以雷蒙威廉斯之觀點重新審視葉慈戲劇世界中的融合哲學

Abstract

本論文以雷蒙威廉斯之觀點重新審視葉慈戲劇世界中的融合(unity)哲學。第一章闡述研究方法。首先在威廉斯的學說中，顯示出戲劇能夠與文化，社會，文學，語言，以及意識型態相連。接著探討葉慈的融合哲學，將之與文化，社會，文學，語言，以及意識型態做連結。如此兩者間的相容性便不證自明。第二章處理文化與文學。對威廉斯而言，文化與社會乃是無法切割，而文化可說是社會機器所製造出的產品。此外，威廉斯將文化視為是一種社會上中產階級(bourgeois)的概念，並列舉出三種文化分類：優勢(dominant)文化，新興(emergent)文化，及留存(residual)文化。葉慈冀望戲劇能融合愛爾蘭社會，他尤其希望戲劇能創造出文化的融合，而這其實便是一種文化產品。在另一方面，葉慈將其所謂的文化融合與英裔愛爾蘭(Anglo-Irish)文化劃上等號，因而打亂了其中的融合。而英裔愛爾蘭文化乃是一種留存文化，與蓋爾(Gaelic)文化處於戰略性的對立。這種文化形勢解釋了為何有些葉慈的劇作，像是「凱瑟琳女伯爵」(The Countess Cathleen)，得到了爭議性的評價。同樣地，威廉斯將文學與社會相連一起；對他而言，文學可以改變或是受制於社會。關於民族文學(national literature)的產生，威廉斯相信其中必有一篩選的過程。葉慈企圖創造出一種融合性的民族戲劇文學，目的是融合愛爾蘭民族，然而英裔愛爾蘭性(Anglo-Irishness)，卻是他唯一的篩選標準。也就是說他破壞了自己的融合。 第三章處理戲劇與共同情感結構(structure of feeling)，以及語言與意識型態間的介面。根據威廉斯的說法，戲劇讓人窺看社會的全貌。共同情感結構是一種由戲劇法度(dramatic conventions)所產生的默契，主要針對社會意識與全貌。葉慈戲劇的本意，乃是描繪愛爾蘭社會的全貌，並且葉慈依賴其戲劇專業，達到融合愛爾蘭民族的目的。然而深入分析葉慈戲劇中的共同情感結構，便可顯示十分弔詭的是，葉慈主要著眼於英裔愛爾蘭的優越，此點可作為葉慈遭到破壞之融合的佐證。至於語言，威廉斯強調其乃是一種物質產物，並且必然會將意識型態包裹其中。綜觀葉慈的戲劇生涯，葉慈始終致力於創造出一種融合的戲劇語言，也就是愛爾蘭化的英語(an Irishized English)。這種英語使葉慈和蓋爾語聯盟(the Gaelic League)處於敵對形勢。幸好葉慈的外交手腕沖淡了這份敵意。在另一方面，一旦看清葉慈語言中的意識型態，便會因為只看到英裔愛爾蘭性而對於葉慈的語言融合感到幻滅。 第四章處理威廉斯與葉慈對於悲劇與革命的論調。威廉斯相信悲劇在精神上鼓勵人們進行社會革命，因此乃是革命的精神性原因。葉慈不喜革命，不過他深信悲劇能夠產生「悲劇性的喜悅」(tragic joy)，而促成觀眾精神上的融合。這裡所強調的重點，乃是威廉斯與葉慈兩人都利用了觀眾的情感，而達到改變社會的目的。這也是葉慈將英裔愛爾蘭性深稙於愛爾蘭人心中的手段。接著是探討「胡拉洪之女凱絲琳」(Cathleen ni Houlihan)這部劇作，如何用威廉斯與葉慈的論調，將之視做是一部悲劇。主要的問題在於劇中的革命主題。如果考量葉慈如變色龍般的身份轉換，此點便能加以解釋。 最後，第五章總結整個研究，並做出結論：葉慈戲劇世界中的融合哲學，先是出現，然後便破滅。This thesis proposes a Williamsian re-examination of Yeats’ philosophy of unity in his dramatic world. Chapter I elucidates my research methodology. I demonstrate how drama, in the Williamsian tradition, may correlate with culture, society, literature, language, and ideology. Then, I look into Yeats’ philosophy of unity in his dramatic world, connecting it with culture, society, literature, language, and ideology. Thus, the compatibility of Williams and Yeats is self-evident. Chapter II deals with culture and literature. For Williams, ties between culture and society should never be severed, and culture is a product of the social machinery. Besides, Williams considers culture to be a bourgeois idea of society, listing three cultural categories: dominant, emergent, and residual. Yeats expects his theater to unify the Irish society, and above all, to create the Unity of Culture, which is in fact a cultural product. On the other hand, Yeats upsets his own Unity of Culture by equating it with the Anglo-Irish culture, a bourgeois/residual culture in tactical opposition to the Gaelic culture. This cultural configuration explains why some Yeatsian plays, like The Countess Cathleen, have been controversially received. Likewise, Williams binds literature with society; for him, the former may change or be subject to the latter. In terms of a national literature, Williams believes there is a process of selection. Yeats intends to create a national dramatic literature of unity in order to unify the Irish people, with Anglo-Irishness as the only selective criterion. So he cripples his own unity again! Chapter III treats the interfaces of drama/structure of feeling and language/ideology. By Williams, drama allows people a glimpse at the social totality. Structure of feeling is a tacit agreement generated by dramatic conventions, and it aims at social consciousness and totality. Depicting s total Irish society has always been the intention of Yeats’ drama, and Yeats relies heavily on his theatrical professionalism for facilitating the unification of the Irish people. However, a further analysis of structure of feeling in Yeats’ drama will reveal that Yeats’ main concern is paradoxically the Anglo-Irish supremacy, which can instantiate Yeats’ compromised unity. As for language, Williams asserts that it is a material product, and that ideology is certainly sheathed within it. Throughout his dramatic career, Yeats is dedicated to producing a dramatic language of unity, or an Irishized English, which causes him to antagonize the Gaelic League. Luckily, this antagonism is toned down by Yeats’ diplomacy. On the other hand, once we have an insight into Yeats’ ideology in language, we will be disillusioned with Yeats’ idea of linguistic unity and see nothing but Anglo-Irishness. Chapter IV targets Yeats’ and Williams’ theorizations of tragedy and revolution. Williams believes tragedy to be a spiritual cause of revolution, for it spiritually encourages people to revolutionize their condition. Yeats dislikes revolution, but he is convinced that tragedy may generate tragic joy, which can be responsible for a spiritual unification of the audience. Here I articulate that both Williams and Yeats make use of the audience’s emotionality for a society-changing purpose. This is also how Yeats implants Anglo-Irishness in his fellow Irish people. Then I attempt to qualify Yeats’ Cathleen ni Houlihan as a tragedy in both a Williamsian and a Yeatsian senses. Here the main problematic is its theme of revolution, which can be rendered explicable if we come to consider Yeats’ chameleon-like identity. Finally, Chapter V sums up my whole research project. I come to the conclusion that in Yeats’ dramatic world, the philosophy of unity comes to reveal and then to shatter itself.