“(The) Play’s the Thing”: Shakespearean drama as an end in itself

Catherine Addison
{"title":"“(The) Play’s the Thing”: Shakespearean drama as an end in itself","authors":"Catherine Addison","doi":"10.4314/sisa.v36i1.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drama, more obviously than other genres of art, is a form of play; and play, according to Johan Huizinga, is essentially autotelic, or not a means to an end. Shakespeare’s plays are trivialised if they are seen essentially as means to other ends. Science conceives of the material world as an endless chain of causes, just as utilitarianism demands that all human artefacts and endeavours take their place on an eternal chain of purposes. This model devalues all its elements, for they acquire their worth only in terms of what appears next along the chain, never in or of themselves. The model is also counter-intuitive, since human experience values things, people and events differently from one another. Some items give us more pause than others; a few invite us to lose ourselves, as a child becomes lost in a game. Drama asks an audience to play along with its playing actors, pointlessly. If there is a point – moral or utilitarian – it is a mere side effect. A play, like Cleopatra’s hopping, is a digression from the straight journey of human lives toward death; and, as Freud suggests in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, detours are the only places in which the life drive makes any inroads into the death instincts’ relentless onward progress. Shakespeare’s dramatic works not only demonstrate play, and hook their audiences into the delightful, terrifying and all-absorbing world of (the) play, but they also provide a metanarrative about play, playing with the idea of playing. This essay resists the tendency to interpret Shakespeare’s dramatic works pragmatically, and instead shows, with examples from comedies and romances, especially The Tempest and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and from tragedies including King Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet and Antony and Cleopatra, how they refuse to be means toward other ends, but “play till doomsday”, throwing reflective aspects up to their audiences and defying the puritans to stop them as they do so.","PeriodicalId":334648,"journal":{"name":"Shakespeare in Southern Africa","volume":"11 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shakespeare in Southern Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/sisa.v36i1.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drama, more obviously than other genres of art, is a form of play; and play, according to Johan Huizinga, is essentially autotelic, or not a means to an end. Shakespeare’s plays are trivialised if they are seen essentially as means to other ends. Science conceives of the material world as an endless chain of causes, just as utilitarianism demands that all human artefacts and endeavours take their place on an eternal chain of purposes. This model devalues all its elements, for they acquire their worth only in terms of what appears next along the chain, never in or of themselves. The model is also counter-intuitive, since human experience values things, people and events differently from one another. Some items give us more pause than others; a few invite us to lose ourselves, as a child becomes lost in a game. Drama asks an audience to play along with its playing actors, pointlessly. If there is a point – moral or utilitarian – it is a mere side effect. A play, like Cleopatra’s hopping, is a digression from the straight journey of human lives toward death; and, as Freud suggests in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, detours are the only places in which the life drive makes any inroads into the death instincts’ relentless onward progress. Shakespeare’s dramatic works not only demonstrate play, and hook their audiences into the delightful, terrifying and all-absorbing world of (the) play, but they also provide a metanarrative about play, playing with the idea of playing. This essay resists the tendency to interpret Shakespeare’s dramatic works pragmatically, and instead shows, with examples from comedies and romances, especially The Tempest and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and from tragedies including King Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet and Antony and Cleopatra, how they refuse to be means toward other ends, but “play till doomsday”, throwing reflective aspects up to their audiences and defying the puritans to stop them as they do so.
"(戏剧)是最重要的":莎士比亚戏剧本身就是目的
与其他艺术流派相比,戏剧显然是一种游戏形式;而根据约翰-惠伊津格(Johan Huizinga)的观点,游戏本质上是自洽的,或者说不是达到目的的手段。如果莎士比亚的戏剧本质上被视为达到其他目的的手段,那么它们就会被轻视。科学将物质世界视为一连串无穷无尽的原因,正如功利主义要求人类的所有手工艺品和努力都在永恒的目的链中占有一席之地。这种模式贬低了所有元素的价值,因为它们的价值只取决于链条上出现的下一个因素,而非其本身。这种模式也有悖于直觉,因为人类经验对事物、人和事件的评价各不相同。有些东西会让我们停顿下来,有些则会让我们迷失自我,就像孩子在游戏中迷失了自我一样。戏剧要求观众毫无意义地配合演员的表演。如果说有什么意义的话--道德的或功利的--那也只是副作用。正如弗洛伊德在《超越快乐原则》一书中所指出的那样,只有在迂回曲折的地方,生命的动力才会对死亡本能的无情前进产生影响。莎士比亚的戏剧作品不仅展示了 "游戏",将观众带入一个令人愉悦、令人恐惧、令人着迷的(游戏)世界,而且还提供了一个关于 "游戏 "的元叙事,玩弄了 "游戏 "这一概念。这篇文章抵制从实用主义角度解释莎士比亚戏剧作品的倾向,而是通过喜剧和爱情剧(尤其是《暴风雨》和《仲夏夜之梦》)以及悲剧(包括《李尔王》、《麦克白》、《哈姆雷特》和《安东尼与克莉奥佩特拉》)中的例子,说明它们如何拒绝成为实现其他目的的手段,而是 "一直玩到世界末日",将反思性的一面抛给观众,并在这样做的过程中藐视清教徒的阻止。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信