Penitential Politics and Poetics: Catholic Auricular Confession and Reformed Church Repentance as Techniques of Government in Shakespeare
|Keywords:||莎士比亞;舊教懺悔實踐;新教懺悔實踐;人民統御術;Shakespeare;Catholic Auricular Confession;Reformed Church Repentance;Techniques of Government||Issue Date:||2006||Abstract:||
本論文將莎劇置於新、舊教懺悔方式在英國實施情況之歷史脈絡中, 以探討莎劇對此兩種宗教實踐的看法。評論家對某部莎劇呈現的,究竟是天主教懺悔禮儀(也就是辦告解)或者是新教懺悔理念,還有作品對此兩種能發揮整治社會功能的機制所表達出的可能評價,說法不一。因此, 我藉由對與此兩種宗教實踐相關史料及歷史研究的探討與整理,來試著釐清這兩種宗教實踐各自的特色, 以便說明莎劇呈現的,是新教還是舊教的懺罪理念, 同時, 我也嘗試挖掘出英王詹姆斯一世以前, 舊教告解者或新教懺悔者對此兩種懺悔方式的看法和體驗, 以期能闡明莎劇對此兩種實踐,所傳達出的比較可能的看法。
有三個事件彼此時間點上的吻合或鄰近, 顯示莎劇似乎有意回應其贊助人詹姆斯一世對此兩種宗教建制的政治性觀點,一六零四年, 詹姆斯王規定神職人員應該把不管是新舊教信徒在懺悔時所承認的罪行上報司法單位, 以協助打擊犯罪, 同一年,莎劇《惡有惡報》在宮廷首演, 劇中的統治者喬裝成天主教教士,聽取人民告解以治其罪, 六年後,《冬天的故事》刻劃另一位統治者自己遵循新教懺罪實施原則, 恢復了國家秩序和國際和平。總共超過半數的莎翁作品,和其同時期若干人的想法一樣, 都視此兩種懺悔的做法為統治者治國平天下,及君民自我管理、約束彼此行為的好方法。
論文第一章討論英國舊教懺罪系統的由來、宗教意涵、主要特色、實際做法、實際實施情形、履行者看法,以及其在亨利八世宗教改革以後的政治化發展。英國在歷經亨利八世教改之後,因為君主的宗教背景,時為舊教時為新教的關係, 導致新、舊教懺罪實踐不時並行,或彼此互相取而代之,本論文推論,此種情形,極可能導致英國人民認為,不管是舊教或者是新教的懺罪行為,都是人為的、政治化考量後的建置,而非神聖、亙古不移的聖典。研究結果確實發現, 天主教懺悔禮儀在英國宗教改革期間,明顯地被視為政治工具:譬如新教改革者視之為教廷刺探各國情形的機制,而舊教擁護者和兩位英國君主亨利八世及詹姆斯王一世, 卻稱許其為治理人民的利器。詹姆斯王一世敕令也欲蓋彌彰地透露出,王室有意透過天主教辦告解來打擊犯罪。透過現代歷史學家的研究可以看出,天主教懺悔儀式的一些實行上的要求,理想上使其就打擊犯罪方面而言,優於重圍堵,不重預防的司法體制。
第二章探究英國新教懺罪系統的源由、宗教意義、實行原則、實踐者想法,及其在伊莉莎白一世以後的政治化發展。傳承自路德及喀爾文教派的英國新教懺悔原則, 雖然以確立信徒獲救信念為目的, 而帶有心理疏解的色彩, 然而英國王室欽定的有關懺悔的佈道內容, 卻隱約透露出, 君主有意藉由改革後的懺罪方式, 鞏固王權, 而詹姆斯王一世敕令也暗含藉由新教懺悔方式, 整頓治安的企圖,比較文藝復興時期若干劇作家的作品亦發現, 劇作家對新教懺罪實踐的呈現,越來越側重其社會倫理的面向,這種宗教實踐被世俗化呈現的情形, 除了與英國教改後風雲詭譎的政教發展情況有關之外,或多或少也受到伊莉莎白一世女王規定的影響, 女王規定, 劇院不得上演敏感的宗教議題,而應以提昇人民道德水準的為目標。
第三章指出,莎劇《惡有惡報》如何有意地指涉舊教告解模式, 並刻意凸顯其政治面向。該劇委婉地抨擊一些對天主教懺悔禮儀的負面態度及想法,並正面地展示此宗教儀典各種實施規定的政治化運用。雖然劇中不乏對天主教懺悔禮儀作為一種政治實踐,可能不足之處的檢討, 但劇本整體而言,肯定天主教懺悔禮儀的理念及施行原則, 對於防治罪行,以及落實正義與慈悲的政治效用。莎劇對天主教懺悔禮儀政治運用之呈現, 可以激盪出一些前現代時期（或前現代沿襲至今）原本隱而不彰的政治特性, 這些特性或許可以成為史學家進一步探究之議題。
第四章闡述新教懺悔的運作原則及精神,如何在超過三分之二的莎劇中, 被刻畫成君主治民或全民彼此或自我管束的圭臬, 特別在《冬天的故事》中, 新教懺悔方式成為重整國家秩序甚至是維護國際社群安定的關鍵。在另外十九部作品裡,不管是主角、配角或是根本未具名的角色,其是否能向可能受害者,自發地即時或真誠懺悔,往往成為莎劇劇情(不論其劇種為何)往喜劇(大和解)或悲劇(失序)發展的轉捩點。
新、舊懺罪之具體做法, 不僅被莎劇推崇為管理社會秩序的利器, 其實踐步驟或方式, 也賦予莎劇一種基本的劇情發展可能模式, 並同時為劇中人物及觀者的心靈能量, 畫出一道可能的疏解路徑, 達到喚起其良知良能的目的。
This dissertation explores Shakespeare’s representation of two religious practices, Catholic auricular confession and Reformed Church repentance, in the context of their development up to James I. Critics who read Shakespeare by referring to the two forms of penitence contradict one another as to which type is represented in a certain Shakespearean play. Some also disagree on what attitude Shakespeare’s play possibly holds for Catholic confession as a social institution. A comparison of some other readings suggests that some of Shakespeare’s plays do not agree with one another about how much Reformed Church repentance can achieve in regulating political relationships.
Drawing upon some historical data and studies on the two penitential practices up to James I, I try to distinguish the two kinds of penitence, so as to identify which kind is mainly depicted in a certain Shakespearean play. I also offer a possible range of early modern people's attitudes toward the two practices, in order to pinpoint the view likely to be held by the dramatist’s works.
