情理想破碎而自绝;然而她们不同的社会地位,爱情观,却又使她们存在着较大的差异。 以下我将从四个方面来分析两部小说的主人公安娜·卡列尼娜和爱玛悲剧的异同。 一、社会背景与人物的社会地位 从社会背景上讲安娜·卡列尼娜(下文简称安娜)生活在l9世纪70年代的俄国,爱玛则生活于19世纪中叶的法国,她们所处的时代分别是资产阶级革命和农奴制度改革后的资本主义发展阶段。在这个时代,资产阶级追求自由民主的思想与封建主意守旧观念、妇女解放与男权至上之间存在着尖锐的矛盾,使她们拥有了共有的时代特征。 从社会地位上讲,身处贵族家庭的安娜身世显赫,享受高雅优越的生活,出入各种高档的社交场所,处处受人恭维,处于上层社会。

但是她的婚姻是贵族宗法制的牺牲品,这种不是基于爱情的婚姻,注定不会幸福。在她安之若素地和卡列宁一起生活的八年中,丈夫热衷于官场应酬,只知玩弄文牍,把她只当做一个装饰品。于是乎她的满腔热情被残忍地压制了,直到她见到沃伦斯基,压抑已久的情感得到了释放,很自然的抛弃了本不幸福的婚姻。 爱玛社会地位和安娜截然不同,爱玛出生于农民家庭,婚后和做医生的丈夫生活在小镇上,和安娜不同的是她的丈夫对她很好,甚至可以说是宠爱。但她渴望的是那种“勇敢得像狮子、温顺得像羔羊、善良的人间少有、哭泣时泪如泉涌衣着华丽的高贵男人”○1同时“盼望远处田野中驰来的一位骑黑马插白羽毛的骑士”○2她不满足于平庸无趣的生活,在内心的欲望和对爱情的幻想的促使下,她奔向了情人的怀抱。 二、两人的爱情观、追求爱情和追求结果的方式不同 首先从爱情观方面谈,安娜和沃伦斯基追求的是单纯的、精神上的美好爱情,而爱玛追求的不仅仅局限与单纯的爱情,其中还夹杂着肉欲、物欲和背叛。在爱情观上爱玛就是不纯洁的。 其次在从追求爱情的方式上来谈 安娜:内心热情被压抑——婚外恋——闹离婚——公然站走来解决在这个过程中表现地更多的是出安娜对“自我”个性解放的追求。爱玛:内心欲望,不甘平庸——私通、偷情——准备私奔在这个过程中更多的是其内心欲望的发泄。 再次从追求爱情的结果来看

子君涓生婚恋悲剧浅谈并现代婚姻启示

子君涓生婚恋悲剧浅析并现代婚姻启示 宋欣泽 2012年3月 摘要: 子君涓生是鲁迅先生《伤逝》里的主人公,受“五四”新文化运动影响,他们顶着各方压力组成家庭但最终以悲剧结局。他们的爱情悲剧是环境因素、个人因素共同作用的结果。作为一部优秀的文学作品,他们的悲剧引人深思,不仅启发当时盲目追求个性解放、不顾后果的年轻人理智思考“解放”后的现实生活问题,也对当代的爱情婚姻生活有一定的教育指导意义。 关键字:环境;子君;涓生;现实;婚姻生活; 导言: 《伤逝》是鲁迅先生唯一一部以青年恋爱和婚姻为题材的作品。恋爱自由、婚姻自主是“五四”以后青年所普遍关心的一个问题,《伤逝》以独特的视角描写了涓生和子君的恋爱及其破灭过程。作为践行新的婚姻观念的先驱,子君涓生的爱情婚姻悲剧有一定的启发性,不论对当时还是在当世都有着发人深省的现实教育意义。下面我将从环境因素、个人因素方面分析他们爱情悲剧的原因并论说这出悲剧对现代婚姻的启示。 外部环境因素影响 1、社会环境因素 自“罢黜百家,独尊儒术”始,封建道德礼教是作为一种行之有效的政治手段备受历代统治阶级推崇的,它披着礼教的外衣控制着一代又一代人的思想和行为,使每个人做的每件事都在一定的规则范围之内。本是统治阶级用以愚民驭民的方法,但经过千百年来的实践与完善,它已经成为一种行为方式,一种社会标准,一种自

然习惯,是比写在纸上的律法更深入人心的溶入骨血的存在。虽然“五四”新文化运动的开展启发和鼓舞了很多进步青年和知识分子积极追求个性解放,努力争取过自己想要的人生,但就整个社会环境而言,绝大多数人仍按着封建道德礼教自觉约束自己的生活,并自发监督别人的生活。就封建婚姻观而言是听从“父母之命”,儿女的婚事由家长作主,由于封建礼教是男本位的礼教,女性更被约束以“三从四德”,一生中根本不能有自己的想法,所以子君追求自由婚姻的举动是相当离经叛道的。社会环境的严峻使子君与涓生在交往的过程中被监视、窥测,涓生的好友纷纷替他胆怯而规劝,他们两人租住房子被房东多次委婉拒绝,终于涓生被他的单位领导除名。种种遭遇都表明了当时封建道德礼教对市井人心仍具有独一无二的影响力。因为涓生子君结合的非礼教性使的他们成为众矢之的备受冷落,承受巨大的精神压力,并直接导致了涓生的失业从而面临现实的生存压力。 2、家庭环境因素 家庭是遵循执行封建制度的基础单位,家国一体封建秩序的根基正是通过家庭这个单位来维系和稳固的。子君作为组成家庭的个体也不能例外,就家庭环境而言,封建家长对子女的婚姻必然按照礼教认可的方式进行且只承认礼教允许的方式。只因为子君自主选择了婚姻就让她的族叔不再认她做侄女,这充分显示了封建道德对人性人情的扭曲、异化,只有在那样的社会背景下礼教才能大于亲情,骨肉亲情才会被完全泯灭。就子君个人而言家庭不是包容她自由选择婚姻的所在,要想自由结合只有自绝于家庭一途。就子君的家庭而言,不再承认个体是家庭的一员,是封建家长撇清与不守礼法的家人的关系的最佳途径,是丢卒保车的家庭整体利益策略,通过舍弃“异类”而让整个家庭仍处于社会规范内不受牵连才是最重要的。子君的出走首先在婚姻关系中是孤注一掷,没有退路的:她的婚姻只许成功不能失败,否则将无以自处,这种背水一战在精神上是存在压力的。其次,她在以后的婚姻生活

