范祎 吳代紅

摘 要：本文揭示了莎士比亞劇《李爾王》中對(duì)放逐的描述，突出了在公共和私人場(chǎng)合并存的時(shí)候如何擺平機(jī)智和真誠(chéng)的問(wèn)題，分析了劇中科迪莉亞、李爾王、坎特和埃德加等角色以不同的方式對(duì)待遠(yuǎn)離家庭和宮廷被放逐的這個(gè)主題。最終，放逐并沒(méi)有割斷親情，反而強(qiáng)化了這樣的情結(jié);重返社會(huì)不僅需要暫時(shí)的、新的身份，而且需要承擔(dān)新的公共和家庭的義務(wù)。

關(guān)鍵詞：放逐 莎士比亞 《李爾王》 公共與私人場(chǎng)合 真誠(chéng)和機(jī)智的平衡

在莎士比亞有關(guān)放逐主題的戲劇中似乎從來(lái)沒(méi)有一次成功的放逐，幾乎沒(méi)有被放逐的人溫順地接受命運(yùn)的安排，乖乖地走了，而不再理會(huì)放逐他的人。通常放逐不僅要返回，而且被放逐之人還會(huì)有新的動(dòng)機(jī)。在《泰特斯·安特洛尼克斯》中，盧修斯被羅馬皇帝放逐，使得他有自由帶領(lǐng)哥特軍隊(duì)返回了羅馬。在《羅密歐與朱麗葉》中，羅密歐被迫離開(kāi)維羅納，反而促進(jìn)他和朱麗葉想盡各種辦法來(lái)維系愛(ài)情。

以上提到的放逐是在高潮或者臨近劇終、劇情錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜時(shí)才出現(xiàn)的，莎翁的《李爾王》卻在一開(kāi)始就出現(xiàn)了放逐，而且劇情自始至終圍繞這個(gè)主線展開(kāi)。其他劇在放逐和返回之間的情節(jié)處理得很濃縮，或者幾乎不提，《李爾王》卻專注于這個(gè)中間地帶，把筆墨潑于接受放逐的過(guò)程以及在有清晰結(jié)局前的困惑。這個(gè)劇中的放逐既不是政治意義上的或者軍事意義上的放逐，也不是輕易栽贓罪過(guò)的無(wú)情的放逐，它的復(fù)雜性表現(xiàn)在公共形象和禮節(jié)與私下的關(guān)系和常態(tài)之間的沖突以及當(dāng)人們難以區(qū)別這兩者的關(guān)系時(shí)所帶來(lái)的后果。這種復(fù)雜性并不是表現(xiàn)于莎士比亞如何展開(kāi)《李爾王》中放逐的情節(jié)，而是表現(xiàn)在劇中的人物如何有意識(shí)地展示他們自己，如何依賴與別人合作逢場(chǎng)作戲。在這種擺平私人親屬關(guān)系和公共角色的策略中，唯一逃脫的途徑就是通過(guò)放棄本我形象或者在公共場(chǎng)合裝傻裝瘋。有了這樣裝傻的自由，私下的聲音可以在公共場(chǎng)合說(shuō)出來(lái)，繁縟的禮節(jié)就可以正當(dāng)?shù)厥〉簟?/p>

