莎士比亚的矛盾心理:关于恶的起源的认识论上的犹豫

IF 0.2 N/A LITERATURE
Tee Montague
{"title":"莎士比亚的矛盾心理:关于恶的起源的认识论上的犹豫","authors":"Tee Montague","doi":"10.3390/literature2040020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent studies of the conceptualization of the Devil in the early modern period have pointed to the shifting theological and philosophical coordinates, which made possible a diverse spectrum of representation of diabolical evil—from Francis Bacon’s naturalistic scepticism to King James’s supernatural demonology. Shakespeare has always been central to this discussion but has not yet been placed in a contextual frame that incorporates the rise of scholarly interest in the diabolical. This article interprets Shakespeare’s representation of diabolical evil in Hamlet (1601), Othello (1603), Measure for Measure (1604) and Macbeth (1606) as constituted by a complex tension between natural and supernatural ideas about the origin of evil. Drawing on a raft of recent scholarship on representations of witchcraft and devils in the period, I show that diabolical figures in the universe of Shakespeare during the period of great tragedies between 1601 to 1606 exist in two modes of representation: as a persistent magical ambience and as a localized agent. Ambivalence is expressed in the hesitation between these opposing theological modes and is evident in the way that the Devil’s material agency is obscured and left unresolved. Viewing this through the lens of the fantastic as an ontological uncertainty that results in epistemological hesitation helps us to frame Shakespeare’s ambivalence, which at least in part originates in the ambivalent theology of Calvin. The analysis thereby positions hesitation and diabolic temptation in line with Calvin’s theology and shows how Calvin’s framework of secular evil presents an intellectual context through which Shakespeare’s ambiguity can be understood in theological terms.","PeriodicalId":40504,"journal":{"name":"Childrens Literature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shakespeare’s Ambivalence: Epistemological Hesitation about the Origin of Evil\",\"authors\":\"Tee Montague\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/literature2040020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent studies of the conceptualization of the Devil in the early modern period have pointed to the shifting theological and philosophical coordinates, which made possible a diverse spectrum of representation of diabolical evil—from Francis Bacon’s naturalistic scepticism to King James’s supernatural demonology. Shakespeare has always been central to this discussion but has not yet been placed in a contextual frame that incorporates the rise of scholarly interest in the diabolical. This article interprets Shakespeare’s representation of diabolical evil in Hamlet (1601), Othello (1603), Measure for Measure (1604) and Macbeth (1606) as constituted by a complex tension between natural and supernatural ideas about the origin of evil. Drawing on a raft of recent scholarship on representations of witchcraft and devils in the period, I show that diabolical figures in the universe of Shakespeare during the period of great tragedies between 1601 to 1606 exist in two modes of representation: as a persistent magical ambience and as a localized agent. Ambivalence is expressed in the hesitation between these opposing theological modes and is evident in the way that the Devil’s material agency is obscured and left unresolved. Viewing this through the lens of the fantastic as an ontological uncertainty that results in epistemological hesitation helps us to frame Shakespeare’s ambivalence, which at least in part originates in the ambivalent theology of Calvin. The analysis thereby positions hesitation and diabolic temptation in line with Calvin’s theology and shows how Calvin’s framework of secular evil presents an intellectual context through which Shakespeare’s ambiguity can be understood in theological terms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Childrens Literature\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Childrens Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1092\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/literature2040020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Childrens Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/literature2040020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近对近代早期魔鬼概念化的研究指出,神学和哲学坐标的变化,使得对恶魔般的邪恶的不同表现成为可能——从弗朗西斯·培根的自然主义怀疑主义到詹姆斯国王的超自然恶魔学。莎士比亚一直是这一讨论的核心,但还没有被置于一个语境框架中,这个语境框架包含了对恶魔的学术兴趣的兴起。本文将莎士比亚在《哈姆雷特》(1601年)、《奥赛罗》(1603年)、《以牙还牙》(1604年)和《麦克白》(1606年)中对恶魔般的邪恶的表现,解读为关于邪恶起源的自然与超自然观念之间的复杂张力。根据近期大量关于这一时期巫术和魔鬼表现的学术研究,我表明,在1601年至1606年的大悲剧时期,莎士比亚笔下的恶魔人物以两种表现模式存在:一种是持久的魔法氛围,另一种是局部的代理人。矛盾心理在这些对立的神学模式之间的犹豫中表现出来,并且在魔鬼的物质代理被模糊和未解决的方式中表现出来。从梦幻的角度来看,这是一种本体论上的不确定性,导致了认识论上的犹豫,这有助于我们构建莎士比亚的矛盾心理,这至少部分源于加尔文的矛盾神学。因此,分析将犹豫和恶魔般的诱惑与加尔文的神学定位一致,并表明加尔文的世俗邪恶框架如何呈现出一种知识背景,通过这种背景,莎士比亚的模糊性可以从神学的角度来理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shakespeare’s Ambivalence: Epistemological Hesitation about the Origin of Evil
Recent studies of the conceptualization of the Devil in the early modern period have pointed to the shifting theological and philosophical coordinates, which made possible a diverse spectrum of representation of diabolical evil—from Francis Bacon’s naturalistic scepticism to King James’s supernatural demonology. Shakespeare has always been central to this discussion but has not yet been placed in a contextual frame that incorporates the rise of scholarly interest in the diabolical. This article interprets Shakespeare’s representation of diabolical evil in Hamlet (1601), Othello (1603), Measure for Measure (1604) and Macbeth (1606) as constituted by a complex tension between natural and supernatural ideas about the origin of evil. Drawing on a raft of recent scholarship on representations of witchcraft and devils in the period, I show that diabolical figures in the universe of Shakespeare during the period of great tragedies between 1601 to 1606 exist in two modes of representation: as a persistent magical ambience and as a localized agent. Ambivalence is expressed in the hesitation between these opposing theological modes and is evident in the way that the Devil’s material agency is obscured and left unresolved. Viewing this through the lens of the fantastic as an ontological uncertainty that results in epistemological hesitation helps us to frame Shakespeare’s ambivalence, which at least in part originates in the ambivalent theology of Calvin. The analysis thereby positions hesitation and diabolic temptation in line with Calvin’s theology and shows how Calvin’s framework of secular evil presents an intellectual context through which Shakespeare’s ambiguity can be understood in theological terms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Childrens Literature
Childrens Literature LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.30
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