黑格爾之悲劇理論：希臘悲劇作為一「主體性的經驗」

Abstract

黑格爾可謂自亞理斯多德以來最偉大的悲劇理論家之一。黑格爾悲劇理論之特色在於，試圖將希臘悲劇解釋為呈現了某些主體性的經驗。藉由他歷史哲學將文學視為時代之反映的基本觀點，黑格爾亦將悲劇視為希臘自我意識的反映，藉此發掘潛藏在希臘世界中之主體性。藉由悲劇理論，黑格爾因而解決了他歷史哲學中一個相當困難的問題，亦即如何解釋在現代興起的主體性之起源問題。\\r依底帕斯、安悌果尼以及蘇格拉底乃是黑格爾在其諸多著作中，最主要關心的悲劇人物。本文將指出，在這些人物的每一個悲劇經驗中，黑格爾其實都發掘出一種主體性的類型，而這些類型皆可分別被視為現代主體性的來源。事實上，這些類型正是被黑格爾用來作為建構現代主體性概念之環節。除此之外，黑格爾之悲劇理論可被視為其「辯證思想」之典範；黑格爾在運用所謂的「辯證」解釋事物時，特別強調事物「形式」與「內容」之統一。根據黑格爾，悲劇的語言要高於史詩的語言，因為前者是表演性的，後者純粹是敘事性的。基於這一點，對於黑格爾而言，悲劇在其形式上已呈現了某些主體性的要素。由於黑格爾在悲劇的內容中也發現了某些主體性的經驗，他可說重建了悲劇「形式」及其「內容」之統一。

Hegel is one of the great theorists of tragedy since Aristotle. The characteristic of the Hegelian theory of tragedy is that it tries to interpret Greek tragedy as reflecting some experience of subjectivity. Based on his view of philosophy of history, literature being a reflection of its time, Hegel considered tragedy to be a representation of Greek self-consciousness so as to discover the principle of subjectivity embedded in the world of Greece. By doing so, he resolved a very difficult question in his philosophy of history: how to interpret the origin of subjectivity which arose in modern time. Oedipus, Antigone and Socrates were the tragic figures mainly-concerned by Hegel. In this paper I will discuss that in each tragic experience of them Hegel discovered a stereotype of subjectivity which can be considered as the origin of modern subjectivity. In fact, these stereotypes he discovered are exactly the moments with which he constitutes the very concept of modern subjectivity. Besides, Hegel’s theory of tragedy can be seen as a paradigm for his “dialectic” which exceptionally emphasizes the unity of “form” and “content” when it is applied to interpreting a subject. According to Hegel, the language of tragedy is higher than that of epic, since the former is performing, while the latter is simply narrative. For this reason, tragedy in itself has presented some elements of subjectivity. Insofar as Hegel discovered in the content of tragedy some experience of subjectivity, he restored the correspondence of the “form” of tragedy to its “content”.