臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文摘要
本文旨在探討莎士比亞戲中戲的結構與內容。作者認為戲中戲可以符號學理論簡化為單一架構Ps Es (Ps E s), 而此架構可隨戲作家的使用在內容上有所不同。此架構主要分為兩種型態:戲劇型態 (dramatic mode) 與敘事型態(epic mode), 前者創造出另一虛幻的對話時空，而後者揭示其虛幻的本質。在本文研究的莎士比亞三劇本中─《亨利四世》第一部﹑《哈姆雷特》﹑及《仲夏夜夢》─ 此兩種型態以不同的比例在各劇呈現。
在此三劇中，戲中戲皆在情節上佔有重要地位。或轉承﹑或總結，戲中戲的內容本身即單獨構成本戲的縮影。值此意義，戲即人生。非但如此，本戲中張顯重要意含的符碼(code), 在戲中戲皆再度呈現。由於情節的連貫，加上戲中戲的特殊機制，使得原先延意(connote)於特定劇中人物的符號(sign-system )重新編排。而戲劇型態或敘事型態的採用影響了此表意過程(signification ), 前者使符號重整，後者干擾、甚至阻斷符號的流動。
從戲劇史的角度，戲中戲在英國文藝復興時期的流行趨勢有其時代意義。在逐漸脫離中古世紀道德劇(morality play )與奇蹟劇(mystery play ) 那種舞台上下合一、共時体驗聖經故事的氛圍後，戲劇建立了第四道牆 (the fourth wall)與觀眾分離，並宣示戲中一切皆為虛幻。而戲中戲的出現，更為這些獨立於外的戲劇(self-contained play )架起了另一道牆。即使莎士比亞有時採用了敘事型態打破了戲中戲的虛幻，敘事者 (authorial narrator)的位置皆只游移在舞台上的表演者與觀看者。舞台下的觀眾從未成為敘事的直接受話者，因此，戲中戲加深了舞台上下的距離，也預示了十八世紀舞台簾幕的使用，實質地劃出舞台的界線。

Shakespeare’s Inset Plays: Semiological Studies of HenryIV, Part One, Hamlet, and A Mid-Summer Night's Dream
Abstract
This thesis argues that the play-within-a-play is both an ahistorical structure and a historical dramatic device with its own content. It can be condensed to a fixed formula Ps Es(Ps Es), in which Ps Es represents the “real” speech participants and speech events and Ps Es the illusory ones. I apply this formula to investigate three Shakespeare’s plays--- Henry IV, Part One, Hamlet, and A Mid-Summer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare constantly shifts his focus between Ps Es and (Ps Es), and creates the epic mode and dramatic mode of the play-within-a-play. Be it dramatic or epic, the play-within-a-play shares the plot and theme of the main play. In this sense the “stage”(inner play) is the reflection of the “world”(outer play). Moreover, the critical codes in the play are repeated and intensified in the play-within-a-play. Due to the consistency of the plot and the mechanism of the play-within-a-play, the sign connoted in the figure is possibly reshuffled, which is influenced by the dramatic or epic mode. While the dramatic mode facilitates the circulation of the sign, on-stage as well as off-stage, the epic mode destabilizes the signification or sign-transformation. From the perspective of the history of drama, the adopting of the play-within-a-play is a crucial trend. In the English Renaissance period, the play had gradually separated itself from the medieval ritual plays in its detachment from the audience. No longer resorting to the vicarious participation with the biblical stories, the Renaissance play erected the “fourth wall” and became the secular, self-contained play. In Shakespeare’s application of the play-within-a-play, the on-stage figures never address or refer to the theater audience, which can be seen as another wall that demarcates the stage from the world.

Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...1
Chapter One: Semiology of the Play-within-a-play…………………………………..5
I. Definition of the Play-within-a-play……………………………………………...5
I. i. History of the Play-within-a-play Definition………………………………..5
I. ii. Poetic Mode of the Play-within-a-play: Dialogues within Dialogues……...8
I. iii. Structural Relation: Framed/ Framing Play………………………………..9
I. iv. Minimal Number in Inner/Outer Play…………………………………….10
I. v. The Play-within-a-play as Another Context……………………………….11
II. Semiological Elements in the Play-within-a-play……………………………...13
II.i. Code/ Message……………………………………………………………..14
II. ii. Sign and Signification…………………………………………………….15
II. iii. Change of Identity: From Denotation to Metalanguage…………………16
II. iv. Another Illusory Context: From “I-here-now” to “I-here-now”…………18
II. v. Play-within-a-play as PsEs(PsEs) Form……………………………………21
III. Communication Pattern of the Play-within-a-play……………………………22
III.i. Play-within-a-play in Communication Channel…………………………..22
III.ii. Dramatic/ Epic Play-within-a-play……………………………………….24
Chapter Two: Henry IV, Part One, the Encoding of Honor…………………………29
I. Dishonor/ Honor………………………………………………………………...29
II. Purification of Dishonor ……………………………………………………….34
II. i. Falstaff’s Signification…………………………………………………….35
II. ii. Hostess’ Interruption……………………………………………………..37
II. iii. Falstaff’s Encoding of Virtue……………………………………………40
II. iv. Prince Hal’s Encoding of Honor………………………………………...42
III. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………46
Chapter Three: Hamlet, the Encoding of Narrative…………………………………49
I. The Discourse of the Present…………………………………………………...50
I. i. The Contradicted Sign-Relation…………………………………………...50
I. ii. Claudius as the “I-speaker” in the Discourse of the Present……………...52
II. The Narrative of the Past……………………………………………………....54
II. i. The Memory of the Past…………………………………………………..54
II. ii. Hamlet as the Potential Successor of the Narrative of the Past………….56
II. iii. The Spirit’s Narrative of the Past……………………………………….59
III. The Reversion of the Sign……………………………………………………60
III.i. The Dumb Show…………………………………………………………60
III. ii. Catch the Conscience of the Queen…………………………………….61
III. iii. Catch the Conscience of the King……………………………………...64
Chapter Four: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the Aborted Encoding……………….71
I. Desire/ Reason…………………………………………………………………71
II. Pyramus and Thisbe…………………………………………………………..73
III. The Failed Signification……………………………………………………...76
IV. Prologue of Reason…………………………………………………………..78
V. The Speech of Wall, Lion, and the Man in the Moon………………………...79
VI. Alienation of Stage Audience………………………………………………..81
VII. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..83
Chapter Five: Conclusion…………………………………………………………...86
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………...89

Bibliography
Abel, Lionel. Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form. New York: Hill and
Wang, 1963.
Austin, J. L.. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd Edition. Ed. J. O. Urmson and
Marina Sbisà. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1975.
Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl
Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.
Barber, C. L. “From Ritual to Comedy: An Examination of Henry IV.”
Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Ed. Leonard F. Dean. New York:
Oxford UP, 1967. 144-166.
Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. Trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith.
New York: Hill and Wang, 1973.
Bauer, Agnes Sophie. Play-within-a-play and Audience Response Theory: A
Comparative Analysis of Contagious Drama by Gatti, Stoppard, and Weiss.
Diss. Purdue University, 1997.
Benveniste, Emile. Problems in General Linguistics. Trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek.
Coral Gables: U of Miami P, 1971.
Berkeley, David, and Danald Eidson. “The Theme of Henry IV, Part 1.”
Shakespeare Quarterly 19 (1968): 25-31.
Berry, Edward. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
Berry, Francis. The Shakespeare Inset: Word and Picture. New York: Theatre Arts
Books, 1965.
Bevington, David, ed. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. 4th Edition. New
York: HarperCollins, 1992.
Bowers, Fredson. “Theme and Structure in King Henry IV, Part I.” The Drama of
the Renaissance: Essays for Leicester Bradner. Ed. Elmer M. Blistein. Rhode
Island: Brown UP, 1970. 42-68.
Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Ed. and
Trans. John Willett. New York: Hill and Wang, 1974.
Brooks, Harold F., ed. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. London: Methuen, 1979.
Brown, Keith. “ ‘Form and Cause Conjoin’d’: ‘Hamlet’ and Shakespeare’s
Workshop.” Shakespeare Survey 26 (1973): 11-20.
Calderwood, James L. Shakespearean Metadrama. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP,
1971.
---. Metadrama in Shakespeare’s Henriad: Richard II to Henry V. Berkeley: U of
California P, 1979.
Ducrot, Oswald, and Tzvetan Todorov. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language. Trans. Catherine Porter. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1979.
Elam, Keir. Shakespeare’s Universe of Discourse: Language-Games in the
Comedies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
---. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Routledge, 1988.
Evans, Gareth Lloyd. “The Comical-Tragical-Historical Method.” William Shakespeare: Henry the Fourth, Part I. 2nd Edition. Ed. James L. Sanderson. New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1969. 194-214.
Fowler, Alastair. “The Plays within the play of Hamlet.” “Fanned and Winnowed
Opinions”: Shakespearean Essays Presented to Harold Jenkins. Ed. John W. Mahon and Thomas A. Pendleton. London: Methuen, 1987.
Frye, Northrop, Sheridan Baker, George Perkins. The Harper Handbook to
Literature. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1974.
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997.
