莎翁喜剧流畅、浪漫、祥和、喜闻乐见、重娱乐而轻教化，琼生喜剧则呆板、阴冷、讥讽、书卷气重、重教化而轻娱乐。直至近百年来，此类对立观点才开始改变。 本书从贪婪主题、教化意图、人物塑造三点比较了莎翁的《威尼斯商人》和琼生的《老狐狸》，认为上述传统观点过于简略，未能充分反映剧作家的喜剧全貌。 本书的结论是，两人的技巧、意图可能极似。二者确有不同，但并非以往过简、过略的观点所能描述。
在早期现代喜剧中，莎士比亚的《威尼斯商人》和琼生的《狐狸》都是以威尼斯为背景。威尼斯是一个商业高度发达的城市，社会生活也呈现出典型的商业化社会的特点：一方面，经济利益至上，人欲横流，一些人唯利是图、贪婪成性；另一方面，为了避免大的冲突，为了社会的和谐发展，必须加强法制，弘扬主流的价值，并通过教化使法制观念和主流价值深入人心。这也正是《威尼斯商人》和《狐狸》这两部威尼斯喜剧的重要主题。贪婪和教化既是世俗的概念，又是宗教的概念；贪婪是世俗商人盈利的动力之一，是货币拜物教的体现，但也是基督教所谴责的七宗罪之一，需要世俗的或者宗教的教化来使之中和。因此，这两个概念具有超出自身的相当广泛的社会意义。
廖运刚的研究敏锐地抓住了这两个重要的主题，并且通过这两个重要主题，在风格似乎截然不同，甚至尖锐对立的两部喜剧中找到了□重要的共性，在莎士比亚和琼生之间架起了主题上的桥梁。这一研究能帮助我们深入了解这两部喜剧，反思贪婪与教化之间的辩证，反思这一辩证关系对于早期现代商业社会和法治社会发展的重要意义。不过，在文学研究中，主题研究还是要落实到形式分析上。在运刚的研究中，对于文学形式的分析落实到了对于人物刻画的分析上，特别是对于气质（hunour）和类型人物（stock character）的分析。所谓“气质”，其实指的是决定气质或者性情的体液——西方从古代、中世纪到现代，都一直相信不同的体液导致了不同的性情或者性格。而所谓类型人物，指的是某一性格特征十分突出并相对固定化的人物，这是文学作品中相对脸谱化的人物，往往一出场就能被观众辨认出来。对气质和类型人物的深入分析，有助于了解剧中的人物性格，也有助于了解构成人物性格的戏剧形式以及戏剧形式之外的更广泛的社会背景。
对于气质和类型人物的分析，也指向了当代文学理论的一个重要方面，即精神分析学。弗里德里克·詹明信认为，弗洛伊德精神分析学将性格特征和神经病（neurosis）区别开来。有的人物具有十分独特的性格，“或烦躁不安，或焦躁易怒，或甜言蜜语，或低声下气”；但这都是性格，而不是病态。不过问题在于，这两者的界限何在？这一界限的意义何在？詹明信同时认为，弗洛伊德的精神分析学旨在发现病态并治疗病态，而拉康则认为精神病态无法治愈，我们只能接受生活在病态社区这一现实。就夏洛克和老狐狸福尔鹏尼而言，贪婪究竟只是他们的性格特征，还是已经成为他们的病症？这种贪婪究竟是可以治愈，还是根本就无法治愈？其病因何在？他们是否也只是病态社区的一个部分或者症候？细读两个文本，有助于找出这些问题的答案。
早期现代文本离我们已十分久远，阅读起来有一定困难，需要借助前人的研究。前人对于莎士比亚文本的研究较多，而对于琼生文本的研究相对较少。在研究过程中，运刚不仅尽量参考能找到的所有资料，而且还定期求教于在北大英文系任教的TomRendaⅡ先生，获益匪浅。有了扎实的文本细读的功夫，同时又大量参考前人的研究文献，保证了研究的质量和分量。
廖运刚，男，四川宜宾人。201年获得北京大学文学博士学位，四川大学外国语学院副教授，2015至2016年为英国牛津大学英文系访问学者。主要研究兴趣是英国文艺复兴时期文学。主持四川大学中央高校基本科研业务费项目“本?琼生喜剧艺术研究”（2014立项），批准号skqy201402。在《北京第二外国语学院学报》、《英语广场》（学术研究）等期刊发表论文四篇。
序言
PREFACE
Introduction
1 Shakespearian and Jonsonian Comedy
I． A general view of Shakespearian and Jonsonian comedy
II． Shakespeare and Jonson in dramatic context
III． Shakespeare and Jonson in historical context
IV． The "rub" of generalization
2 The Theme of Avarice
I． Definition of avarice
II． Praise and prosecution of avarice
III． Historical background of avarice
3 Jonson's and Shakespeare's Dramatic Didacticism
I． Introduction
II． Jonson's didacticism
IH． Shakespeare's didacticism
4 Characterization in Volpone and The Merchant of Venice
I． Humors and character types
II． The fortune hunters
III． The facilitators
IV． The villains of passions
Conclusion
Works Cited
《莎氏喜剧和琼生喜剧：<威尼斯商人>与<狐狸>比较研究（英文版）》：
Scholars have noted the importance of Shakespeare's inheritance of the English popular traditions. A great and humane genius， humanist and outstanding writer， actor and theater owner， Shakespeare was able to combine different traditions and sources to produce his unique， inimitable comedies. Traditionally the main features of Shakespeare's comedies have been claimed to be their sweetness， concern with male/female relationships， popular appeal and the purpose of entertainment. Compared with Jonson， Shakespeare's use of classical techniques and materials was limited. Shakespeare's lack of classical education was seen to be the cause of his violations of the dramatic rules laid down by Greek and Roman writers and renewed by the English and French neo-classicists. .
