莎翁喜劇流暢、浪漫、祥和、喜聞樂見、重娛樂而輕教化，瓊生喜劇則呆板、陰冷、譏諷、書卷氣重、重教化而輕娛樂。直至近百年來，此類對立觀點才開始改變。 本書從貪婪主題、教化意圖、人物塑造三點比較了莎翁的《威尼斯商人》和瓊生的《老狐貍》，認為上述傳統(tǒng)觀點過于簡略，未能充分反映劇作家的喜劇全貌。 本書的結論是，兩人的技巧、意圖可能極似。二者確有不同，但并非以往過簡、過略的觀點所能描述。
在早期現(xiàn)代喜劇中，莎士比亞的《威尼斯商人》和瓊生的《狐貍》都是以威尼斯為背景。威尼斯是一個商業(yè)高度發(fā)達的城市，社會生活也呈現(xiàn)出典型的商業(yè)化社會的特點：一方面，經濟利益至上，人欲橫流，一些人唯利是圖、貪婪成性；另一方面，為了避免大的沖突，為了社會的和諧發(fā)展，必須加強法制，弘揚主流的價值，并通過教化使法制觀念和主流價值深入人心。這也正是《威尼斯商人》和《狐貍》這兩部威尼斯喜劇的重要主題。貪婪和教化既是世俗的概念，又是宗教的概念；貪婪是世俗商人盈利的動力之一，是貨幣拜物教的體現(xiàn)，但也是基督教所譴責的七宗罪之一，需要世俗的或者宗教的教化來使之中和。因此，這兩個概念具有超出自身的相當廣泛的社會意義。
廖運剛的研究敏銳地抓住了這兩個重要的主題，并且通過這兩個重要主題，在風格似乎截然不同，甚至尖銳對立的兩部喜劇中找到了□重要的共性，在莎士比亞和瓊生之間架起了主題上的橋梁。這一研究能幫助我們深入了解這兩部喜劇，反思貪婪與教化之間的辯證，反思這一辯證關系對于早期現(xiàn)代商業(yè)社會和法治社會發(fā)展的重要意義。不過，在文學研究中，主題研究還是要落實到形式分析上。在運剛的研究中，對于文學形式的分析落實到了對于人物刻畫的分析上，特別是對于氣質（hunour）和類型人物（stock character）的分析。所謂“氣質”，其實指的是決定氣質或者性情的體液——西方從古代、中世紀到現(xiàn)代，都一直相信不同的體液導致了不同的性情或者性格。而所謂類型人物，指的是某一性格特征十分突出并相對固定化的人物，這是文學作品中相對臉譜化的人物，往往一出場就能被觀眾辨認出來。對氣質和類型人物的深入分析，有助于了解劇中的人物性格，也有助于了解構成人物性格的戲劇形式以及戲劇形式之外的更廣泛的社會背景。
對于氣質和類型人物的分析，也指向了當代文學理論的一個重要方面，即精神分析學。弗里德里克·詹明信認為，弗洛伊德精神分析學將性格特征和神經病（neurosis）區(qū)別開來。有的人物具有十分獨特的性格，“或煩躁不安，或焦躁易怒，或甜言蜜語，或低聲下氣”；但這都是性格，而不是病態(tài)。不過問題在于，這兩者的界限何在？這一界限的意義何在？詹明信同時認為，弗洛伊德的精神分析學旨在發(fā)現(xiàn)病態(tài)并治療病態(tài)，而拉康則認為精神病態(tài)無法治愈，我們只能接受生活在病態(tài)社區(qū)這一現(xiàn)實。就夏洛克和老狐貍福爾鵬尼而言，貪婪究竟只是他們的性格特征，還是已經成為他們的病癥？這種貪婪究竟是可以治愈，還是根本就無法治愈？其病因何在？他們是否也只是病態(tài)社區(qū)的一個部分或者癥候？細讀兩個文本，有助于找出這些問題的答案。
早期現(xiàn)代文本離我們已十分久遠，閱讀起來有一定困難，需要借助前人的研究。前人對于莎士比亞文本的研究較多，而對于瓊生文本的研究相對較少。在研究過程中，運剛不僅盡量參考能找到的所有資料，而且還定期求教于在北大英文系任教的TomRendaⅡ先生，獲益匪淺。有了扎實的文本細讀的功夫，同時又大量參考前人的研究文獻，保證了研究的質量和分量。
廖運剛，男，四川宜賓人。201年獲得北京大學文學博士學位，四川大學外國語學院副教授，2015至2016年為英國牛津大學英文系訪問學者。主要研究興趣是英國文藝復興時期文學。主持四川大學中央高�；究蒲袠I(yè)務費項目“本?瓊生喜劇藝術研究”（2014立項），批準號skqy201402。在《北京第二外國語學院學報》、《英語廣場》（學術研究）等期刊發(fā)表論文四篇。
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
《莎氏喜劇和瓊生喜劇：<威尼斯商人>與<狐貍>比較研究（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
……
書單推薦
