Rethinking Paradigm: Shakespeare’s Writing Tactics in Troilus and Cressida

莎士比亞問題劇的構成條件包括：(1)、劇場演出相對較不受歡迎，評價貶多於褒。(2)、每個文本皆跨越多重型類，揉雜多樣體式，難以絕對類分。(3)、多集中成書於某個特定寫作時期(要不是1602年以前，就是1607年以後)，附帶衍生戲劇作品是為創作主體「特殊」生命經驗沖刷、積澱、投射的「浪漫」想像。(4)、主張藉由戲劇場域，關注爭議性論題，展露社會意識。(5)、寫作風格明顯轉向陰鬱、黑暗、深沉、尖銳、消極、壓抑、悲觀。(6)、文本中曝露難掩的「結構性問題」，被視為藝術上的缺陷、折損。這些結構性問題多半發生在結尾處，於是牽引出「首尾皆輕」、「頭輕腳重」、「頭重腳輕」的三種評價與說法。(7)、文本中亦設計、埋伏了「問題性結構」，引導現代批判理論的參與、滲入，並「預留」了一道明晰思辨的「清醒的空間」。 除掉前言和結語，本文析論的方向有三：「大論述與小論述的辯證」、「『一切堅固的都已消散、一切神聖的皆已瀆污』：兩個系統、諧擬、存在的荒蕪」、「『重新估定一切價值』」。文章的第一部份將快速精要地檢驗作為問題劇的《特洛伊羅斯與克瑞西達》，究竟符合上述哪幾點成立的理由。本研究著墨、側重更多的是，透過互文性、微型敘述的「後現代╱後結構」的思路、概念和方法學，以及尼采由存在主義、虛無主義的視野出發，最後卻落腳在「重新估定一切價值」的理論終站，再次細讀《特洛伊羅斯與克瑞西達》，以詮釋莎士比亞文本中反轉典律、解消典律、再改寫典律的行動。本文也意圖將莎士比亞藉《特》劇運用的書寫策略、自覺敘事，看作「現代意識」生發的載體和場域。即使最終我們理解，劇作家的寫作手法僅僅是挑戰、介入恢宏敘事，並干擾、鬆動大寫文本，卻不企圖重建重構，以完成對正典的「超越與克服」。To re-examine the subject of “history,” my research attempts to deal with the possibility of re-subjectifying histories via the facets of dramaturgy and theatrical arts. My analysis will focus on the case study of Troilus and Cressida. Troilus and Cressida is Shakespeare’s reworking of the historical, mythological, and epic poetic paradigm concerning the initiation of a notorious, iconic war and the futile strife between the Trojans and the Greeks due to a certain feminine token (Helen at first and then Cressida next), thereby revealing the playwright’s overt endeavor for reshaping (“ridiculing”) a literary classic and assuming (“violating”) history. By so doing, the writing in Troilus and Cressida aims not only at paradigm shift in a sense, but also at intertextuality, by positioning itself as a self-referential meta-text that welcomes multifarious readings, and generates “polyphonic” texts. Troilus and Cressida is infamous as a Shakespearean problem play. As a problem play, Troilus and Cressida is characterized by complex structures, cross/ambiguous genres, and moral quandaries; by a blur and a de-canonization of the orthodox dramatic categorizations of tragedy, comedy, and chronicle/history plays. In the first sections, I will quickly go over a number of compelling reasons that identify Troilus and Cressida as an indefinable problem play. My explanation of the play as “problematized” shall also contribute to re-subjectifying (and representation of) histories. My discussion will consist of the following four aspects: 1) responses of audiences, critics of the stage production, and the trajectory of scholarship; 2) the reflection of dark, satirical, even pathologically absurdist social controversies, together with perplexing, melancholic, disquieting public issues as the play’s “thesis.” My examination will also contain: 3) intrinsic “structural problems” as dramatic/artistic flaws; 4) “problematic structure” as a self-reflexive critical stance, which “takes a step back” so as to allow room for dialectical dynamics. Such problematic structure, essential to Shakespearean problem plays, like Troilus and Cressida, thus opens up uncanny spaces and fissures for (post) modern theories to interrupt, intervene and “negotiate”; to violate, “deconstruct” and remold. On the one hand, heroism, idolization of masculinity, and vanity of militarism inevitably still overwhelm and outshine in Troilus and Cressida (dramatized in, for example, Priam, and above all, Agamemnon’s pale, tedious, empty, monologuous metanarratives). On the other hand, I see clearly Shakespeare’s intention of the simultaneous juxtaposition of “de-machismo,” “iconoclast,” and “nihilism” through encouraging, igniting, and fermenting the hilarious dialogism of minor narratives in the text (manifested in, for example, Hector, Achilles, Ulysses, Thersites, Troilus, Calchas, Pandarus, and Ajax’s anti-heroic pursuits, individual desires, and trivial causes). This is what I call a disenchantment of multiple/micro perspectives on histories that are absorbed and embroiled in macro History and clean-cut, grand narratives. On the matter of research methodology, in addition to close reading of the play, I will employ ideas and texts of Nietzsche, Existentialism, and Post-Structuralism (in particular J. F. Lyotard’s concepts of metanarratives and little narratives) that validate the theoretical foundation of this paper