对“骆驼祥子”悲剧命运原因分析

对“骆驼祥子”悲剧命运原因分析 《骆驼祥子》是老舍的长篇小说代表作,它塑造了“骆驼祥子”这个无产阶级形象。主人公祥子原本强壮有力、勤劳淳朴,以其最高生活理想“买一辆洋车”为集中体现。但这一简单而朴实的愿望在经过了三起三落之后,终于全然落空。原本对生活充满期望的祥子也渐渐堕落下去,在唯一的依靠小福子去世后最终凄惨的迎来了自己的末日。小说表现了这样一个拉车夫小人物的悲惨命运,使读者对祥子这个人物产生了深深的同情和思考。表面看起来,祥子身体健壮,实朴敦厚,有刘四爷的车厂可以依靠,也有虎妞这样能干泼辣的妻子,实际上祥子的命运是一个注定悲剧的结局。 虎妞通过引诱、骗婚等等手段,终于逼迫祥子与她成婚。而他们的婚姻从根本上存在尖锐矛盾。虎妞其实是导致祥子最终命运最直接的原因。虎妞是一个受资本主义影响的强悍女子,不甘心做一个车夫的妻子,因此希望祥子走上自己期望的生活轨道,做买卖、开工厂,像刘四爷一样做一个剥削别人的资本家。而祥子的愿望始终简单如一,买辆洋车,拉一辈子车。事实上虎妞对于祥子只是一种简单粗暴的关心和疼爱,而祥子心理的软弱让他不得不接受不敢反抗,渐渐使得祥子对虎妞的思念和眷恋转化为了恐惧和憎恨,也感觉到了虎妞对他的爱已经全然变为了捆绑和束缚。他觉得自己“已不是一个人而是一块肉,他没有了自己,只在她的牙中

挣扎着,像被猫叼住的一个小老鼠”。最后对虎妞的感觉竟是“恨不能双手掐住她的脖子,掐、掐、掐,一直到她翻白眼,把一切都掐死,而后自己抹脖子。”通过死这一强烈的想法表达出祥子精神上深深的绝望。 除虎妞对祥子精神和肉体的双重压迫外,注定的悲剧命运最根本的原因仍是社会环境因素。正值军阀混乱,时局混乱,社会阴暗剥削压迫严重。作者从祥子的命运事实上映射出黑暗旧社会对淳朴善良的劳动者的剥削,控诉了旧社会活生生的把人变成了鬼的罪恶,辛酸的笔触狠狠地抨击了罪恶的旧社会,对底层劳动人民表达了深切同情。 虽然客观原因几乎对祥子的命运展开起到了根本的作用,但个人的命运仍由主观原因决定。祥子从农村来,带来了农村环境下善良淳朴、木讷老实的性格,同时也带来了一些固定的思维模式。他对未来抱有盲目的信心,认为只要肯卖力气,一定可以过上好日子,而没有看清眼前这个社会的实质。他对于未来的希冀,只是一个虚幻缥缈、简单善良的梦想。