科迪莉亞被李爾王放逐是由李爾王脾氣的異常轉(zhuǎn)變所展開(kāi)的。李爾王使得這樣一個(gè)個(gè)人決定的過(guò)程，一個(gè)瓜分王國(guó)財(cái)產(chǎn)和勢(shì)力的過(guò)程看上去似乎與他人有過(guò)互動(dòng)。他讓他的女兒們把個(gè)人的想法公開(kāi)說(shuō)出來(lái)：“我的女兒們，告訴我——既然我們現(xiàn)在要放棄我們的統(tǒng)治、領(lǐng)土和政務(wù)——你們當(dāng)中哪一個(gè)可以說(shuō)是最愛(ài)我們的？（Tell me， my daughters / Since now we will divest us， both of rule，/ interest of territory， cares of state/ Which of you shall we say doth love us most？）”（King Lear 1.146-49）李爾王這里用了第一人稱復(fù)數(shù)，表示他代表王國(guó)，這使他的問(wèn)題不帶有親密性，但實(shí)際上是說(shuō)他要放棄統(tǒng)治，他要問(wèn)他的女兒哪一個(gè)是最愛(ài)他的。他似乎不知道她的大女兒剛乃綺和次女瑞干對(duì)他的孝順不同于她們作為臣子的責(zé)任。李爾王通過(guò)給一些線索試圖把在場(chǎng)的其他人卷進(jìn)這戲劇化的一幕。對(duì)他的幺女考地利亞，他是這樣問(wèn)的：“你有什么要說(shuō)的，可以贏得比你姊妹更為豐美的一塊？你說(shuō)?！保?.1.84-85）顯然，這不僅是個(gè)策略，而且與李爾王上面說(shuō)的話明顯不合乎邏輯。如果李爾王已經(jīng)割出了給剛乃綺和瑞干的地區(qū)，并宣稱這樣的繼承是“永久的（perpetual）”（1.1.65），那么剩下的領(lǐng)地該多大就應(yīng)該是多大了。所以，給考地利亞的部分不可能更豐美，或者倘若按李爾王的說(shuō)法，事先設(shè)計(jì)是更大一些，那么他問(wèn)考地利亞的問(wèn)題既沒(méi)用也不真誠(chéng)?？嫉乩麃喕卮鸬煤芎?jiǎn)單：“沒(méi)有什么說(shuō)的，陛下?！彪m然考地利亞的這句話是發(fā)自她內(nèi)心的，但是它立即在公共場(chǎng)合丟了李爾王的面子、降低了他的國(guó)王威嚴(yán)。對(duì)于李爾王來(lái)說(shuō)，接受小女考地利亞的回答，繼續(xù)給她土地，就意味著承認(rèn)他剛才說(shuō)的話毫無(wú)意義，是送空人情，這樣他的國(guó)王威嚴(yán)就會(huì)大打折扣。莎翁設(shè)計(jì)的這場(chǎng)劇情曲折的李爾王在公共場(chǎng)合亮相的戲，是想借李爾王原本要最后一次展示王權(quán)之際，顛覆性地剝奪一下他的王權(quán)，然后看看接下來(lái)能發(fā)生什么。結(jié)果，當(dāng)李爾王把家庭私事和公共王權(quán)的事情混在一塊時(shí)，李爾王便被鎖在了統(tǒng)治者的面具下，不能推翻他以前的言行了。

值得注意的是劇中弄臣這一角色可能是唯一反對(duì)放逐考地利亞的人，他的胡言亂語(yǔ)后來(lái)對(duì)國(guó)王是有影響的，但是在國(guó)王宣布放逐考地利亞這場(chǎng)戲中，他并沒(méi)有在場(chǎng)。顯然，在場(chǎng)的人無(wú)論誰(shuí)對(duì)國(guó)王要放逐考地利亞的決定發(fā)表任何意見(jiàn)都可能會(huì)遭殃?？蔡夭敉ι頌榭嫉乩麃嗈q護(hù)，并提醒李爾王這樣做不妥，坎特說(shuō)：“我從不珍視我的姓名，只當(dāng)作是和您的敵人打賭的賭注;我并不怕失掉它，我的動(dòng)機(jī)是為求您的安全?！崩顮柾鹾?jiǎn)短地說(shuō)：“滾出我的視線！”（1.1.155-158）然而，在隨后的劇情中，當(dāng)弄臣與李爾王爭(zhēng)辯時(shí)，弄臣并沒(méi)有受到傷害。當(dāng)李爾王問(wèn)弄臣他自己是否也是個(gè)傻子時(shí)，弄臣回答：“別的官銜您都放棄了;只剩這個(gè)是您與生俱來(lái)的?！保?.4.129-131）對(duì)此，李爾王并沒(méi)有大怒。為什么會(huì)這樣呢？放逐與違反規(guī)矩有著如此緊密的聯(lián)系，以至于一個(gè)被承認(rèn)脫離了社會(huì)圈的人就會(huì)免于不良后果;從某種意義上說(shuō)，這些人已經(jīng)被“放逐”了?？嫉乩麃啚樗难赞o辯護(hù)是從她是國(guó)王的女兒的角度進(jìn)行的;坎特伯爵為她的言辭辯護(hù)是從他是國(guó)王大臣的角度進(jìn)行的。他們轉(zhuǎn)向基本的社會(huì)關(guān)系并沒(méi)有使他們脫離公共和私人關(guān)系的羈絆，反而使他們陷入其中。

