《李爾王》中的策略和放逐

范祎 吳代紅

摘 要：本文揭示了莎士比亞劇《李爾王》中對放逐的描述，突出了在公共和私人場合并存的時候如何擺平機智和真誠的問題，分析了劇中科迪莉亞、李爾王、坎特和埃德加等角色以不同的方式對待遠離家庭和宮廷被放逐的這個主題。最終，放逐并沒有割斷親情，反而強化了這樣的情結;重返社會不僅需要暫時的、新的身份，而且需要承擔新的公共和家庭的義務。

關鍵詞：放逐 莎士比亞 《李爾王》 公共與私人場合 真誠和機智的平衡

在莎士比亞有關放逐主題的戲劇中似乎從來沒有一次成功的放逐，幾乎沒有被放逐的人溫順地接受命運的安排，乖乖地走了，而不再理會放逐他的人。通常放逐不僅要返回，而且被放逐之人還會有新的動機。在《泰特斯·安特洛尼克斯》中，盧修斯被羅馬皇帝放逐，使得他有自由帶領哥特軍隊返回了羅馬。在《羅密歐與朱麗葉》中，羅密歐被迫離開維羅納，反而促進他和朱麗葉想盡各種辦法來維系愛情。

以上提到的放逐是在高潮或者臨近劇終、劇情錯綜復雜時才出現的，莎翁的《李爾王》卻在一開始就出現了放逐，而且劇情自始至終圍繞這個主線展開。其他劇在放逐和返回之間的情節處理得很濃縮，或者幾乎不提，《李爾王》卻專注于這個中間地帶，把筆墨潑于接受放逐的過程以及在有清晰結局前的困惑。這個劇中的放逐既不是政治意義上的或者軍事意義上的放逐，也不是輕易栽贓罪過的無情的放逐，它的復雜性表現在公共形象和禮節與私下的關系和常態之間的沖突以及當人們難以區別這兩者的關系時所帶來的后果。這種復雜性并不是表現于莎士比亞如何展開《李爾王》中放逐的情節，而是表現在劇中的人物如何有意識地展示他們自己，如何依賴與別人合作逢場作戲。在這種擺平私人親屬關系和公共角色的策略中，唯一逃脫的途徑就是通過放棄本我形象或者在公共場合裝傻裝瘋。有了這樣裝傻的自由，私下的聲音可以在公共場合說出來，繁縟的禮節就可以正當地省掉。

科迪莉亞被李爾王放逐是由李爾王脾氣的異常轉變所展開的。李爾王使得這樣一個個人決定的過程，一個瓜分王國財產和勢力的過程看上去似乎與他人有過互動。他讓他的女兒們把個人的想法公開說出來：“我的女兒們，告訴我——既然我們現在要放棄我們的統治、領土和政務——你們當中哪一個可以說是最愛我們的？（Tell me， my daughters / Since now we will divest us， both of rule，/ interest of territory， cares of state/ Which of you shall we say doth love us most？）”（King Lear 1.146-49）李爾王這里用了第一人稱復數，表示他代表王國，這使他的問題不帶有親密性，但實際上是說他要放棄統治，他要問他的女兒哪一個是最愛他的。他似乎不知道她的大女兒剛乃綺和次女瑞干對他的孝順不同于她們作為臣子的責任。李爾王通過給一些線索試圖把在場的其他人卷進這戲劇化的一幕。對他的幺女考地利亞，他是這樣問的：“你有什么要說的，可以贏得比你姊妹更為豐美的一塊？你說。”（1.1.84-85）顯然，這不僅是個策略，而且與李爾王上面說的話明顯不合乎邏輯。如果李爾王已經割出了給剛乃綺和瑞干的地區，并宣稱這樣的繼承是“永久的（perpetual）”（1.1.65），那么剩下的領地該多大就應該是多大了。所以，給考地利亞的部分不可能更豐美，或者倘若按李爾王的說法，事先設計是更大一些，那么他問考地利亞的問題既沒用也不真誠。考地利亞回答得很簡單：“沒有什么說的，陛下。”雖然考地利亞的這句話是發自她內心的，但是它立即在公共場合丟了李爾王的面子、降低了他的國王威嚴。對于李爾王來說，接受小女考地利亞的回答，繼續給她土地，就意味著承認他剛才說的話毫無意義，是送空人情，這樣他的國王威嚴就會大打折扣。莎翁設計的這場劇情曲折的李爾王在公共場合亮相的戲，是想借李爾王原本要最后一次展示王權之際，顛覆性地剝奪一下他的王權，然后看看接下來能發生什么。結果，當李爾王把家庭私事和公共王權的事情混在一塊時，李爾王便被鎖在了統治者的面具下，不能推翻他以前的言行了。