悲剧性恋爱婚姻题材小说

悲剧性恋爱婚姻题材小说 《伤逝》作为鲁迅唯一的以青年男女恋爱婚姻为题材的小说,写得异常凄切哀婉,情意悠长。作品在叙述方式上采用了涓生手记"的形式,以涓生的回忆来叙述他与子君的这场令人悲哀心碎的恋情。在叙事的过程中不断穿插着涓生的议论和抒情。这样的写法造成了小说的双重效果:一是真切地记叙了涓生、子君两人的情感历程及其悲剧结局,使作品所表述的故事显得清晰、完整;二是主人公的议论与抒情大大增强了作品的思想和感情力度,作品凸现出涓生深深的自责与忏悔,更加重了故事的悲剧性,也加深了作品思想内涵的感染力。 鲁迅一生中真正的爱情体验是许广平给他带来的,用世俗人眼光看来,鲁迅跟许广平的结合存在诸多障碍,除年龄、外貌、金钱、地位外,他还有一位形式上的太太。如果离婚,按绍兴旧习女方会因为被休而被受歧视,后果不堪设想。鲁迅宁可赔着做一世的牺牲,也不愿伤害虽然无爱但无辜的朱安。然而,许广平仍然主动果敢地向鲁迅献出了纯真的爱情。他在旧式婚姻的囚室里自我禁闭20年之后,终于逃出来了。鲁迅就以自己婚恋为题材,写了充满生活哲理和抒情色彩的小说--《伤逝》。里面的两位主人公涓生、子君折射了鲁迅、许广平的影子。 《伤逝》创作的年代与我们这个时代有着许多的相同之处,《伤逝》写于1925年,是鲁迅唯一的一部以青年的恋爱和婚姻为题材的作品。它以独特的角度,描写了涓生和子君的恋爱及其破灭过程。作者以一般作为追求目标的自主婚姻的完成的喜剧性结局,作为自己所揭示的一出社会悲剧的出发点。这是由喜到悲的变化转折,是我们所深思的。 谈及《伤逝》这篇文章时,往往给一般读者留下的印象便是:这是鲁迅先生唯一的一篇以青年恋爱和婚姻为题材的作品,写的是一曲荡气回肠的爱情悲歌。这自然不错,或者更深一步,会将它当作中国近代新文学作品中为反封建而宣扬爱情、主张个性解放的之一。这固然也不错。但究其两种印象而言,皆未抓住鲁迅先生写这篇《伤逝》的真正要旨--即批判走个性解放道路的脆弱性,向人们,尤其是知识分子,揭示了社会解放才是个性解放的前提,而这些思想就是通过对人物的塑造对人物的塑造而表现出来的。 鲁迅曾说过这么一句话:“死于敌手的锋刃,不足悲苦;死于不知何来的暗器,却是悲苦。但最悲苦的是死于慈母或爱人误进的毒药……”。 《伤逝》男性启蒙者的自白虽然痛惜女性在当时社会的悲剧命运,但就涓生手记中使用的男性话语和男主人公拥有的启蒙抉择意识来看,这是一种男权社会和陈旧世俗的社会状态的表征,在这种社会状态下为“出走的娜拉”找到出路是绝无可能的,而这正是隐藏在涓生 3 自白下的鲁迅所指向的…绝望的反抗?。当鲁迅对当时男性社会中女性无法逃脱的悲剧命运了然于心时,就以男主人公的男性绝对话语的忏悔来颠覆男性中心的社会现实。这种在文本内视野后隐藏作者视野的复调手法,显示了鲁迅非凡的艺术创造力和敏锐的社会洞察力。

托尔斯泰一半幸福一半不幸的婚姻

托尔斯泰:一半幸福一半不幸的婚姻 列夫·托尔斯泰是我国人民十分熟悉的俄国伟大作家,不但他创作的长篇小说《战争与和平》、《安娜·卡列尼娜》、《复活》在我国久销不衰,他的名言“幸福的家庭都是相似的;不幸的家庭各有各的不幸”更是让人耳熟能详。这位高寿的文学大师终生只有一次婚姻,然而就是这次婚姻,让他尝到了幸福和不幸福两种截然不同的滋味。 托尔斯泰1828年生于雅斯纳雅·波良纳村的托尔斯泰伯爵家族,他家不但属于俄国上层地主家族,他的母亲也出身于贵族家庭,属于声名显赫的沃尔康斯基公爵家族,这个家族的贵族伊·姆·加洛文有一个女儿是俄罗斯著名诗人普希金的曾祖母,另一个女儿则是托尔斯泰母亲的曾祖母,因此,“普希金成了托尔斯泰四服内的表舅”。 1862年,34岁的托尔斯泰与莫斯科一位名医的女儿,18岁的索菲娅·安德烈耶夫娜·别尔斯结婚,并一同回到托尔斯泰的故乡雅斯纳雅·波良纳村,从此过上了幸福美满的家庭生活。婚后,索菲娅·安德烈耶夫娜极力想对丈夫的事业有所帮助,她关心的是,在雅斯纳雅·波良纳村创造一个良好的环境,好让托尔斯泰能够专心致志地从事他那浩繁的文学创作。她完全做到了这一点,当时托尔斯泰的全部草稿由她一个誊写,托尔斯泰在1863年写道:“她是我的一个认真的助手。” 1863年2月,索菲娅?安德烈耶夫娜写信给莫斯科的亲属们,提到她丈夫“开始写一部新的长篇小说”,按研究者的推测,这就是“未来的《战争与和平》最初的一些草稿。” 同年10月,托尔斯泰写信给自己的女亲戚,信中说:“我从来没有感觉到自己的智力以至我全部的精神力量是这样的自由,这样适合于创作。我现在正是在创作……我现在用我的全部精力从事我的创作,我在写作和构思的是我从来还没曾写作和构思过的东西。作为一个丈夫和父亲,我是幸福而安详的,在任何人面前我不保守秘密,也没有什么愿望,除开一点:让一切都进行得正常。” 1869年,经过7年艰苦创作的卷帙浩繁的史诗性巨著《战争与和平》问世,在作家的档案库中,保存有15种不同的《战争与和平》的开头,书中人物接近600个,至今仅保留在作家档案库里的手稿就有5200多页。托尔斯泰在创作的头一年都用来探索小说的开头了,他自己承认,“这本书的写作”他“开始了无数次,又放弃了无数次”。把一切“想写和应该写的东西”都写进书里面的希望,他丧失了好多次,又重新获得了好多次。如果没有一位开明、耐劳的妻子,托尔斯泰根本不可能历经曲折,完成这部巨著。 1870年2月,托尔斯泰完成了长篇小说《安娜·卡列尼娜》开头部分的初稿。1870年3月底,索菲娅·安德烈耶夫娜在日记中写道:“昨天晚上他告诉我,他想象出一个妇女的典型:出了嫁的、出身上流社会、但又不安于自己的处境……他刚一想出这个典型,所有人物和业经构思出来的一些男人的典型立刻找到自己的位置,聚拢在这位妇女的周围。”她还记下了托尔斯泰的一些话,诸如长篇小说《安娜·卡列尼娜》里他喜爱“家庭的思想”,它不同于《战争与和平》,那里面,他所喜爱的主要思想是“人民的思想”。 1877年,托尔斯泰经过12次精心修改,完成了他第二部里程碑式的长篇巨著《安娜·卡列尼娜》。这部有11种不同开头的巨著同样人物众多,总共超过150多人。“在每一位成

