學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 下流之城：莎士比亞《量罪記》中的城市下流地圖誌
Vulgar City: Mapping Urban Vulgar Culture in Shakespeare`s Measure for Measure作者 施舜翔
Shih, Shun Hsiang貢獻者 姜翠芬
Jiang, Tsui Fen
施舜翔
Shih, Shun Hsiang關鍵詞 莎士比亞
量罪記
詹姆士王朝城市喜劇
城市文化
下流文化
大眾展演政治
Shakespeare
Measure for Measure
Jacobean city comedy
urban culture
vulgar culture
popular performative politics日期 2014 上傳時間 3-Feb-2015 10:13:56 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文視莎士比亞的《量罪記》為詹姆士王朝城市喜劇。這齣喜劇勾勒出城市的郊區下流地圖誌。過去的批評家在討論此劇時，要不將此劇視為迎接英國新國王詹姆士一世的奉承之作，就是將此劇解讀成對新來統治者的政治批評。本論文試圖超越過去論述的簡單二元對立，以城市喜劇的角度重新切入《量罪記》，分析莎士比亞如何透過戲劇再現城市下流文化，以及此舞台再現如何連結台下底層市民，形成大眾展演政治。論文第一部分分析《量罪記》與城市下流文化的再現。本劇將維也納城作為「崩壞之身」拉開序幕，此隱喻一方面沿襲自文藝復興時期的身體政治學，一方面又挑戰了它，因為此「崩壞之身」直到劇終仍然維持其「病態」。本劇讓觀眾體驗漫布於城市各個角落的下流文化，包括郊區的妓院群與監獄中的娼寮。本劇表面上似乎在鞏固文森提歐公爵對城市空間的掌控與管理權，另一方面卻又透過「下流」角色的身影，提供觀眾另類的閱讀，揭露城市下流文化的延續與崛起。論文第二部分探索詹姆士王朝的城市慶典與本劇饒富興味的最後一幕之間的關係。最後一幕中，公爵的皇家入城儀式與詹姆士一世的王室慶典有許多相似之處。城市慶典許久以來便是君王用來展示自我權力的工具之一，詹姆士一世對於自己的王室慶典之抗拒，卻流露出他對公眾討論的恐懼與對自我名譽的管理。他對公眾形象的細心掌控也被再現於此劇的最後一幕中。不過，即使在這最後一幕，嫖客盧求不僅讓公爵淪為眾人笑柄，毀了他的聲譽，更勾起觀眾對城市下流文化之記憶。因此，觀眾目睹的反而不是一個可敬王者的回歸，反而是一個淫亂嫖客之崛起。論文第三部分將本劇放置在原本的文化、社會與歷史背景中 。《量罪記》屬於1603年後冒出的一波「偽裝國王劇」，這一波戲劇風潮呼應伊莉莎白一世去世、詹姆士一世繼位的關鍵歷史時刻，反映出的是當時人民對於新王來臨產生的焦慮。《量罪記》特別之處在於呈現了城市「下流」人物對於未來生存與否的焦慮。另外，本劇亦與「假國王」的戲劇傳統相關。在此戲劇傳統中，劇作家會透過舞台上的「假國王」來做政治批評，展示適當的統治方式。本論文認為，本劇中影射詹姆士一世的公爵角色也可被視為一個舞台上的「假國王」，崛起的反而是城市「下流」人物。本劇透過丑角盧求邀請觀眾大方嘲弄公爵並且挑戰他早先建立起的權威。最後，盧求成為舞台上的底層大眾化身，透過情色的笑話與不馴的笑聲與台下的觀眾形成「下流」社群，共享大眾歡樂。正是這大眾愉悅的力量，讓此劇不再替統治者的權威背書，反而擁抱了底層下流市民。
This thesis sees Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure as a Jacobean city comedy that maps an urban vulgar culture. Critics in the past often focused on whether the play should be read as a flattery to the new king, James I, or as a political criticism of the ruler. The thesis goes beyond the simple dichotomy offered by criticism in the past. It reads Measure for Measure as a city comedy and analyzes Shakespeare’s dramatic representation of the urban vulgar culture, which connects the lowlife figures onstage with the audiences offstage, ultimately forming a popular performative politics. The first part of the thesis analyzes Measure for Measure and its representation of an urban vulgar culture. Vienna in the play is represented as a “vile body,” which both confirms and unsettles the early modern body politic, since the vile body stays “ill” till the very end of the play. The play invites the audience to experience how this vulgar culture permeates every part of the city, including the houses of prostitution in the suburbs and a “bawdyhouse” in the prison. While the play seems to confirm Duke Vincentio’s control and regulation of the city, the bawdy figures provide us with an alternative reading of the play, revealing the survival and even the rise of the urban vulgar cultureThe second part of the thesis relates Jacobean civic pageantry to the play’s intriguing final scene, in which the Duke stages a royal entry that is not unlike James I’s civic pageantry. While civic pageantries had long been used by monarchs to demonstrate their power, James I’s resistance to participating in his own pageantry revealed his fear of public discourses and his careful management of reputation and honor. This careful management of public image is also represented in the play’s final scene. However, even during the final scene, Lucio not only turns the Duke into a mockable figure but also ruins the Duke’s reputation and honor. His stage presence also evokes a suburban vulgar culture. Thus, the audience does not witness the return of a respectable ruler, but the rise of a lascivious whoremaster.The third part of the thesis puts the play into its cultural, social, and historical backgrounds. Measure for Measure belonged to the wave of disguised ruler plays after 1603. The wave of drama was produced during the critical moment when Elizabeth I died and James I came to the throne. It reflected a popular anxiety of the arrival of the new king. Measure for Measure is unique in its dramatization of suburban bawdy