與考地利亞被放逐這場(chǎng)戲相對(duì)應(yīng)的是莎翁如何描述后來(lái)李爾王被大女兒和二女兒驅(qū)逐的戲。起初，他還以曾經(jīng)做國(guó)王時(shí)的口氣說(shuō)話：“國(guó)王要和康瓦說(shuō)話;父親要和他的女兒說(shuō)話，傳她來(lái)問(wèn)話?！保?.4.95-96）然而，他已不再是國(guó)王，其他人也不會(huì)像從前那樣附耳聽(tīng)命于他。李爾王最終不得不改用第一人稱單數(shù)的形式說(shuō)話：“去，告訴公爵和他的妻子，我要跟他們說(shuō)話?！保?.4.110）李爾王被女兒驅(qū)逐不是一個(gè)公開(kāi)讓大家都知道的事，而是一個(gè)私下的事;這個(gè)情形的唯一戲劇化是外面下著暴雨，他氣他的兩個(gè)女兒背叛了他，主要在于她們?cè)诠矆?chǎng)合中承認(rèn)他為父王，而在私底下卻背叛了他。

在《李爾王》中，在放逐戰(zhàn)斗中幸存的人必須放棄與個(gè)人和公共形象的所有聯(lián)系。伯爵坎特被剝奪了貴族身份，再回來(lái)時(shí)是以平民凱厄斯的身份出現(xiàn)的。他不再與任何人有聯(lián)系，并且避開(kāi)社會(huì)關(guān)系網(wǎng)的羈絆來(lái)保護(hù)和伺奉李爾王。埃德加是被放逐的格老斯特的兒子，之后以瘋子湯姆的形象出現(xiàn)，并從這樣一個(gè)瘋?cè)说纳矸葜屑橙×肆α?。莎士比亞安排埃德加成為湯姆后的一?chǎng)獨(dú)白戲正是向觀眾展示埃德加想逃脫別人的指引和控制，他不想再聽(tīng)埃德蒙讓他假裝打架的話：“我得做出拔劍刺你的樣子：拔出劍來(lái);做出抵御的樣子;現(xiàn)在你假裝奮力相斗?！保?.1.29-30）脫離了公共和個(gè)人網(wǎng)，陌生人和瘋子都表現(xiàn)得比那些深陷其中的人更瀟灑。“若是埃德加，一刻也不得活?！边@個(gè)新的湯姆說(shuō)，然而，他失去自我，也正是說(shuō)明他開(kāi)始控制他眼前的情形。

然而，考地利亞卻不能與埃德加和坎特相提并論。與后者不同的是，考地利亞被放逐以后基本上沒(méi)在劇中露面;等她再次露面時(shí)已經(jīng)接近劇終，并很快就死

了。莎翁設(shè)計(jì)考地利亞被放逐后消失，與她被李爾王問(wèn)起她多么愛(ài)他時(shí)所表現(xiàn)的緘默態(tài)度很相稱，但是，考地利亞的消失卻自始至終存在在劇情中，本身幾乎就是一個(gè)空的角色，伴隨著李爾王出現(xiàn)在弄臣的每個(gè)笑話中。盡管考地利亞在死之前跟李爾王見(jiàn)過(guò)面，并說(shuō)過(guò)話，但是從來(lái)都沒(méi)有在私下里見(jiàn)過(guò)面。劇中缺少?gòu)氐椎?、令人滿意的父女和解場(chǎng)景使得這個(gè)空的角色無(wú)休止地空下去。源于緘默，的確一切都是空白。當(dāng)李爾王抱著考地利亞的身體，他驚叫道：“看她，看她的嘴唇，看那邊，看那邊！”（5.3.308-309）盡管這表明李爾王自己死之前幻想女兒還有口氣，這就好像李爾王終于明白了女兒考地利亞的緘默、沒(méi)有說(shuō)出的愛(ài)。李爾王想找回小女兒被他封住的話。

《李爾王》中的放逐并沒(méi)有割斷親情，反而凝聚了親情，就是對(duì)那些放逐后以偽裝的身份回來(lái)的人，仍然在理解和修正他們的世界，以便恢復(fù)他們?cè)瓉?lái)的身份。盡管李爾王放逐了考地利亞、坎特以及后來(lái)他本人被放逐，最初都被理解為是大腦瘋狂、沖動(dòng)所致，其實(shí)李爾王的錯(cuò)誤是困擾著所有《李爾王》中角色的共同問(wèn)題：個(gè)人和公共義務(wù)的雙重性。