约翰卫斯理的悲剧婚姻

约翰·卫斯理的悲剧婚姻是如何酿成的? 俗话说:江山多娇人多情,自古美女配英雄。古往今来无论是历史人物,还是古典名著,那些一身正气、豪情万丈的英雄人物身边总有美女相伴。如:项羽与虞姬、周瑜与小乔、范蠡与西施、郭靖与黄蓉、乔峰与阿紫等等。这些风流倜傥、器宇轩昂的英雄人物总是能赢得那些超凡脱俗、绝代佳人的芬心,最后功成名就、事业有成、婚姻美满,给世人留下非凡不俗的才情佳话。圣经中也有不少才子佳人,如:亚伯拉罕与撒拉。亚伯拉罕是信心伟人,而撒拉却是一位风华绝代的女子,八十几岁都还有人在打她的主意。才子配佳人本是合宜之事,是绝配。但并非只局限于他们的外貌与才华,也包括他们的自身修养、品格、内涵也应该在同一层面。这样的才子佳人,才能成为让人羡慕、敬仰的美丽爱情。 18世纪也有一位才子,他领导了英国的大复兴,并创立了卫理公会。他打破当时圣公会的传统在外面露天布道,吸引了许许多多人归主,他就是英国家喻户晓的约翰·卫斯理(John Wesley1703-1791)。这位拥有雄辩的口才,与思维敏捷的才子,成为英国成千上万爱主的姊妹暗中倾慕的对象,她们渴望有福分能够成为他的贤内助,能在属灵事工上辅助他。但是约翰·卫斯理的婚姻却成为了18世纪鲜为人知的悲剧。在他的一生中,这是最为沉重的一项打击。 约翰·卫斯理曾经遇到过二个心仪的女孩,第一位是美丽动人、温柔文静的苏菲·赫琪(Sohy Hopkey);而第二位是丧偶的葛丽丝·莫瑞(Grace Murray),她不仅是一位美丽动人,温柔可爱的女人,更是一位善于管理,工作能力强的贤内助。这两段感情失败的原因是因为约翰·卫斯理太过拖延,对待感情优柔寡断,迟迟拿不定主意。最后对方都由爱成恨,下嫁他人。由于这些失恋的经历,使得约翰·卫斯理一度软弱过。 5年后,经人介绍约翰·卫斯理认识一位商人的遗孀玛丽·花雪莉(Molly Vaveille)。这次,约翰·卫斯理一反常态,匆促地向玛丽·花雪莉求婚。或许,害怕自己的优柔寡断再次失败。于是,在没有征询家人的看法下,突然在伦敦铸造厂的布道会宣布他的婚讯。1751年2月8日,约翰·卫斯理仓促间娶了玛丽·卫斯理为妻。婚后,玛丽·卫斯理终于原形毕露。她的性格是狠毒的、势力的、俗气的、狂傲的。她喋喋不休,气势汹汹,是一个难以容忍的泼妇。约翰·卫斯理在结婚之后,尽管千方百计地迁就玛丽·卫斯理,但是她却变本加厉,越来越邪恶和泼辣。有一次他在爱尔兰的北部领一个聚会。讲完道,当约翰·卫斯理拖着疲乏的身体退回寝室时,竟然在寝室内受到玛丽·卫斯理的扭打。结果约翰·卫斯理躺在地上,因玛丽·卫斯理揪着他的头发在地上拖行,在她手里还握着一把连根拔起的头发。 到了1776年,玛丽·卫斯理竟然遗弃了约翰·卫斯理。多年来,她到处散布谣言,用尽一切办法,要中伤约翰·卫斯理。可是老年的约翰·卫斯理,像一座大山,屹立不动。他已成为当代一位声誉日隆的人物,他比任何一位同时代的英国人,更广泛地为人所认识。他的不愉快和不美满的婚姻,并没有影响到他对主的忠诚。

关于婚姻不幸的句子

关于婚姻不幸的句子 1、幸福的婚姻结局都是一样的,执子之手与子偕老;不幸的婚姻结局也只有两种,要么忍要么滚! 2、大多数的婚姻都是不幸的,散发着一股地牢般的霉气。作者:张方宇出处:张方宇的腾讯微博 3、男人和女人需要在一起,但它将不是出自需要,而是出自洋溢的喜悦,不是出自贫乏,而是出自丰富,因为你拥有那么多,所以你必须给予。它就好像一朵花开,它的芬芳就会释放到风中,因为它是那么地充满芬芳,所以它必须将它释放出来。或者就像一朵云来到空中,它必须将雨滴洒落下来,它必须下雨,它是那么地充满着雨水,所以它必须分享…… 的确,我们从来没有去想有什么事发生在婚姻。现在的婚姻如何?或者它以前如何?只是一个痛苦的受苦-----一种长时间的受苦,带着虚假的笑脸。它只是被证明是一种不幸,最多它只不过是一种方便。作者:海灵格出处:婚姻是最高级的瑜伽 4、婚姻是自己的,就如同自己的生命和呼吸一样,别人无从参与,别人的意见只是参考,其实对于每个人来说,幸福的婚姻都是一样的,而不幸的婚姻却有各自的不幸。作者:唐欣恬出处:裸婚 5、我是胸无大志我只想平平安安地待在龙城教一辈子书然后照