figure’s anxiety of their future state. In addition, the play was also closely connected to the “mock king tradition,” in which the dramatists staged a mock king on the stage in order to show the proper way to rule. The thesis argues that Duke Vincentio, who resembled James I in many aspects, could possibly stand for a “mock king.” What the play actually shows is the rise of the suburban vulgar culture. The clown Lucio invites the audience to laugh at the Duke and challenges his authority established in earlier scenes. Lucio eventually stands for the general lowlife public on the stage, forming a “bawdy” community with the audience through bawdy jokes and unruly laughter. It is exactly this power of popular mirth that turns the play from an endorsement of the ruler’s authority to a celebration of the lowlife citizens.參考文獻 Works CitedAlexander, Gavin. “Of Pattern and Proportion.” Kinney 595-602.Archer, John Michael. Citizen Shakespeare: Freemen and Aliens in the Language of the Plays. New York: Palgrave, 2005. Print.Backscheider, Paula R. Spectacular Politics: Theatrical Power and Mass Culture in Early Modern England. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1993. Print.Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590-1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986. Print.Bernthal, Craig A. “Staging Justice: James I and the Trial Scenes of Measure for Measure.” Studies In English Literature 32.2 (1992): 247-69. Print. Berry, Edward. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. Print.Billington, Sandra. Mock Kings in Medieval Society and Renaissance Drama. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1991. Print.Davidson, Clifford. “Reflections in Response to Sandra Billington, Mock Kings in Medieval Society and Renaissance Drama.” Connotations 2.2 (1992): 166-72. Web. 4 August 2014.De Somogyi, Nick, ed. Shakespeare on Theatre. London: Nick Hern Books, 2012. Print.Dillon, Janette. Theatre, Court and City, 1595-1610. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.Dodd, William. “Power and Performance: Measure for Measure in the Public Theater of 1604-1605.” Shakespeare Studies 24.(1996): 211-40. Print. Dollimore, Jonathan. “Introduction: Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism and the New Historicism.” Dollimore and Sinfield. 2-17.-----.“Transgression and Surveillance in Measure for Measure.” Dollimore and Sinfield 72-87.Dollimore, Jonathan and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 1985. Print.Doty, Jeffrey S. “Measure for Measure and the Problem of Popularity.” English Literary Renaissance 42.1 (2012): 32-57. Print. Dutton, Richard, ed. Jacobean Civic Pageants. Keele University: Keele UP, 1995. Print.Eagleton, Terry. William Shakespeare. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 35-63. Print.Engel, William E. “Historical Contexts for the Age of Shakespeare.” Hiscock & Longstaffe 26-43. Evans, G. Blakemore, ed. Elizabethan-Jacobean Drama. London: A & C Black, 1989. Print.Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare After All. New York: Pantheon Books, 2004. Print.Gibbons, Brian. Jacobean City Comedy. London & New York: Methuen, 1980. Print.Gildersleeve, V. G. Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. New York: Columbia UP, 1961. Print.Gless, Darryl J. Measure for Measure, the Law, and the Convent. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1979. Print.Grantley, Darryll. London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988. Print.-----. Shakespeare’s Freedom. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2010. Print.Griswold, Wendy. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre, 1576-1980. Chicago & London: The U of Chicago P, 1986. Print.Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print.Hadfield, Andrew. Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics. London: Methuen, 2004. Print.Harbage, Alfred. Shakespeare’s Audience. New York: Columbia UP, 1941. Print.Harington, Sir John. The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington. Ed. Norman Egbert McClure. Philadelphia: I of Pennsylvania P, 1930. Print.Hartnoll, Phyllis. A Concise History of the Theatre. New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1980. Print.Hattaway, Michael. Elizabethan Popular Theatre: Plays in Performance. London and New York: Routledge, 1982. Print.Heywood, Thomas. An Apology for Actors. London: The Shakespeare Society, 1841. Print.Hiscock, Andrew & Stephen Longstaffe, eds. The Shakespeare Handbook. London: Continuum, 2009. Print.Hopkins, Lisa. Drama and the Succession to the Crown, 1561-1633. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. Print.Howard, Jean E. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London and New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.-----. Theater of a City: The Places of London Comedy, 1598-1642. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2007. Print.Howard, Jean E. & Phyllis Rackin. Engendering a Nation: A Feminist Account of Shakespeare’s English Histories. London & New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.Izard, Thomas Clarence. George Whetstone: Mid-Elizabethan Gentleman of Letters. New York: Columbia UP, 1942. Print.James I. The Basilicon Doron. Ed. James Craigie. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons, 1944. Print.-----. The Political Works of James I. Introd. Charles Howard McIlwain. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965. Print.Kamps, Ivo. “Ruling Fantasies and the Fantasies of Rule: The Phoenix and Measure for Measure." Studies In Philology 92.2 (1995): 248-73. Print. Kamps, Ivo & Karen Raber, eds. Measure for Measure: Texts and Contexts. Boston & New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.Kendall, G.M. “Overkill in Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly 43.1 (1992): 33. Print.Kenyon, J. P. The Stuarts. London: Fontana, 1966. Print.Kinney, Arthur F., ed. Elizabethan and Jacobean England: Sources and Documents of the English Renaissance. Malden & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print.Knapp, Jeffrey. Shakespeare’s Tribe: Church, Nation and Theatre in Renaissance England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.Krontiris, Tina. “The Omniscient ‘Auctor’: Ideology and Point of View in Measure for Measure.” English Studies 80.4 (1999): 293-306. Print. Lamb, Mary Ellen. “Shakespeare’s `Theatrics’: Ambivalence toward Theater in Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Studies 20 (1988): 129-146. Print. Larkin, James F. and Paul L. Hughes, eds. Stuart Royal Proclamations. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Print.Leggatt, Alexander. Jacobean Public Theatre. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.Lever, J. W. “Introduction.” Measure for Measure. Ed. J. W. Lever. London: Methuen, 1966. xi-xcviii. Print.Longstaffe, Stephen. “Shakespeare’s Literary and Cultural Contexts.” Hiscock & Longstaffe 47-67. Lopez, Jeremy. Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.Lupton, Donald. London and the Countrey Carbonadoed. London, 1632. Print.Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. W. K. Marriott. Rockville: Arc Manor, 2007. Print.Manley, Lawrence, ed. London in the Age of Shakespeare: An Anthology. University Park: The Penn State UP, 1986. Print.MacGregor, Neil. Shakespeare’s Restless World. London: Allen Lane, 2012. Print.McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. Boston & New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2001. Print.Mehl, Dieter. “The London Prodigal as Jacobean City Comedy.” Mehl, Stock & Zwierlein 165-76.Mehl, Dieter, Angela Stock & Anne-Julia Zwierlein, eds. Plotting Early Modern London: New Essays on Jacobean City Comedy. Hampshire & Burlington: Ashgate, 2004. Print. Montrose, Louis. “Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and the Politics of Culture.” The New Historicism. Ed. Harold Veeser. New York and London: Routledge, 1989. 