跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.149.205) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/12 23:46
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:邱錦榮
研究生(外文):GIU, JIN-RONG
論文名稱:福斯塔四論
論文名稱(外文):"WHAT TRICK HAST THOU NOW?" FOUR STUDIES OF FALSTAFF
指導教授:彭鏡禧彭鏡禧引用關係
指導教授(外文):PENG, JING-XI
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:外國語文研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:1990
畢業學年度:79
語文別:中文
中文關鍵詞:福斯塔四論
外文關鍵詞:FOUR-STUDIES-OF-FALSTAFFDRAMATIC-CHARACTERLORD-OF-MISRULEHENRY-IVARCHETYPESPSYCHODYNOMICS
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:340
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
Time and again I have been asked: "what do you have to add to the
Shakespearean industry﹖" Since every few minutes a new book or article is
written on Shakespeare, it seems that one cannot possibly say anything
significant about the Bard that has not been said before. To answer this
challenge, I will first reflect on certain phenomena particular about
Shakespearean studies. The fact that the corpus of Shakespeare has
nurtured and shaped the English language like nothing else except perhaps
the King James Bible has led some people to believe that a history of
Shakespearean scholarship is really a history of four centuries of the
English literature or even culture. But a reconsideration may lead us to
quite another conclusion. Attempts by critics to examine Shakespearean
plays and their characters leave us with the impression that it is the
critics that have nurtured and shaped Shakespeare. Four centuries of
Shakespearean scholarship is a reflection of, not how Shakespeare has
influenced literature, but how changing testes have "manhandled"
Shakespeare. We students of literature have held up Shakespeare as a
flattering mirror reflecting only ourselves, particularly our own literary
whims and tastes. This is my apology for using such theoretical models as
archetype, carnival and psychodrama to capitalize on a particular
Shakespearean character, falstaff, in two particular history plays-the two
parts of Henry IV.
I. falstaffian Criticism
This is the proper place to record some of the scholarship I am indebted
to, much as Imight turn to disagree with it.1 So much has been written
about Falstaff that the character itself constitutes a subject of study.
The copious documents are, like their father that begets them, "gross as a
mountain, open, palpable"-to quote Prince Hal''s sneer at the fat knight''s
proliferating lies (1H4, II.iv. 220-1). Two great eighteenth-century
essays, by Dr. Johnson (1765) and Maurice Morgann (1777) respectively,
start the long argument between those who judge Falstaff by (relatively)
objective and by subjective standards (Berman 62-3). Johnson sees the
"unimitable Falstaff" as a "compound of sense and vice," of sense which
may be admired but not esteemed, of vice which may be despised tries to
make a distinction between character and action in A n essay on the
Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff (1777). Emphasizing Falstaff''s
effect on the reader, Morgann argues for the courage of Falstaff against
the common notion of Falstaff as the absolute coward (Hunter 25).
Morgann''s defense of Falstaff, which focuses on character, anticipates
"character criticism" in the later eighteenth and the nineteenth
centuries.
Nineteenth-century criticism retains a psychological focus and a
skepticism toward theatrical interpretation (Bevington xiv). Samuel,
Taylor Coleridge (1811) starts the sentimental criticism on Falstaff in
this century, which in general favors Falstaff and deprecates Prince Hal.
William Hazlitt (1817) prefers a life of sensual freedom to one of
Machiavellianism at court. George Bernard Shaw (1907), though he refuses
to sentimentalize Falstaff, joins Hazlitt in denouncing Prince Hal as
"Jingo hero" (Bevington 73-76). A. C. Bradley sums up the prevailing
nineteenth-century sentimental view of Falstaff in his famous essay, "The
rejection of Falstaff" in Oxford Lectures (1909). In Bradley''s view, "the
bliss of freedom gained in humour is the essence of Falstaff" (Bevington
89). Historical criticism in the late nineteen-century reacts against the
psychological study of character in favor of historical understanding.
Edward Dowden (1875), for example, focuses on the historical figure of
Prince Henry, tracing his "ideal of manhood" and making the rejection of
Falstaff a necessity (Bevington 65-72).