顾三叔三婶小叔当然还有你爸你妈等你和郑南音都远走他乡并且婚姻不幸的时候帮你们支撑好这个大本营好让你们随时回来养精蓄锐再战江湖西决凛冽的话,这句话可以让你爱上西决。(注;西决不仅是小说的名字,这本书中男主人公的名字) 6、命运不允许女性太过逸乐满足,总设法叫她们哀痛,不是婚姻不幸,就是环境欠佳,数来数去,总有不顺心的事,从一双漂亮但轧脚的鞋子起,到同他有缘无份,一生都很少真正开怀。作者:亦舒出处:吻所有女孩 7、有那么厉害的婆婆,什么样的丈夫都补偿不了。嫁人的时候,眼睛睁得要大,不幸碰到一把声音可以退贼的伯母,都还是抱独身主义算了,谁说婚姻是两个人的事?作者:亦舒出处:她比烟花还寂寞 8、只要是走进了婚姻,你们就是天底下最最平等的人。别只看到自己家庭条件好,别自以为自己工作好,别只看到自己收入比妻子或丈夫高,别自以为自己长得漂亮嫁了你是你赚到了……互相尊重、互相体谅、互相关心,视自己为妻子或丈夫的付出是理所应当,因妻子或丈夫对你的付出而内心感激,这才是夫妻相处之道。 这是我想对我的孩子说的话。 但愿婚姻的不幸,不要再落到你的身上。 9、婚姻成功的秘诀之一,或许就是不将爱情当成全部。爱情担负不起女人所有的重托,得之,生活多一分绚烂;失之,人生不至塌

最恨的爱人:托尔斯泰的婚姻悲剧

最恨的爱人:托尔斯泰的婚姻悲剧 托尔斯泰与妻子索菲娅“我们像两个囚徒,被锁在一起彼此憎恨,破坏对方的生活却试图视而不见。我当时并不知道99%的夫妻都生活在和我一样的地狱里。”——列夫·托尔斯泰《克莱采奏鸣曲》1910年11月的一天,一位66岁的俄国老妇人,在寒风中扒着某个乡村火车站的窗户,专注地往里看。屋里躺着她临终的丈夫,在48年的婚姻生活中,她为他生育了13个孩子,而他却拒绝见她最后一面。她的丈夫,就是举世闻名的列夫·托尔斯泰,从18岁开始,她就以“索菲娅·托尔斯塔娅”的醒目标签,将全部生命与这位天才的人生编织交错,爱恨都至死方休。在这篇文章里,我无意唱赞歌,只想还原两个真实的人——托尔斯泰不是作为文学巨匠与思想导师,而是作为失职的丈夫和缺席的父亲;索菲娅也不是作为伟人的后缀,而是作为歇斯底里的妻子和丧偶式育儿的母亲。这样的真实,包含任何一对普通夫妻都可能涉及的隐秘,包括爱与性、嫉妒与出轨等等。并非有意哗众取宠、亵渎大师,而是我作为一名托尔斯泰的书迷,深知这一切背景,对于理解他的作品是必不可少的。一、幸福的阴影“我在恋爱,而我从来没有想到我能够这样去爱。我疯狂了,如果继续这样,我会开枪自杀的。”——托尔斯泰日记34岁的托尔斯泰与十多岁的索菲娅1862年9月16

日,34岁的列夫·托尔斯泰向18岁的索菲娅·别尔斯求婚,而索菲娅也爱上了这个经常到她家里来的青年伯爵。7天以后,他们就闪电完婚。在此之前,大家都以为托尔斯泰是看上了索菲娅的姐姐,因为按照惯例,姐妹应该按照长幼顺序依次出嫁。为了澄清这个误会,托尔斯泰想了一个极为浪漫的办法——他用粉笔在索菲娅面前写下一长串首字母:“V.v.s.s.l.v.n.n.i.v.s.L.Z.m.v.s.v.s.T.”,这样天书一样哑谜,索菲娅竟然猜出了含义:“在你家里,对我和你的姐姐丽莎存在着一种不正确的看法。你和你妹妹塔尼娅应该为我辩白一下。”这个爱情故事的精彩桥段,后来被托尔斯泰写到《安娜·卡列尼娜》里,列文向吉娣求婚时所用。而列文作为最具托尔斯泰自传色彩的文学人物,他在订婚后就把全部日记给未婚妻看,这一情节,也正是出自托尔斯泰本人。事实上,婚前的托尔斯泰生活极为放荡,从十来岁开始热衷于玩女人、赌博和酗酒,包括在喀山读大学时治疗性病,婚前与一名女奴保持过三年夫妻一般的关系、并生育了一个私生子等等,托尔斯泰都忠实地写在日记中。可以想象,这对年仅18岁的索菲娅造成了多大的冲击。托尔斯泰的想法很简单,他认为有责任让她充分了解自己要嫁的人是什么样,如果实在接受不了,甚至可以拒绝跟他结婚。尽管索菲娅痛苦地接受了这一切,但他的这个行为,让索菲娅在婚姻一开始,就处于极大的不安全感中,并且终生受其折磨。托尔斯泰夫妇交