Artifice and Banishment in King Lear

Nancy Yi Fan

Abstract：This essay explores how the portrayal of banishment in William Shakespeares play， King Lear， highlights the juxtaposition of public and private spheres， and the balance of tact with sincerity. It examines the different ways the characters Cordelia， Lear， Kent， and Edgar cope with expulsion from family and kingdom. Ultimately， banishment does not cut ties， but emphasizes them more; a successful negotiation back into society requires not only adopting temporary new identities， but also realigning of public and familial obligations.

Keywords：banishment ? ?Shakespeares King

Lear ? public and private spheres ? balance of tact with sincerity

There never seems to be a successful banishment in Shakespeares repertoire of banishments.No banish-

ed person ever meekly accepts the fate and slinks away， never to bother the banisher again. If anything，a banishment is almost a guarantee of not only return， but also renewed and heightened motivation of the banished. In Titus Andronicus， Luciuss expulsion by the Roman Emperor frees Lucius to lead the Goth army on a march back on Rome. In Romeo and Juliet， Romeos departure from Verona increases his and Juliets embracing of desperate measures to sustain their love.

While banishment is the culmination or final complication of those plays， King Lear is a play that begins with it， and is all about it. Unlike the other plays where the interim between banishment and return is compressed or unexplored， Lear wallows in that middle space， in the struggle of accepting banishment and the confusion before a clarity of vision; the banishments in Lear are neither political or militaristic moves that can be distanced，nor are they impersonal situations where fault can be easily assigned without anguish. The complication rests in the tension of public appearance and decorum，versus private relationships and constancy，and what happens when one fails to distinguish between the two. It is not so much about how Shakespeare stages the King Lear scenes of banishment， but how the characters consciously stage themselves，constructing extemporan-

eous flourishes， and counting on the cooperation of others. In this atmosphere of artifice driven by private kinship and public power， the only escape is through the discarding of identity or the openness of madness. With license from pretended insanity or professional foolery， the private can be uttered public， and decorums significance can dissolve.

Cordelias banishment by Lear is staged as an unexpected， capricious turn of Lears temper. Lear makes the process of a personal decision， that of dividing his kingdom property and power， a seemingly interactive one. He asks his daughters to pull the private into the public：“Tell me， my daughters-/ Since now we will divest us， both of rule， / interest of territory， cares of state-/ Which of you shall we say doth love us most？” （King Lear 1.1.46-49）. Lears use of the singular plural， a formality of a monarch in public declarations that hides the individual behind an abstraction of a group， jars with the intimate question he poses. For him， he seems to not know that the filial deference from Goneril and Regan should be distinguishable from their obligation as his subjects. Lear tries to involve others into his theatrical contrivance by giving cues. To Cordelia， he asks， “What can you say to draw/ A third more opulent than your sisters？ Speak.”（1.1.84-85）Not only is artifice asked for， but also there is a striking illogic to Lears words. If Lear has already carved out regions for Goneril and Regan and declared this assignment “perpetual”（1.1.65），then there is no question about the size of the remaining third. It can therefore not be more opulent， or， if it is in fact larger by Lears previous design， his request for Cordelia is a bit useless or insincere. Cordelias simple response， “Nothing， my lord” immediately deflates the grandiloquence. ?To accept Cordelia and to continue to give her land is for Lear to recognize the meaningless of his act， admit the performing nature of this event， and forego his kings dignity. Shakespeares setup of Lears elaborate public display is to subversively take away agency from Lear， when Lear originally embarks upon it as a final display of his power. Lear is locked in the persona of ruler， unable to fluidly reverse his actions， when he mingles public and private matters.