15-36. Print.Morse, Ruth. “What City, Friends, is this?” Mehl, Stock & Zwierlein 177-91.Mullaney, Steven. The Place of the Stage: License, Play, and Power in Renaissance England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988. Print.Orgel, Stephen. “Making Greatness Familiar.” Pageantry in the Shakespearean Theater. Ed. David Bergeron. Athens: U of Georgia P, 19-25. Print.Perry, Curtis. The Making of Jacobean Culture: James I and the Renegotiation of Elizabethan Literary Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.Planinc, Zdravko. “Shakespeare’s Critique of Machiavellian Force, Fraud, and Spectacle in Measure for Measure.” Humanitas 23.1/2 (2010): 144-168. Print. Salgado, Gamini. The Elizabethan Underworld. London: Dent, 1977. Print.Schanzer, Ernest. The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. Print.Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. Ed. J. W. Lever. London: Methuen, 1965. Print. Sharpe, J. A. Crime in Seventeenth-Century England: A County Study. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Print.Smith, David L., Richard Strier & David Bevington, eds. The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London, 1576-1649. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. 1-15. Print.Smuts, R. Malcolm. “Jacobean Government.” Kinney 47-56.Stock, Angela and Anne-Julia Zwierlein. “Our Scene is London…” Mehl, Stock & Zwierlein 1-24. Tennenhouse, Leonard. “Representing Power: Measure for Measure in its Time.” Genre 15 (1982): 139-56. Print. -----. Power on Display: The Politics of Shakespeare’s Genres. London & New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.Thomas, Vivian. The Moral Universe of Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. London & New York: Routledge, 1991. Print.Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. London: Chatto & Windus, 1951. Print.-----. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage, 1959. Print.Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function. Ed. Robert Schwartz. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1987. Print.Weimann, Robert & Douglas Bruster. Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Stage and Page in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.Wilcox, Helen. “Literary Arts.” Kinney 587-94. Withington, Phil. “Putting the City into Shakespeare’s City Comedy.” Shakespeare and Early Modern Political Thought. Eds. David Armitage, Conal Condren & Andrew Fitzmaurice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. 197-216. Print. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
100551001
103資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100551001 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 姜翠芬 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Jiang, Tsui Fen en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 施舜翔 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Shih, Shun Hsiang en_US dc.creator (作者) 施舜翔 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Shih, Shun Hsiang en_US dc.date (日期) 2014 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2015 10:13:56 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Feb-2015 10:13:56 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2015 10:13:56 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100551001 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73213 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100551001 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文視莎士比亞的《量罪記》為詹姆士王朝城市喜劇。這齣喜劇勾勒出城市的郊區下流地圖誌。過去的批評家在討論此劇時，要不將此劇視為迎接英國新國王詹姆士一世的奉承之作，就是將此劇解讀成對新來統治者的政治批評。本論文試圖超越過去論述的簡單二元對立，以城市喜劇的角度重新切入《量罪記》，分析莎士比亞如何透過戲劇再現城市下流文化，以及此舞台再現如何連結台下底層市民，形成大眾展演政治。論文第一部分分析《量罪記》與城市下流文化的再現。本劇將維也納城作為「崩壞之身」拉開序幕，此隱喻一方面沿襲自文藝復興時期的身體政治學，一方面又挑戰了它，因為此「崩壞之身」直到劇終仍然維持其「病態」。本劇讓觀眾體驗漫布於城市各個角落的下流文化，包括郊區的妓院群與監獄中的娼寮。本劇表面上似乎在鞏固文森提歐公爵對城市空間的掌控與管理權，另一方面卻又透過「下流」角色的身影，提供觀眾另類的閱讀，揭露城市下流文化的延續與崛起。論文第二部分探索詹姆士王朝的城市慶典與本劇饒富興味的最後一幕之間的關係。最後一幕中，公爵的皇家入城儀式與詹姆士一世的王室慶典有許多相似之處。城市慶典許久以來便是君王用來展示自我權力的工具之一，詹姆士一世對於自己的王室慶典之抗拒，卻流露出他對公眾討論的恐懼與對自我名譽的管理。他對公眾形象的細心掌控也被再現於此劇的最後一幕中。