骆驼祥子“婚姻上的悲剧性

“骆驼祥子”婚姻上的悲剧性: 虽然祥子在拉车和爱情方面失败了,但是在我的想法还有一个方面我们必须的讨论那也是祥子的婚姻方面,祥子十八岁的时候从农村来到城市为了发展而他的目标出了买自己的车意外是找个自己喜欢的漂亮的姑娘而跟他结婚但是他来到城市以后发现婚姻这个事儿没有农村那么简单因为城市和农村的婚姻方面有很多不同的地方而完全不一样的,祥子从开始在人和厂工作的时候刘四爷的老姑娘对祥子已经有了结婚的想法但是等到个好机会才做一个进步但是,他一点也没想一想在婚姻这个方面必须的两个对方都同意才能有幸福的生活而快乐的过日子,但是很可惜虎妞的性格就是自私所以他不管祥子喜不喜欢她他就是做了自己想做的事情,他让祥子来到她的屋而给祥子喝了很多就他喝大了了以后不应该发生的事情已经发生了,然后就从那时候祥子的婚姻的悲剧命运开始了,虽然他们结婚的时间是过了一段时间但是从事实上看如果那天不发生那个事情他们以后也不一定会结婚,因为虎妞没有理由为难祥子,所以我觉得祥子很可怜不但在他的第一个愿望没成功而且在婚姻方面的愿望也没有让他满意的事情,他刚结婚的时候心里有点有满意的感觉因为他觉得虎妞有钱但是刘四爷把人和厂卖而走的时候祥子才发现他犯了这么大的找错误而以后把虎妞的生活费也他得给她,祥子原来像娶个年轻而农村的姑娘但是跟虎妞做的事情他的这个愿望落空了。祥子结婚以后他的人身自由完全控制在虎妞的手中,而因为虎妞祥子失去了他的一切而祥子没有机会尝试有爱情的婚姻。后来虎妞给他卖了一辆车所以这算是对祥子的一点好处但是祥子没想到因为虎妞在大年龄怀孕而得到了病但是祥子请不起大夫来看他的病所以他把车卖了但是结果虎妞还是死了所以车没了妻子也没了这件事对祥子来说是一件坏事。