A temporal coincidence or adjacency between Shakespeare's theatrical productions (Measure for Measure and The Winter’s Tale) and royal stipulation on penitence strongly argues that Shakespeare’s works represent the two as instruments for social control, in order to echo and support his patron King James’ socio-political view of the two practices. In 1604, James I stipulated that priests had to report the sins confessed to them by sinners to the government for judicial correction, no matter what kind of confession, Catholic or Protestant, the sinners make. The same year, Shakespeare staged his courtly drama Measure for Measure, in which a ruler is dressed as confessor-friar to find out his people's crimes. Six years later, Shakespeare featured in The Winter’s Tale (1610) another ruler King Leontes, who governs himself by the principle of the Elizabethan repentance to recover the order he disrupts. Over half of Shakespeare's plays reflect upon his royal patron as well as many of his contemporaries' political view of the two rites. The plays dramatize the two practices as being instrumental for the rulers’ government of their subjects, as well as for self-government or self-regulation.
Chapters One and Two investigate Catholic auricular confession and Reformed Church repentance as both religious and social practices up to James I. Special attentions are paid to the two practices' characteristics, the early modern people’s various views on them, and the factors which give rise to a political view regarding the two spiritual institutions. Special analyses will be given to the features, strengths and downsides of Catholic auricular confession as a social regulator via modern historical studies.
Chapters Three and Four propose that Shakespeare plays explore King James and some of his contemporaries’ idea of the two practices as essential for maintaining socio-political order. Chapter Three argues that it is the Catholic penitential rite that Measure for Measure is concerned about. The play focuses on how Duke Vincentio governs his people according to the Catholic penitential principle. The play’s portrayal of the duke as a friar-confessor yields some threads of thoughts for our speculation on the early modern politics. Chapter Four contends that about two-thirds of Shakespeare’s plays accentuate the importance of Reformed Church repentance for self and communal regulation. How well the plays’ characters meet the requirement prescribed in the Elizabethan homily “Of Repentance” determines whether the endings of the stories be tragic or comic.
The modes of the two religious practices not only are promoted as the organizers of the material worlds represented in Shakespeare’s relevant plays, but also provide his virtual theatrical worlds with a structuring principle. The modes of the two practices also charts a path to direct many of his characters’ as well as his audience’s mental energy so as to arouse their conscience.
My conclusion points out the significance of reading Shakespeare as part of the politicized early modern penitential culture and reflects upon history-literature relationships based on my findings.
|Appears in Collections:||外國語文學系|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.