战争中的作家

J. Atkin
{"title":"战争中的作家","authors":"J. Atkin","doi":"10.7765/9781526137210.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bertrand Russell was just one man largely thinking and acting alone – and therein rests his reputation. But to what extent – whether in private or public – did similar anti-war concerns to those of Russell and the Bloomsbury circle express themselves among the intelligentsia? The bulk of the evidence derives from the letters that sped back and forth between contemporary writers, artists and thinkers, during a time of unexpected conflict – a conflict that provoked much doubt and debate. In common with Bertrand Russell, E.M. Forster believed the war to be partly due to misdirected destructive energies; forces that could be channelled during times of peace into creative efforts. In a letter to Siegfried Sassoon written as the conflict neared its end, Forster confirmed that ‘all vigour these days is misdirected’ and that the human race needed time and the opportunity to re-align itself.1 What of further evidence of similarities of response amongst the wider literary intelligentsia who, though they did not take part in the actual fighting (see Chapter 5), could, as with Bloomsbury and Russell, regard the conflict from a particular aesthetic or humanistic standpoint? In his letter to Sassoon, E.M. Forster also explained that his other hope for the future, though ‘very faint’, was for a League of Nations. This was a hope Forster shared both with his frequent correspondent Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson and with other intellectuals such as the writer and ruralist Edward Carpenter, who wrote publicly on the war throughout its duration. Carpenter’s standpoint was derived from his background of mysticism rather than the statistical analysis of Leonard Woolf, for example, who worked slowly on academic reports for the Fabians during 1915 and 1916.2 Carpenter rushed out books, articles, letters and pamphlets on the war and also found time to produce an autobiography. His 1916 pamphlet Never Again (subtitled ‘A Protest and a Warning Addressed to the Peoples of Europe’) echoed Clive Bell’s Peace at Once of the previous year in arguing that war was ‘abhorrent to our common humanity’: the longer the war continued, the greater would become the impulses of hate and revenge. Carpenter’s focus on destructive impulses mirrored that of Russell; Carpenter cited Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction in his own Towards Industrial Freedom (1917) and highlighted the creative","PeriodicalId":418384,"journal":{"name":"A war of individuals","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Writers at war\",\"authors\":\"J. Atkin\",\"doi\":\"10.7765/9781526137210.00008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bertrand Russell was just one man largely thinking and acting alone – and therein rests his reputation. But to what extent – whether in private or public – did similar anti-war concerns to those of Russell and the Bloomsbury circle express themselves among the intelligentsia? The bulk of the evidence derives from the letters that sped back and forth between contemporary writers, artists and thinkers, during a time of unexpected conflict – a conflict that provoked much doubt and debate. In common with Bertrand Russell, E.M. Forster believed the war to be partly due to misdirected destructive energies; forces that could be channelled during times of peace into creative efforts. In a letter to Siegfried Sassoon written as the conflict neared its end, Forster confirmed that ‘all vigour these days is misdirected’ and that the human race needed time and the opportunity to re-align itself.1 What of further evidence of similarities of response amongst the wider literary intelligentsia who, though they did not take part in the actual fighting (see Chapter 5), could, as with Bloomsbury and Russell, regard the conflict from a particular aesthetic or humanistic standpoint? In his letter to Sassoon, E.M. Forster also explained that his other hope for the future, though ‘very faint’, was for a League of Nations. This was a hope Forster shared both with his frequent correspondent Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson and with other intellectuals such as the writer and ruralist Edward Carpenter, who wrote publicly on the war throughout its duration. Carpenter’s standpoint was derived from his background of mysticism rather than the statistical