值得注意的是劇中弄臣這一角色可能是唯一反對放逐考地利亞的人，他的胡言亂語后來對國王是有影響的，但是在國王宣布放逐考地利亞這場戲中，他并沒有在場。顯然，在場的人無論誰對國王要放逐考地利亞的決定發表任何意見都可能會遭殃。坎特伯爵挺身為考地利亞辯護，并提醒李爾王這樣做不妥，坎特說：“我從不珍視我的姓名，只當作是和您的敵人打賭的賭注;我并不怕失掉它，我的動機是為求您的安全。”李爾王簡短地說：“滾出我的視線！”（1.1.155-158）然而，在隨后的劇情中，當弄臣與李爾王爭辯時，弄臣并沒有受到傷害。當李爾王問弄臣他自己是否也是個傻子時，弄臣回答：“別的官銜您都放棄了;只剩這個是您與生俱來的。”（1.4.129-131）對此，李爾王并沒有大怒。為什么會這樣呢？放逐與違反規矩有著如此緊密的聯系，以至于一個被承認脫離了社會圈的人就會免于不良后果;從某種意義上說，這些人已經被“放逐”了。考地利亞為她的言辭辯護是從她是國王的女兒的角度進行的;坎特伯爵為她的言辭辯護是從他是國王大臣的角度進行的。他們轉向基本的社會關系并沒有使他們脫離公共和私人關系的羈絆，反而使他們陷入其中。

與考地利亞被放逐這場戲相對應的是莎翁如何描述后來李爾王被大女兒和二女兒驅逐的戲。起初，他還以曾經做國王時的口氣說話：“國王要和康瓦說話;父親要和他的女兒說話，傳她來問話。”（2.4.95-96）然而，他已不再是國王，其他人也不會像從前那樣附耳聽命于他。李爾王最終不得不改用第一人稱單數的形式說話：“去，告訴公爵和他的妻子，我要跟他們說話。”（2.4.110）李爾王被女兒驅逐不是一個公開讓大家都知道的事，而是一個私下的事;這個情形的唯一戲劇化是外面下著暴雨，他氣他的兩個女兒背叛了他，主要在于她們在公共場合中承認他為父王，而在私底下卻背叛了他。

在《李爾王》中，在放逐戰斗中幸存的人必須放棄與個人和公共形象的所有聯系。伯爵坎特被剝奪了貴族身份，再回來時是以平民凱厄斯的身份出現的。他不再與任何人有聯系，并且避開社會關系網的羈絆來保護和伺奉李爾王。埃德加是被放逐的格老斯特的兒子，之后以瘋子湯姆的形象出現，并從這樣一個瘋人的身份中汲取了力量。莎士比亞安排埃德加成為湯姆后的一場獨白戲正是向觀眾展示埃德加想逃脫別人的指引和控制，他不想再聽埃德蒙讓他假裝打架的話：“我得做出拔劍刺你的樣子：拔出劍來;做出抵御的樣子;現在你假裝奮力相斗。”（2.1.29-30）脫離了公共和個人網，陌生人和瘋子都表現得比那些深陷其中的人更瀟灑。“若是埃德加，一刻也不得活。”這個新的湯姆說，然而，他失去自我，也正是說明他開始控制他眼前的情形。

然而，考地利亞卻不能與埃德加和坎特相提并論。與后者不同的是，考地利亞被放逐以后基本上沒在劇中露面;等她再次露面時已經接近劇終，并很快就死

了。莎翁設計考地利亞被放逐后消失，與她被李爾王問起她多么愛他時所表現的緘默態度很相稱，但是，考地利亞的消失卻自始至終存在在劇情中，本身幾乎就是一個空的角色，伴隨著李爾王出現在弄臣的每個笑話中。盡管考地利亞在死之前跟李爾王見過面，并說過話，但是從來都沒有在私下里見過面。劇中缺少徹底的、令人滿意的父女和解場景使得這個空的角色無休止地空下去。源于緘默，的確一切都是空白。當李爾王抱著考地利亞的身體，他驚叫道：“看她，看她的嘴唇，看那邊，看那邊！”（5.3.308-309）盡管這表明李爾王自己死之前幻想女兒還有口氣，這就好像李爾王終于明白了女兒考地利亞的緘默、沒有說出的愛。李爾王想找回小女兒被他封住的話。