Compared with Shakespeare， Jonson was regarded as more influenced by classical comic traditions. A well-read scholar of the classics， court poet and humariist， Jonson learned from the Greek and Roman dramatists while absorbing the English tradition of morality plays. He particularly drew much on contemporary London life. Traditionally Jonson's comedies have been considered learned， humorous， satirical and didactic. Dissatisfied with the current practices in playwriting， Jonson created hunor comedies as a new genre based on his studies of classical literature and on his own literary theories. l3eing a drama theorist and critic himself， Jonson also produced comedies which deal with human follies aiming at warning against and correcting them. He was praised by both contemporary and future critics as a staunch observer of neo-classical dramatic rules.
Shakespeare's and Jonson's techniques of characterization have been thought markedly different. Shakespeare's characters have been considered unique， natural individuals that can be found in all ages and all places. They are always alive. Jonson's characters， in contrast， were considered not as unique individuals， but as types， for example， a bragging soldier or an old miser. They were alive in the dramatist's London， but not in other ages or other places. Shakespeare was praised for his naturalness and spontaneity； Jonson was blamed for his mechanicality and labored contrivance. Shakespeare was hailed for his nature； and Jonson， his art.
The past four hundred years have witnessed the vicissitudes of the reception of Shakespeare's and Jonson's comedies. From his death until almost the last quarter of the eighteenth century when neo-classical rules dominated the literary world， Shakespeare was largely criticized， extensively adapted and occasionally appreciated， while Jonson was avidly worshiped， carefully imitated and held up as the standard and culmination of dramatic comedy. The English Romantic movement radically changed this situation. With the new emphasis on " spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" （Wordsworth 237）， Shakespeare found great favor with the Romantics， who brought Shakespeare to continued ascendancy. The Romantics' elevation of Shakespeare resulted in ignorance and even rejection of Jonson， and an even lower place for him was still to come in the late nineteenth century， when most of his plays， especially his earlier， well-recognized， great Jacobean comedies， were disregarded. Since the
……
当前图书最新荐购