Greimas, A. J. and J. Courtés. Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary.
Trans. Larry Crist, et al. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982.
Herman, Vimala. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London:
Routledge, 1995.
Hjelmslev, Louis. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Trans. Francis J.
Whitfield. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1961.
Hornby, Richard. Drama, Metadrama and Perception. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP,
1986.
Humphreys, A. R., ed. King Henry IV, Part I. London: Methuen, 1974.
Ingarden, Roman. The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of
Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature. Trans. George G. Grabowicz.
Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1973.
Jakobson, Roman. On Language. Ed. Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-
Burston. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Jenkins, Harold, ed. Hamlet. The Arden Edition. London: Methuen, 1982.
Kavanagh, James H. “Shakespeare in ideology.” Alternative Shakespeares. Ed.
John Drakakis. London: Methuen, 1985. 144-165.
King, Walter N. Hamlet’s Search for Meaning. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1982.
Laggatt, Alexander. Shakespeare’s Comedy of Love. London: Routledge, 1974.
Levitt, Paul M. A Structural Approach to the Analysis of Drama. The Hague:
Mouton, 1971.
Mcguire, Richard L. “The Play-within-the-play in 1 Henry IV.” Shakespeare
Quarterly 18 (1967): 47-52.
Mehl, Dieter. The Elizabethan Dumb Show: The History of a Dramatic Convention.
London: Methuen, 1965.
Nelson, Robert J. Play within a Play: The Dramatist’s Conception of His Art: Shakespeare to Anouilh. New Haven: Yale UP, 1958.
Pavis, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis. Trans.
Christine Shantz. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1988.
Peltrault, Claude. “(Para-) Dramatic Inclusions in 1 Henry IV: the Transgression of the Play, the Play of Transgression, Royalty and Theatricality.” The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1550-1642). Ed. Laroque François. Vol. 1. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990. 167-180.
Perng, Ching-Hsi. “ ‘Time to Counterfeit’: Playacting and the Hal-Falstaff
Relationship in Henry IV, Part 1.” Studies in Language and Literature 4 (1990): 59-69.
---. “Two Notes on Shakespeare.” Studies in Language and Literature 6 (October
1994): 35-45.
Pfister, Manfred. The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Trans. John Halliday.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988.
Prince, Gerald. A Dictionary of Narratology. Aldershot, England: Scolar Press,
1988.
Righter, Anne. Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin, 1967.
Samuelson, David A. The Stage as a Map of the World: An Exploration of Themes
in Self-Conscious English Renaissance Drama. Diss. University of Iowa, 1971.Ann Arbor: UMI, 2001. 7122085.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Wade Baskin. Ed.
Charles Bally, et al. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1966.
Serpieri, Alexander. “Reading the signs: towards a semiotics of Shakespearean
drama.” Trans. Keir Elam. Alternative Shakespeares. Ed. John Drakakis. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 119-143.
Scolnicov, Hanna. “Mimesis, mirror, double.” The Play Out of Context:
Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture. Ed. Hanna Scolnicov and Peter
Holland. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. 89-98.
Shakespeare, William. King Henry IV, Part I. The Arden Edition. Ed. A. R.
Humphreys. London: Methuen, 1974.
---. Hamlet. The Arden Edition. Ed. Harold Jenkins. London: Methuen,
1982.
---. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The Arden Edition. Ed. Harold F. Brooks. London: Methuen, 1979.
---. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. 4th Edition.
New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
---. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Shaw, Harry. Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: Mcgraw-Hill,
1972.
Stroup, Thomas B. “I See a Voice.” Comparative Drama 15.1 (Spring 1981): 30-
36.
Tompkins, Joanne. “ ‘Spectacular Resistance’: Metatheatre in Post-Colonial
Drama.” Modern Drama 38.1 (Spring 1995): 42-51.
Visconti, Laura. “The ‘Play’ in Hamlet: The Primacy of Theatre.” The Show
Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1550-1642). Ed. Laroque François. Vol. 1. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990. 199-206.
Willems, Michèle. “ ‘They do but jest’ or do they? Reflections on the Ambiguities
of the Space Within the Space.” The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets:
English Renaissance Drama (1550-1642). 2 Vols. Ed. Laroque François. Vol. 1. Montpellier: Paul Valery UP, 1990. 51-64.
Willson, Jr. Robert F. “Enframing Style and the Father-Daughter Theme in Early
Shakespearean Comedy and Late Romance.” Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Other Late Romances. Ed. Maurice Hunt. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1992. 38-48.
Wynne, Lorraine. “The Poetic Function of the Stage Audience and Embedded
Performance in Drama.” Semiotics 1980. New York and London: Plenum
Press, 1982. 571-576.