《李爾王》中的放逐并沒有割斷親情，反而凝聚了親情，就是對那些放逐后以偽裝的身份回來的人，仍然在理解和修正他們的世界，以便恢復他們原來的身份。盡管李爾王放逐了考地利亞、坎特以及后來他本人被放逐，最初都被理解為是大腦瘋狂、沖動所致，其實李爾王的錯誤是困擾著所有《李爾王》中角色的共同問題：個人和公共義務的雙重性。

Artifice and Banishment in King Lear

Nancy Yi Fan

Abstract：This essay explores how the portrayal of banishment in William Shakespeares play， King Lear， highlights the juxtaposition of public and private spheres， and the balance of tact with sincerity. It examines the different ways the characters Cordelia， Lear， Kent， and Edgar cope with expulsion from family and kingdom. Ultimately， banishment does not cut ties， but emphasizes them more; a successful negotiation back into society requires not only adopting temporary new identities， but also realigning of public and familial obligations.

Keywords：banishment ? ?Shakespeares King

Lear ? public and private spheres ? balance of tact with sincerity

There never seems to be a successful banishment in Shakespeares repertoire of banishments.No banish-

ed person ever meekly accepts the fate and slinks away， never to bother the banisher again. If anything，a banishment is almost a guarantee of not only return， but also renewed and heightened motivation of the banished. In Titus Andronicus， Luciuss expulsion by the Roman Emperor frees Lucius to lead the Goth army on a march back on Rome. In Romeo and Juliet， Romeos departure from Verona increases his and Juliets embracing of desperate measures to sustain their love.

While banishment is the culmination or final complication of those plays， King Lear is a play that begins with it， and is all about it. Unlike the other plays where the interim between banishment and return is compressed or unexplored， Lear wallows in that middle space， in the struggle of accepting banishment and the confusion before a clarity of vision; the banishments in Lear are neither political or militaristic moves that can be distanced，nor are they impersonal situations where fault can be easily assigned without anguish. The complication rests in the tension of public appearance and decorum，versus private relationships and constancy，and what happens when one fails to distinguish between the two. It is not so much about how Shakespeare stages the King Lear scenes of banishment， but how the characters consciously stage themselves，constructing extemporan-

eous flourishes， and counting on the cooperation of others. In this atmosphere of artifice driven by private kinship and public power， the only escape is through the discarding of identity or the openness of madness. With license from pretended insanity or professional foolery， the private can be uttered public， and decorums significance can dissolve.

Cordelias banishment by Lear is staged as an unexpected， capricious turn of Lears temper. Lear makes the process of a personal decision， that of dividing his kingdom property and power， a seemingly interactive one. He asks his daughters to pull the private into the public：“Tell me， my daughters-/ Since now we will divest us， both of rule， / interest of territory， cares of state-/ Which of you shall we say doth love us most？” （King Lear 1.1.46-49）. Lears use of the singular plural， a formality of a monarch in public declarations that hides the individual behind an abstraction of a group， jars with the intimate question he poses. For him， he seems to not know that the filial deference from Goneril and Regan should be distinguishable from their obligation as his subjects. Lear tries to involve others into his theatrical contrivance by giving cues. To Cordelia， he asks， “What can you say to draw/ A third more opulent than your sisters？ Speak.”（1.1.84-85）Not only is artifice asked for， but also there is a striking illogic to Lears words. If Lear has already carved out regions for Goneril and Regan and declared this assignment “perpetual”（1.1.65），then there is no question about the size of the remaining third. It can therefore not be more opulent， or， if it is in fact larger by Lears previous design， his request for Cordelia is a bit useless or insincere. Cordelias simple response， “Nothing， my lord” immediately deflates the grandiloquence. ?To accept Cordelia and to continue to give her land is for Lear to recognize the meaningless of his act， admit the performing nature of this event， and forego his kings dignity. Shakespeares setup of Lears elaborate public display is to subversively take away agency from Lear， when Lear originally embarks upon it as a final display of his power. Lear is locked in the persona of ruler， unable to fluidly reverse his actions， when he mingles public and private matters.