The Falstaff of twentieth-century historical critics is almost invariably
someone who must be rejected. His ancestry in literature and on the stage
has been traced to the cowardly braggart soldier of Roman comedy, Gluttony
among the Seven Deadly sins, the Folly of Erasmus'' Encomium Moriae, the
Picaresque rogue, and many other. Bernard spivack (1958) invokes the
tradition of the morality Vice to explain Falstaff''s contradictory nature
of farce and high moral seriousness (Bevington 221). E. E. Stoll (1927)
and Levin Schucking (1922) attack the sentimental tendency to search for a
"real" Falstaff outside the play. To them the cowardice of Falstaff at
Gad''s Hill is perfectly clear and should be historically traced and
treated as a stage and literary convention (Bevington xvi). The most
influential study of historical criticism is that of John Dover Wilson''s
The Fortunes of Falstaff (1943), in which he urges a return to the
unsentimentalized Falstaff of Dr. Johnson, a Falstaff at once endlessly
entertaining and all the more dangerous for being so (Bevington xvii).
Wilson''s volume is a byproduct of editing both parts of the H4 plays, and
perhaps no other studies surpass it in a scene-by-scene close textual
reading.
Most later twentieth-century criticism can be viewed as a response to or
divergence from the historical emphases of Wilson and others. This essay
will not attempt to review or critique the substantial body of the
historical criticism and New Criticism of the twentieth century. Suffice
it to say that it basically falls into the critical trend represented by
Wilson''s book.
Myth ccriticism of Northrop Frye (1949) and C. L. Barber (1959) tries to
give the Shakespearean histories a ritual frame, to which I will refer in
Chapter Two. The present century has also witnessed the uses of other
disciplines in the the study of the H4 plays. G. K. Hunter (1959) invokes
anthropology in an attempt to understand prince Hal''s growth as a king or
governor (Bevington 253-262). Robert G. Hunter (1978) resorts to the
carnival theory in much the same vein as C. L. Barber, but emphasizes "the
bliss of living within appetitive time" in conflict with the Protestant
ethic of Shakespeare''s day (Bevington 349-358).
Analogies to shadowy archetypes constitute a particular section of
falstaffian criticism: to Roy Battenhouse (1975) Falstaff represents a
"holy fool" figure ; to Douglas J. Stewart (1977) he has in him something
of Chiron the Centaur, tutor of heroic youth (Burden 14). The links
between Oldcastle and Falstaff has been detailedly provided by R. Fiehler
(1955) (Wells 14). Alice-Lyle Scoufos (1979), in the same manner, reads
every bit of Falstaff as a satire of Sir John Oldcastle of the Cobham
family.
Psychoanalytic criticism, though mainly applied to Prince Hal, has also
served Falstaff. None of the critical efforts, however, seems to have
employed a consistent and professional theoretical framework, though they
use such terms as conflict, super-ego, and pre-Oedipal complex. The group
includes W. H. Auden (1948), Ernst Kris (1948) and Robert N. Watson (1984)
(Bevington xxi). Auden''s "The Prince''s Dog" is also heavily colored by
Christian allegorical interpretations. "[O]Vertly," he asserts, "Falstaff
is a Lord of Misrule; parabolically, he is a comic symbol for the
supernatural order of [Christian] Charity as contrasted with the temporal
order of Justice symbolized by Henry of Monmouth" (eastman 206). Such
commentary is representative of many other Christian readings.
COVER
Acknowledgment
Introduction
I.Falstaffian Criticism
11. The Present Study
Chapter One: Falstaff as Trickster: Archetype
I. Shadow
11. Liminality
11. i. Split-personality
11. ii. Self-contradiction
11. iii. Anti-social Behavior
III. Improvisation
Chapter Two: Falstaff as Lord of Misrule:
1. Carnival and Festivity
Il. The "Saturnalian Pattern
III. Carnival Theory and Praxis
III. i. Collision of Carnival and History
III. ii. Grotesque Realism
111. iii. Carnival Lauahter
111. iv. Carnival Utopianism
111. v. The Battle of Carnival and Lent
IV. Conclusion
Chapter Three: Falstaff as Alternative Father: Psychodynamics
1. Five Instruments of Psychodrama
1. i. Stace
1. ii. Subject/Patient
1. iii. Auxiliary Egos
1. iv. Audience
11. Role Dynamics
11. i. Role Dynamics in the PI ay-within- the -Play
11. ii. Role Dynamics in H4
Chapter Four: Falstaff and the Chinese Perspective
I.The Caucasian Chalk Circle
II. Some Tricksters in Chinese Literature
111. The Case of Hui-lan chi
III. i. Trickster as Villain
OTHERS
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top