布克哈特遺著《緬懷魯本斯》對「個人主義」與「現世性」問題的再思考

布克哈特(Jacob Burckhardt, 1818-1897)在《義大利文藝復興時代的文化－一本嘗試之作》(Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien. Ein Versuch)以「個人主義興起」與「走向現世性」兩個主軸來刻劃歐洲近現代文化的特徵。對布氏而言，此二新興歷史潮流對西方文明後續發展的影響，可謂利弊得失參半，不是史學研究者能片面加以肯定或否定。然而，布氏在晚年卻親眼目睹，不少人對這兩個歷史潮流的理解，受到當時流行的尼采(Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900)「超人」哲學影響，在片面解讀下，轉而對他原本從多元角度論述這兩個現象所闡發出來的豐富歷史內涵開始產生誤解。鑑於布氏晚年面對的困擾，本文將探討，布氏在生命最後階段如何藉由最後一本著作－《緬懷魯本斯》(Erinnerungen aus Rubens)-來處理自己史學論述被誤解的問題。針對「個人主義」，本文提出，布氏以「全才」取代十九世紀德意志社會熱衷崇拜的天才∕英雄∕強者。在這個部分，布氏認為，魯本斯(Peter Paul Rubens, 1577-1640)的「全才」特質為後世留下的楷模，勝過「天才」以強烈個人主義性格所留下來的正負面影響。在另一方面，本文指出，《緬懷魯本斯》對「現世性」問題的探討，跳脫了《義大利文藝復興時代的文化》將「現世性」當成文藝復興以降一個重要的「歷史現象」來看待的論述取徑。布氏在《緬懷魯本斯》裡想進一步探討：歐洲近現代人如何理解去基督教化後現世真實的意涵？而現世真正的幸福又該如何創造？在《緬懷魯本斯》一書裡，布氏將魯本斯這位「全人型的個人」刻劃為亂世裡仍懂得堅持文化創造主體性與追求人倫幸福的典範，為走向「現世性」近現代文明的歐洲立下足資仿效的楷模。透過對魯本斯藝術成就的推崇，布氏希望矯正十九世紀寫實主義以「表象真實」為尚的「現世」認知觀，從而喚醒具有深刻歷史反省的「現世」人文關懷；並在此基礎上，促使當代德意志文化揚棄用進步史觀形塑強者文化的風潮，而能正視建構健康明朗現世精神文化的重要意義。

關鍵字

布克哈特Jacob Burckhardt ；魯本斯Peter Paul Rubens ；個人主義；現世性；尼采Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

並列摘要

In Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien Jacob Burckhardt characterized early modern Europe as having two major features: the rise of individualism and the trend toward secularism. Late in life, Burckhardt witnessed the rising misunderstanding of his discussions about the Renaissance individualism and secularism in the shaping of German national identity and Nietzsche's philosophy of ”Übermensch.” In order to clarify his own historical thinking, Burckhardt strove to specify his personal values in his last book, Erinnerungen aus Rubens. The present study aims to investigate how Burckhardt found the proper ways to make his thoughts clear by portraying Rubens as role model in presenting himself as a highly creative artist and a healthy-minded individual who led a happy family life as well as renowned public life during an age full of political and religious conflicts. The two main arguments of this paper are as follows: (1) How did Burckhardt rebut the notion of genius worship in his time with the ideal of l'uomo universale, to which Rubens served as an appropriate embodiment? (2) How did Burckhardt elaborate on the meaningful perception of “reality” in the secular world by distinguishing between the positivist notion of “reality” in the nineteenthcentury art and Rubens’ humanistic approach to depicting the ”reality” of the Thirty Years' War? And, how did he argue for the value of Rubens' perception of the ”reality” in his time with regard to the pursuit of true happiness in the ”secularized” modern world.