It is important to note that the Fool， whose ramblings and jibes affect Lear later on and who could have been the sole agent against the banishment， is absent in this scene. There is no mediator or commentator who can voice subversive thoughts with impunity. Kent， the nobleman who arises to defend Cordelia and to caution Lear， merely brings himself disfavor. When he implores Lear， “My life I never held but as a pawn/ To wage against thy enemies; nor fear to lose it， /Thy safety being the motive.”Lear responds curtly：“Out of my sight！”（1.1.155-158）. However， later on the play， when the Fool bickers with Lear， he is unharmed. When Lear questions the Fool if he suggests Lear to be a fool too， the Fool answers， “All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with.” （1.4.129-131）To this， Lear does not roar in anger or annoyance. Why is this so？ Banishment is so intricately linked with breach of propriety， that an individual publically acknowledged to be outside of social circles is exempt from consequences; they are in a sense already “banished.” Cordelias defense of her speech is grounded in her assertions of being a child of a parent; Kents defense of his， is grounded in that of being a protective subject to the king. Their turn to basic social relationships entrap them rather than free them from the public-private tangle.

Furthermore， Shakespeares depiction of Lears ousting by Goneril and Regan directly answers to the grand theatricality of Cordelias earlier banishment. Under the delusion of his agency to set up and direct a public performance， Lear uses the same detached and elevated language： “The king would speak with Cornwall; the dear father/ Would with his daughter speak， commands her service.” （2.4.95-96）However， as he is deprived of actual power， the others would not play along with his staging. Lear ultimately shrinks to the unadorned first person singular： “Go tell the duke and s wife Id speak with them”（2.4.110）. His banishment by his daughters is not a public affair made for an audience， but a quiet private one; the only theatricality of the situation is the physical raging of the storm outside. Lears anger at the betrayal of his daughters is two-fold， both of the recognition of the public and private betrayal.

To cope and fight against the particular type of banishment in King Lear， the successful survivor must give up both private and public ties. Kent shakes off his noblemans identity and returns as the common Caius， free from connection to anyone and able to slip through the web of social intrigue to protect and serve Lear. Edgar， banished son of Gloucester， assumes the new identity of Tom o Bedlam， and draws strength from the uncategorized yet undeniable power of madmen. That Shakespeare chooses to give Edgars soliloquy of becoming Tom its stand-alone scene， exemplifies Edgars escape out of the direction and manipulation of others. No more does he have to listen to Edmund give him stage cues about pretend fights： “In cunning I must draw my sword upon you： / Draw; seem to defend yourself; now quit you well.” （2.1.29-30）By being out of both the public and the private webs， the stranger and the madman assume more agency than those whose try to master the clash of propriety and duty by submersing themselves in them. “Edgar I nothing am，” says the new Tom， yet his dismissal of his identity is also his assertion of his control of his situation.

Cordelia， however， cannot be put in the same category as Edgar and Kent. Unlike them， she essentially disappears from the play altogether after her banishment; her reappearance at the end is brief and quickly turns into her death. Shakespeares choice on keeping Cordelia absent seems like a parallel of Cordelia herself being reticent when Lear questions her for her love. Rather， the very absence of Cordelia， hovering throughout the plot， becomes itself a character almost， a void following Lear， present in the Fools every joke. Although Cordelia meets and speaks to Lear before her death， it is never in a private situation without other people. The lack of a thorough， satisfying reconciliation scene between father and daughter gives the void of her absence no end. From nothing， indeed there is nothing. As Lear cradles Cordelias body， he exclaims， “Look on her， look， her lips， / Look there， look there！” （5.3.308-309）Although this is first of all a reference to the living breath that Lear hallucinates before he himself dies， lips are also the place of issue for words. It is as if Lear has finally understood the wordlessness of Cordelia， her unspoken love. Lear seeks to reclaim the absence of words he had banished.

Banishment in King Lear is not the severing of ties， but the accentuation of them. Even those who take on disguises find themselves back in the milieu， attempting to comprehend and modify their world so they may resume their previous identities. While King Lears ousting of Cordelia and Kent， and later on， his own ousting， can be initially read as the results of miscalculations of a uniquely delusional mind， Lears faults are only the slight magnification of the common troubles besetting almost all characters in King Lear：the duality of private and public obligations.

References：

Shakespeare William.King Lear（Conflated Text）.The Norton Shakespeare：Based on the Oxford Edition Tragedies.Ed.Stephen Greenblatt.New York：Norton，2008.

作者：范，哈佛大學在讀學生，美國《紐約時報》暢銷書排行榜上榜作家;吳代紅，廣西師范大學外國語學院教師。

編輯：康慧 E-mail：kanghuixx@sina.com