It is important to note that the Fool， whose ramblings and jibes affect Lear later on and who could have been the sole agent against the banishment， is absent in this scene. There is no mediator or commentator who can voice subversive thoughts with impunity. Kent， the nobleman who arises to defend Cordelia and to caution Lear， merely brings himself disfavor. When he implores Lear， “My life I never held but as a pawn/ To wage against thy enemies; nor fear to lose it， /Thy safety being the motive.”Lear responds curtly：“Out of my sight！”（1.1.155-158）. However， later on the play， when the Fool bickers with Lear， he is unharmed. When Lear questions the Fool if he suggests Lear to be a fool too， the Fool answers， “All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with.” （1.4.129-131）To this， Lear does not roar in anger or annoyance. Why is this so？ Banishment is so intricately linked with breach of propriety， that an individual publically acknowledged to be outside of social circles is exempt from consequences; they are in a sense already “banished.” Cordelias defense of her speech is grounded in her assertions of being a child of a parent; Kents defense of his， is grounded in that of being a protective subject to the king. Their turn to basic social relationships entrap them rather than free them from the public-private tangle.

Furthermore， Shakespeares depiction of Lears ousting by Goneril and Regan directly answers to the grand theatricality of Cordelias earlier banishment. Under the delusion of his agency to set up and direct a public performance， Lear uses the same detached and elevated language： “The king would speak with Cornwall; the dear father/ Would with his daughter speak， commands her service.” （2.4.95-96）However， as he is deprived of actual power， the others would not play along with his staging. Lear ultimately shrinks to the unadorned first person singular： “Go tell the duke and s wife Id speak with them”（2.4.110）. His banishment by his daughters is not a public affair made for an audience， but a quiet private one; the only theatricality of the situation is the physical raging of the storm outside. Lears anger at the betrayal of his daughters is two-fold， both of the recognition of the public and private betrayal.

To cope and fight against the particular type of banishment in King Lear， the successful survivor must give up both private and public ties. Kent shakes off his noblemans identity and returns as the common Caius， free from connection to anyone and able to slip through the web of social intrigue to protect and serve Lear. Edgar， banished son of Gloucester， assumes the new identity of Tom o Bedlam， and draws strength from the uncategorized yet undeniable power of madmen. That Shakespeare chooses to give Edgars soliloquy of becoming Tom its stand-alone scene， exemplifies Edgars escape out of the direction and manipulation of others. No more does he have to listen to Edmund give him stage cues about pretend fights： “In cunning I must draw my sword upon you： / Draw; seem to defend yourself; now quit you well.” （2.1.29-30）By being out of both the public and the private webs， the stranger and the madman assume more agency than those whose try to master the clash of propriety and duty by submersing themselves in them. “Edgar I nothing am，” says the new Tom， yet his dismissal of his identity is also his assertion of his control of his situation.

Cordelia， however， cannot be put in the same category as Edgar and Kent. Unlike them， she essentially disappears from the play altogether after her banishment; her reappearance at the end is brief and quickly turns into her death. Shakespeares choice on keeping Cordelia absent seems like a parallel of Cordelia herself being reticent when Lear questions her for her love. Rather， the very absence of Cordelia， hovering throughout the plot， becomes itself a character almost， a void following Lear， present in the Fools every joke. Although Cordelia meets and speaks to Lear before her death， it is never in a private situation without other people. The lack of a thorough， satisfying reconciliation scene between father and daughter gives the void of her absence no end. From nothing， indeed there is nothing. As Lear cradles Cordelias body， he exclaims， “Look on her， look， her lips， / Look there， look there！” （5.3.308-309）Although this is first of all a reference to the living breath that Lear hallucinates before he himself dies， lips are also the place of issue for words. It is as if Lear has finally understood the wordlessness of Cordelia， her unspoken love. Lear seeks to reclaim the absence of words he had banished.

Banishment in King Lear is not the severing of ties， but the accentuation of them. Even those who take on disguises find themselves back in the milieu， attempting to comprehend and modify their world so they may resume their previous identities. While King Lears ousting of Cordelia and Kent， and later on， his own ousting， can be initially read as the results of miscalculations of a uniquely delusional mind， Lears faults are only the slight magnification of the common troubles besetting almost all characters in King Lear：the duality of private and public obligations.

References：

Shakespeare William.King Lear（Conflated Text）.The Norton Shakespeare：Based on the Oxford Edition Tragedies.Ed.Stephen Greenblatt.New York：Norton，2008.

作者：范，哈佛大學(xué)在讀學(xué)生，美國(guó)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》暢銷書排行榜上榜作家;吳代紅，廣西師范大學(xué)外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院教師。

編輯：康慧 E-mail：kanghuixx@sina.com