_红楼梦_中的婚姻爱情悲剧解析

2011.7下半月 \·唐诗·宋词·明清小说等评析 · 白俊奎陈景云等 《红楼梦》中的婚姻爱情悲剧解析 黎水生 一、爱情婚姻悲剧的原因 我个人觉得古代婚姻会走向悲剧是因为男权。古代带到现今的制度是重男轻女,为什么呢?从很大一个角度来说是因为宗法制,分封制,世袭制所造成的,皇上有后宫佳丽三千,但很多人想做皇上并不是因为后宫,古代男子多数注重权利,那么在这男女不平等的社会上,就造就了很多爱情悲剧。 二、《红楼梦》中的爱情是自由恋爱与包办婚姻的对立。 自由恋爱的爱情是日久生情,而如果包办婚姻中也有爱情的话,就只能是一见钟情。 贾宝玉跟林黛玉这个恋爱的发生并不是一见倾心,虽然第一次见面觉得这个人好面熟,好像见过似的,这是写的一种心里的感应,一种好感,但是并没有发生爱情,相反两个人在一起生活得很长很长时间,也不断吵架,吵架又友好了,中间加上一个薛宝钗还有后来的史湘云。贾宝玉跟这些人在一起,也有相当长的一段时间,没有确定地写他喜欢那一个,这就显得《红楼梦》的恋爱方式已经不是一见倾心,已经是在长期生活当中渐渐地了解,最后在长期的了解过程中间最后形成他们的爱情。 薛宝钗给他讲到仕途经济,他翻了脸,这就是一个标志,说明贾宝玉在爱情问题上,还有他自己的一个思想标准。这个标准讲得非常明白,非常清楚,就是要漠视木石前盟,不要金玉良缘,封建时代的门当户对,一些选择的标准全对他无效,他必须自己选择。 所以《红楼梦》里所描写的婚姻,一个是选择不是一见倾心式的,是要长期的熟悉。第二个是思想要一致,如果思想不一致,无法结成终生的伴侣,这在《红楼梦》里写得很清楚,也反映出了自由恋爱与包办婚姻的对立。 三、宝黛爱情悲剧的无可解脱性 纵观整个中国古代小说,常会发现这样一个现象,古人由于受知识和思想的局限,在遇到无法解释的事情和安排时,就运用丰富的想象力创造了一个神通广大、无所不能的天神。他们用天神来解释一切无法理解的际遇,认为天意在支配着命运。《红楼梦》的作者曹雪芹生于清朝,经历过大富大贵和穷困潦倒的生活,深刻地体会到悲剧在那个社会中是无处不在的。但是他也不能够完全地解释那个充满悲剧的世界,只好把它归 结为天意和命运的安排。这种宿命的色彩在介绍宝黛的来历时表现得尤为浓重。 宝黛之间的爱情尽管有着反封建的叛逆色彩,但又有着浓重的没落贵族的气息。他们的经济根本无法独立,整日在里吟诗作词,不食人间烟火,悠闲自得。离开了贾府,宝黛几乎连怎么生存下去都会成为至大难题。宝黛甚至还幻想着家长会为他们指婚,消极得等待贾母的包办婚姻制度成全他们的爱情。所以他们对封建社会的倚赖还是很深的,反封建的不彻底性和妥协性让爱情悲剧雪上加霜。 宝黛爱情悲剧的无可解脱性,根源还是与封建势力的冲突。天意让他们相爱,命运却没有让他们降临在自由恋爱和自主婚姻的国度里。整个贾府,上至视两玉为宝的贾母,下至奴才,没有人赞成他们的恋情,为他们主持公道。这已经不是简单的门不当户不对,恋爱自由不被允许,更是古板老套的封建制度就注定了这场不是大团圆结局的爱情。 四、红楼梦中的婚姻爱情故事 贾宝玉、林黛玉、薛宝钗、袭人等是《红楼梦》主线人物,宝、黛二人的悲剧贯穿始终。薛宝钗虽不是此爱情悲剧的当事人,但也有着相当高的地位。对于《红楼梦》的结局,我有甚多不满,可有人对我说,“既然你不满,林黛玉最终抱憾而亡,贾宝玉出家为僧,那你觉得,什么样的结局是完美的?”的确,我对甚为不满颦儿之死,颦儿素日也是叛逆角色,终日只想一展才华,违反了古时“女儿无才便是德”之说。颦儿在文中的才华是不容置疑的,我实是钦佩,也为她那种叛逆而佩服。可她为何不能叛逆至底?贾母素日疼她,更疼宝玉,他俩二人想要结为连理枝,贾母也未必反对,她竟不去争取,偏自寻苦恼,气死了。可细细思量,她素日多疑,即使嫁于宝玉,也难免会被气死。她又不似凤姐会借酒撒泼,怎生向贾母开得了这口?她的力量是如此微薄,在贾府她毕竟不像宝钗那样得人心。宝玉,最后看破红尘,做了和尚。难道做和尚真是最好的结局吗?若是如此,世人都改为僧。我的想法太极端了。“你死了,我去做和尚。”预示着这一切,好似一切皆前定,无法改变。我不满的是宝、黛二人最终仍是无法逃出命运的束缚。那人又对我说,“宝玉,做和尚已不是为黛玉而做。宝玉不做和尚,还能做什么?去追求功名利禄吗?”是啊,细度之,对于宝玉而言,这不失为最好的结局。他已淡薄名利,对他而言此皆身外物。追逐名利,让历史重演,看着自己的后代再来上演这“红楼梦”吗?他看似没有摆脱命运的束缚,但命运业已不能束缚住他了,他既不是为颦儿去做和尚,那就是为自己,他也不像世人为了“得道成仙”,而是了无牵挂,看尽红尘。只可惜宝钗为人圆滑,讨人喜欢,她最终最终独守空房,也不免令人觉得有些惋惜。 (作者单位:湖北第二师范学院文学院) 177

论《安娜 卡列尼娜》中的婚姻悲剧

不幸的家庭大致相同 ——《安娜·卡列尼娜》中的婚姻悲剧 曹大赞 十九世纪七十年代是俄国社会历史大变动时期。这一时期里,封建法制受到西欧资本主义的猛烈冲击和侵入,社会生活也发生了极大的变化。托尔斯泰面对着、思索着这场社会变革,企图通过家庭关系来展示这场变革及其影响。 “幸福的家庭家家相似,不幸的家庭各各不同。”①社会制度和时代的变化打破了也重新组建着所有的社会关系,家庭关系自然是受影响和反映都最明显的关系。就家庭关系来看,托尔斯泰在《安娜·卡列尼娜》中集中地描写了安娜的爱情悲剧和列文一家暂时的幸福。 “一切都颠倒了过来,一切都刚刚开始建立”②的俄国社会,在西方资本主义个性解放和恋爱自由等进步思想的启发和哺育下,从旧的伦理道德中(主要是家庭关系中)产生了新的爱情观。但由于人们对爱情认识的肤浅,粗陋和追求时的一路狂奔使这种爱情观进入了一种轻浮而又极其危险的境地。 安娜和卡列宁的家庭以及安娜的爱情是全书的主体部分。她出生于贵族家庭,长大以后按照贵族教会的婚姻制度嫁给 ..).了官运亨通的比她大二十岁的卡列宁③,从而完成了他...........(.卖给 们政治基础上的结合。这种婚姻制度基础导致了家庭关系的主体——由夫妻双方的疏远和感情的荒原。安娜的不幸便是这种由感情上的疏远变成的灵魂与灵魂间的对峙造成的,当然也与他们本身无心折除情感障碍有关。 也就是说,这个家庭不是爱的产物,也不是爱之巢。 家庭幸福是靠构成家庭的夫妻双方共同努力所获得的。而作为丈夫的卡列宁在外形上有安娜所深恶痛绝的感情缺陷:“撑住圆礼帽边缘的大耳朵”、“嘴上惯常的嘲笑”、“尖细的声音”、“慢慢的腔调”、“微驼的背”、“走路蹒跚,摆动屁股”、“冷冰冰而严厉的目光”以及“扳手指的恶习”……④ 安娜和卡列宁之间没有深入的情感沟通,卡列宁每从部里回来,“照例”没有时间到房里去看安娜,而是却接待来访者。最难以接受的是卡列宁“认为博览群书是他的责任”,“他在政治、哲学、神学方面产生各种疑问进行探索”⑤,居然还要求议会通过他的什么什么议案……如此如此,不可救药。 卡列宁不是一个好丈夫,但也不至于“官厅机器”。根据文献和安娜的话,卡列宁是沙皇官僚制度下的一个可怕的“官厅机器”⑥。人,总是特定社会时期的人,他必须为了更好地生存努力,包括完善他赖以生存的社会。卡列宁只是想为俄国社会做点什么,他认为他为国家尽他的微薄力量是他的天职。他的法案是为了要“从政治、行政、经济、人种、物质和宗教等方面调查非俄罗斯人的情况”⑦,而不是提倡其他黑暗的反动的什么法案。任何时代、任何制度都需要维护和促进她进步、发展的人,我们不能因此把卡列宁当作“官厅机器”。照此类推,可能许多英雄、模范都难逃“官厅机器”的头衔。 诚然,卡列宁对安娜精神生活的淡漠是可以指责和“诟骂”的,这种淡漠造成的闺中 ①引自《安娜·卡列尼娜》第1页,草婴译,上海译文出版社。 ②引自《安娜·卡列尼娜》“序”第1页。 ③引自《安娜·卡列尼娜》“序”第2页。 ④引自《安娜·卡列尼娜》93—97页。 ⑤引自《安娜·卡列尼娜》101页。 ⑥引自《托尔斯泰评传》326页。