不過，即使在這最後一幕，嫖客盧求不僅讓公爵淪為眾人笑柄，毀了他的聲譽，更勾起觀眾對城市下流文化之記憶。因此，觀眾目睹的反而不是一個可敬王者的回歸，反而是一個淫亂嫖客之崛起。論文第三部分將本劇放置在原本的文化、社會與歷史背景中 。《量罪記》屬於1603年後冒出的一波「偽裝國王劇」，這一波戲劇風潮呼應伊莉莎白一世去世、詹姆士一世繼位的關鍵歷史時刻，反映出的是當時人民對於新王來臨產生的焦慮。《量罪記》特別之處在於呈現了城市「下流」人物對於未來生存與否的焦慮。另外，本劇亦與「假國王」的戲劇傳統相關。在此戲劇傳統中，劇作家會透過舞台上的「假國王」來做政治批評，展示適當的統治方式。本論文認為，本劇中影射詹姆士一世的公爵角色也可被視為一個舞台上的「假國王」，崛起的反而是城市「下流」人物。本劇透過丑角盧求邀請觀眾大方嘲弄公爵並且挑戰他早先建立起的權威。最後，盧求成為舞台上的底層大眾化身，透過情色的笑話與不馴的笑聲與台下的觀眾形成「下流」社群，共享大眾歡樂。正是這大眾愉悅的力量，讓此劇不再替統治者的權威背書，反而擁抱了底層下流市民。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This thesis sees Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure as a Jacobean city comedy that maps an urban vulgar culture. Critics in the past often focused on whether the play should be read as a flattery to the new king, James I, or as a political criticism of the ruler. The thesis goes beyond the simple dichotomy offered by criticism in the past. It reads Measure for Measure as a city comedy and analyzes Shakespeare’s dramatic representation of the urban vulgar culture, which connects the lowlife figures onstage with the audiences offstage, ultimately forming a popular performative politics. The first part of the thesis analyzes Measure for Measure and its representation of an urban vulgar culture. Vienna in the play is represented as a “vile body,” which both confirms and unsettles the early modern body politic, since the vile body stays “ill” till the very end of the play. The play invites the audience to experience how this vulgar culture permeates every part of the city, including the houses of prostitution in the suburbs and a “bawdyhouse” in the prison. While the play seems to confirm Duke Vincentio’s control and regulation of the city, the bawdy figures provide us with an alternative reading of the play, revealing the survival and even the rise of the urban vulgar cultureThe second part of the thesis relates Jacobean civic pageantry to the play’s intriguing final scene, in which the Duke stages a royal entry that is not unlike James I’s civic pageantry. While civic pageantries had long been used by monarchs to demonstrate their power, James I’s resistance to participating in his own pageantry revealed his fear of public discourses and his careful management of reputation and honor. This careful management of public image is also represented in the play’s final scene. However, even during the final scene, Lucio not only turns the Duke into a mockable figure but also ruins the Duke’s reputation and honor. His stage presence also evokes a suburban vulgar culture. Thus, the audience does not witness the return of a respectable ruler, but the rise of a lascivious whoremaster.The third part of the thesis puts the play into its cultural, social, and historical backgrounds. Measure for Measure belonged to the wave of disguised ruler plays after 1603. The wave of drama was produced during the critical moment when Elizabeth I died and James I came to the throne. It reflected a popular anxiety of the arrival of the new king. Measure for Measure is unique in its dramatization of suburban bawdy figure’s anxiety of their future state. In addition, the play was also closely connected to the “mock king tradition,” in which the dramatists staged a mock king on the stage in order to show the proper way to rule. The thesis argues that Duke Vincentio, who resembled James I in many aspects, could possibly stand for a “mock king.” What the play actually shows is the rise of the suburban vulgar culture. The clown Lucio invites the audience to laugh at the Duke and challenges his authority established in earlier scenes. Lucio eventually stands for the general lowlife public on the stage, forming a “bawdy” community with the audience through bawdy jokes and unruly laughter. It is exactly this power of popular mirth that turns the play from an endorsement of the ruler’s authority to a celebration of the lowlife citizens. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Table of ContentsAcknowledgements…………………………………………………………………iiiChinese Abstract…………………………………………………………………viiEnglish Abstract…………………………………………………………………ixChapter 1 Introduction…………………………………………………11.1 Critical Background………………………………………………21.2 Jacobean City Comedy……………………………………………51.3 City Comedy and Popular Performative Politics……………………111.4 Chapter Organization……………………………………………14Chapter 2 Urban Vulgar Culture and the Bawdy Politics…………………………172.1 City of the Underworld………………………………………………172.2 The City as a Vile Body..………………………………………242.3 Houses of Prostitution in the Suburbs………………………282.4 A Bawdyhouse in the Prison………………………………………33Chapter 3 Civic Pageantry and the Return of the Whoremaster……………………433.1 Civic Pageantry and James I’s Management of Public Image…………433.2 Royal Entry, Public Trial and Measure for Measure………………493.3 The Return of the Whoremaster………………………………………52Chapter 4 Mock King and the Politics of Clowning………………………………594.1 The King’s Men or The Citizens’ Clowns……………………………594.2 The Disguised Ruler Plays………………………………………654.3 The Mock King Tradition……………………………………………694.4 The Politics of Clowning and Audience……………………………73Chapter 5 Conclusion…………………………………………………81Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………87 zh_TW dc.format.extent 579607 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100551001 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 莎士比亞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 量罪記 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詹姆士王朝城市喜劇 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 城市文化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 下流文化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 大眾展演政治 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Shakespeare en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Measure for Measure en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Jacobean city comedy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) urban culture en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) vulgar culture en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) popular performative politics en_US dc.title (題名) 下流之城：莎士比亞《量罪記》中的城市下流地圖誌 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Vulgar City: Mapping Urban Vulgar Culture in Shakespeare`s Measure for Measure en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Works CitedAlexander, Gavin. “Of Pattern and Proportion.” Kinney 595-602.Archer, John Michael. Citizen Shakespeare: Freemen and Aliens in the Language of the Plays. New York: Palgrave, 2005. Print.Backscheider, Paula R. Spectacular Politics: Theatrical Power and Mass Culture in Early Modern England. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1993. Print.Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590-1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986. Print.Bernthal, Craig A. “Staging Justice: James I and the Trial Scenes of Measure for Measure.” Studies In English Literature 32.2 (1992): 247-69. Print. Berry, Edward. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. Print.Billington, Sandra. Mock Kings in Medieval Society and Renaissance Drama. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1991. Print.Davidson, Clifford. “Reflections in Response to Sandra Billington, Mock Kings in Medieval Society and Renaissance Drama.” Connotations 2.2 (1992): 166-72. Web. 4 August 2014.De Somogyi, Nick, ed. Shakespeare on Theatre. London: Nick Hern Books, 2012. Print.Dillon, Janette. Theatre, Court and City, 1595-1610. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.Dodd, William. “Power and Performance: Measure for Measure in the Public Theater of 1604-1605.” Shakespeare Studies 24.(1996): 211-40. Print. Dollimore, Jonathan. “Introduction: Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism and the New Historicism.” Dollimore and Sinfield. 2-17.-----.“Transgression and Surveillance in Measure for Measure.” Dollimore and Sinfield 72-87.Dollimore, Jonathan and Alan Sinfield, eds. Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 1985. Print.Doty, Jeffrey S. “Measure for Measure and the Problem of Popularity.” English Literary Renaissance 42.1 (2012): 32-57. Print. Dutton, Richard, ed. Jacobean Civic Pageants. Keele University: Keele UP, 1995. Print.Eagleton, Terry. William Shakespeare. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 35-63. Print.Engel, William E. “Historical Contexts for the Age of Shakespeare.” Hiscock & Longstaffe 26-43. Evans, G. Blakemore, ed. Elizabethan-Jacobean Drama. London: A & C Black, 1989. Print.Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare After All. New York: Pantheon Books, 2004. Print.Gibbons, Brian. Jacobean City Comedy. London & New York: Methuen, 1980. Print.Gildersleeve, V. G. Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. New York: Columbia UP, 1961. Print.Gless, Darryl J. Measure for Measure, the Law, and the Convent. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1979. Print.Grantley, Darryll. London in Early Modern English Drama: Representing the Built Environment. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988. Print.-----. Shakespeare’s Freedom. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2010. Print.Griswold, Wendy. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre, 1576-1980. Chicago & London: The U of Chicago P, 1986. Print.Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print.Hadfield, Andrew. Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics. London: Methuen, 2004. Print.Harbage, Alfred. Shakespeare’s Audience. New York: Columbia UP, 1941. Print.Harington, Sir John. The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington. Ed. Norman Egbert McClure. Philadelphia: I of Pennsylvania P, 1930. Print.Hartnoll, Phyllis. A Concise History of the Theatre. New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1980. Print.Hattaway, Michael. Elizabethan Popular Theatre: Plays in Performance. London and New York: Routledge, 1982. Print.Heywood, Thomas. An Apology for Actors. London: The Shakespeare Society, 1841. Print.Hiscock, Andrew & Stephen Longstaffe, eds. The Shakespeare Handbook. London: Continuum, 2009. Print.Hopkins, Lisa. Drama and the Succession to the Crown, 1561-1633. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. Print.Howard, Jean E. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. London and New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.-----. Theater of a City: The Places of London Comedy, 1598-1642. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2007. Print.Howard, Jean E. & Phyllis Rackin. Engendering a Nation: A Feminist Account of Shakespeare’s English Histories. London & New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.Izard, Thomas Clarence. George Whetstone: Mid-Elizabethan Gentleman of Letters. New York: Columbia UP, 1942. Print.James I. The Basilicon Doron. Ed. James Craigie. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons, 1944. Print.-----. The Political Works of James I. Introd. Charles Howard McIlwain. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965. Print.Kamps, Ivo. “Ruling Fantasies and the Fantasies of Rule: The Phoenix and Measure for Measure." Studies In Philology 92.2 (1995): 248-73. Print. Kamps, Ivo & Karen Raber, eds. Measure for Measure: Texts and Contexts. Boston & New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.Kendall, G.M. “Overkill in Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Quarterly 43.1 (1992): 33. Print.Kenyon, J. P. The Stuarts. London: Fontana, 1966. Print.Kinney, Arthur F., ed. Elizabethan and Jacobean England: Sources and Documents of the English Renaissance. Malden & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print.Knapp, Jeffrey. Shakespeare’s Tribe: Church, Nation and Theatre in Renaissance England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.Krontiris, Tina. “The Omniscient ‘Auctor’: Ideology and Point of View in Measure for Measure.” English Studies 80.4 (1999): 293-306. Print. Lamb, Mary Ellen. “Shakespeare’s `Theatrics’: Ambivalence toward Theater in Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Studies 20 (1988): 129-146. Print. Larkin, James F. and Paul L. Hughes, eds. Stuart Royal Proclamations. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. Print.Leggatt, Alexander. Jacobean Public Theatre. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.Lever, J. W. “Introduction.” Measure for Measure. Ed. J. W. Lever. London: Methuen, 1966. xi-xcviii. Print.Longstaffe, Stephen. “Shakespeare’s Literary and Cultural Contexts.” Hiscock & Longstaffe 47-67. Lopez, Jeremy. Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.Lupton, Donald. London and the Countrey Carbonadoed. London, 1632. Print.Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. W. K. Marriott. Rockville: Arc Manor, 2007. Print.Manley, Lawrence, ed. London in the Age of Shakespeare: An Anthology. University Park: The Penn State UP, 1986. Print.MacGregor, Neil. Shakespeare’s Restless World. London: Allen Lane, 2012. Print.McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. Boston & New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2001. Print.Mehl, Dieter. “The London Prodigal as Jacobean City Comedy.” Mehl, Stock & Zwierlein 165-76.Mehl, Dieter, Angela Stock & Anne-Julia Zwierlein, eds. Plotting Early Modern London: New Essays on Jacobean City Comedy. Hampshire & Burlington: Ashgate, 2004. Print. Montrose, Louis. “Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and the Politics of Culture.” The New Historicism. Ed. Harold Veeser. New York and London: Routledge, 1989. 15-36. Print.Morse, Ruth. “What City, Friends, is this?” Mehl, Stock & Zwierlein 177-91.Mullaney, Steven. The Place of the Stage: License, Play, and Power in Renaissance England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988. Print.Orgel, Stephen. “Making Greatness Familiar.” Pageantry in the Shakespearean Theater. Ed. David Bergeron. Athens: U of Georgia P, 19-25. Print.Perry, Curtis. The Making of Jacobean Culture: James I and the Renegotiation of Elizabethan Literary Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.Planinc, Zdravko. “Shakespeare’s Critique of Machiavellian Force, Fraud, and Spectacle in Measure for Measure.” Humanitas 23.1/2 (2010): 144-168. Print. Salgado, Gamini. The Elizabethan Underworld. London: Dent, 1977. Print.Schanzer, Ernest. The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. Print.Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. Ed. J. W. Lever. London: Methuen, 1965. Print. Sharpe, J. A. Crime in Seventeenth-Century England: A County Study. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Print.Smith, David L., Richard Strier & David Bevington, eds. The Theatrical City: Culture, Theatre and Politics in London, 1576-1649. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. 1-15. Print.Smuts, R. Malcolm. “Jacobean Government.” Kinney 47-56.Stock, Angela and Anne-Julia Zwierlein. “Our Scene is London…” Mehl, Stock & Zwierlein 1-24. Tennenhouse, Leonard. “Representing Power: Measure for Measure in its Time.” Genre 15 (1982): 139-56. Print. -----. Power on Display: The Politics of Shakespeare’s Genres. London & New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.Thomas, Vivian. The Moral Universe of Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. London & New York: Routledge, 1991. Print.Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. London: Chatto & Windus, 1951. Print.-----. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage, 1959. Print.Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function. Ed. Robert Schwartz. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1987. Print.Weimann, Robert & Douglas Bruster. Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Stage and Page in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.Wilcox, Helen. “Literary Arts.” Kinney 587-94. Withington, Phil. “Putting the City into Shakespeare’s City Comedy.” Shakespeare and Early Modern Political Thought. Eds. David Armitage, Conal Condren & Andrew Fitzmaurice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. 197-216. Print. zh_TW