analysis of Leonard Woolf, for example, who worked slowly on academic reports for the Fabians during 1915 and 1916.2 Carpenter rushed out books, articles, letters and pamphlets on the war and also found time to produce an autobiography. His 1916 pamphlet Never Again (subtitled ‘A Protest and a Warning Addressed to the Peoples of Europe’) echoed Clive Bell’s Peace at Once of the previous year in arguing that war was ‘abhorrent to our common humanity’: the longer the war continued, the greater would become the impulses of hate and revenge. Carpenter’s focus on destructive impulses mirrored that of Russell; Carpenter cited Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction in his own Towards Industrial Freedom (1917) and highlighted the creative\",\"PeriodicalId\":418384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"A war of individuals\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"A war of individuals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137210.00008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"A war of individuals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526137210.00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

伯特兰·罗素只是一个在很大程度上独自思考和行动的人——他的名声由此而来。但是,在知识分子中,与罗素和布卢姆茨伯里文化圈相似的反战担忧——无论是在私下还是在公开场合——在多大程度上表达了自己?大部分证据来自当时作家、艺术家和思想家之间的书信往来,这段时间发生了意想不到的冲突——这场冲突引发了许多怀疑和辩论。与伯特兰·罗素一样,E.M.福斯特认为战争的部分原因是被误导的破坏性能量;这些力量可以在和平时期转化为创造性的努力。在一封写给齐格弗里德·沙逊的信中,福斯特在冲突即将结束时证实,“如今所有的活力都被误导了”,人类需要时间和机会来重新调整自己更广泛的文学知识分子虽然没有参加实际的战斗(见第5章),但却能像布卢姆茨伯里派和罗素一样,从特定的美学或人文主义的角度看待这场冲突,他们对此的反应是否有进一步的相似之处?在给沙逊的信中,E.M.福斯特还解释了他对未来的另一个希望,尽管“非常渺茫”,那就是建立一个国际联盟。这是福斯特与他的频繁通讯员戈德斯沃西·洛斯·狄金森以及其他知识分子(如作家和乡村主义者爱德华·卡彭特)共同的希望,他在战争期间公开写过关于战争的文章。卡彭特的观点来自于他的神秘主义背景,而不是来自伦纳德·伍尔夫的统计分析,例如,伍尔夫在1915年和1916年期间为费边社撰写学术报告。卡彭特匆忙出版了关于战争的书籍、文章、信件和小册子,还抽出时间写了一本自传。他在1916年出版的小册子《永不再来》(副标题为“对欧洲人民的抗议和警告”)呼应了克莱夫·贝尔在前一年出版的《立即和平》一书,认为战争“对我们共同的人性是可恶的”:战争持续的时间越长,仇恨和报复的冲动就会越大。卡彭特对破坏性冲动的关注反映了罗素的观点;卡彭特在自己的《走向工业自由》(1917)中引用了罗素的《社会重建原则》,并强调了其创造性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Writers at war
Bertrand Russell was just one man largely thinking and acting alone – and therein rests his reputation. But to what extent – whether in private or public – did similar anti-war concerns to those of Russell and the Bloomsbury circle express themselves among the intelligentsia? The bulk of the evidence derives from the letters that sped back and forth between contemporary writers, artists and thinkers, during a time of unexpected conflict – a conflict that provoked much doubt and debate. In common with Bertrand Russell, E.M. Forster believed the war to be partly due to misdirected destructive energies; forces that could be channelled during times of peace into creative efforts. In a letter to Siegfried Sassoon written as the conflict neared its end, Forster confirmed that ‘all vigour these days is misdirected’ and that the human race needed time and the opportunity to re-align itself.1 What of further evidence of similarities of response amongst the wider literary intelligentsia who, though they did not take part in the actual fighting (see Chapter 5), could, as with Bloomsbury and Russell, regard the conflict from a particular aesthetic or humanistic standpoint? In his letter to Sassoon, E.M. Forster also explained that his other hope for the future, though ‘very faint’, was for a League of Nations. This was a hope Forster shared both with his frequent correspondent Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson and with other intellectuals such as the writer and ruralist Edward Carpenter, who wrote publicly on the war throughout its duration. Carpenter’s standpoint was derived from his background of mysticism rather than the statistical analysis of Leonard Woolf, for example, who worked slowly on academic reports for the Fabians during 1915 and 1916.2 Carpenter rushed out books, articles, letters and pamphlets on the war and also found time to produce an autobiography. His 1916 pamphlet Never Again (subtitled ‘A Protest and a Warning Addressed to the Peoples of Europe’) echoed Clive Bell’s Peace at Once of the previous year in arguing that war was ‘abhorrent to our common humanity’: the longer the war continued, the greater would become the impulses of hate and revenge. Carpenter’s focus on destructive impulses mirrored that of Russell; Carpenter cited Russell’s Principles of Social Reconstruction in his own Towards Industrial Freedom (1917) and highlighted the creative
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信