《骆驼祥子》的多重悲剧分析

《骆驼祥子》多重悲剧分析 ——特定时代的人物多舛命运 【摘要】:根据老舍的《骆驼祥子》,本文主要从文本出发,着重分析小说中的主人公“祥子”,作为一个二十年代的北平车夫的生活经历。在他经历的的生命、婚姻、事业中,分析他的悲剧性——一个有志青年的逐渐堕落。其次,分析除小说主人公以外的——虎妞、刘四爷、小福子等人,他们在北平的生活经历以及最后的命运结局,展示给我们的是什么样的悲剧色彩,反映出了怎样的社会现实。借此,揭示二十年代的北平社会中底层人们的生活模式和状况,甚至是,当时整个中国的下层人民,一种受压迫、受欺压、受排挤、受歧视的生活状态。最后,让人们看到中国当时的劳动人民的艰辛与无奈,以致最后无路可走时堕落的辛酸。以警醒现在的世人,让人们对人生和信念有个新的认识。 【关键词】:悲剧命运生活经历祥子 【正文】: 《骆驼祥子》主要讲述了祥子——一个北平车夫,从对生活充满希望与向往到最后堕落随大流的一个过程。亦是祥子作为一个农村来的有志青年在城市中受到来自生活、婚姻、事业,以及周围的人的压力与影响,最后被同化为一个吃、喝、嫖、赌都行的车夫的一个过程。从中展示给人们的是二十年代的北平劳动人民的不幸与悲剧,也是整个北平,甚至是整个中国劳动人民的不幸,是当时社会劳动人民艰难生活的一个缩影。 一、小说主人公“祥子”的“三起三落”——事业、爱情、婚姻的多重悲剧 《骆驼祥子》中的祥子,18岁的时候父母去世,只身来到北平,想要在北平开始自己新的生活,找到一个谋求生计的道路。在北平做了各种各样的工作之后,选择了把车夫作为自己的一个终身事业,打算一直坚持这份事业,并把做一个好车夫,买一辆属于自己的车作为自己人生的最高理想与奋斗目标。祥子认为只要是为了买车就可以牺牲一切,可以牺牲自己的时间,牺牲自己的体力,可以在风中、在雨中,马不停蹄的工作。始终把买车看作是一项无比神圣的事业,祥子在风雨之中劳碌奔波了三年之后,终于存够了钱,买了一辆属于自己的车。这车在祥子的眼中是显得那么的可爱,此时的生活给祥子的感觉是非常美好的。祥子对生活充满着希望,认为凭自己这样一个壮实、高大、身体顶棒儿的年轻人,一定能在北平很好、很安稳的生活下去。但是,命运总是在人们出其不意的时候改变,给人们带来无比的震撼与折磨。就在祥子精神奕奕,快活的拉着车的时候,却因为他无心的超小道被大兵给抓了去。在当时的北平,军阀混战,到处都有关于战争的留言,祥子只是时运不济的被拉了去。这一事件不仅让祥子丢掉了自己心爱的车,还让自己在战乱中受尽苦楚。在部队中为大兵们打理各种各样的小事,并且得不到“人”的对待。祥子再一次的对生活失去了信心,对未来失去了希望。当有一天,他看见军营中同样作为俘虏的骆驼时,此时,一种恍然大悟重新点燃了祥子生的希望。祥子趁大兵们打仗之时,混在骆驼群中,逃出了军营,而且还顺便牵了三匹骆驼。祥子以为这些骆驼可以卖一个好价钱,供自己重新买一辆车,重新开始车夫的生活。但是,他的骆驼并没有卖到一个好的价钱,反而只换到了三十几块钱,这些显然是不够祥子的买车的。祥子只好另想出路——回到之前工作过的仁和车厂为刘四爷拉车,并把自己仅有的三十几块钱交给刘四爷,让刘四爷替自己保管着,等到有一天买车好用。祥子的这一起一落虽然给祥子带来了不小的打击,但是却没有让祥子对生活彻底的失望,祥子还是坚持着自己的最初的

相关文档
最新文档