《李尔王》中的策略和放逐

⊙范 祎［哈佛大学， 美国 波士顿 02138］

⊙吴代红［广西师范大学外国语学院， 广西 桂林 541004］

《李尔王》中的策略和放逐

⊙范 祎［哈佛大学， 美国 波士顿 02138］

⊙吴代红［广西师范大学外国语学院， 广西 桂林 541004］

本文揭示了莎士比亚剧《李尔王》中对放逐的描述，突出了在公共和私人场合并存的时候如何摆平机智和真诚的问题，分析了剧中科迪莉亚、李尔王、坎特和埃德加等角色以不同的方式对待远离家庭和宫廷被放逐的这个主题。最终，放逐并没有割断亲情，反而强化了这样的情结；重返社会不仅需要暂时的、新的身份，而且需要承担新的公共和家庭的义务。

放逐 莎士比亚 《李尔王》 公共与私人场合 真诚和机智的平衡

在莎士比亚有关放逐主题的戏剧中似乎从来没有一次成功的放逐，几乎没有被放逐的人温顺地接受命运的安排，乖乖地走了，而不再理会放逐他的人。通常放逐不仅要返回，而且被放逐之人还会有新的动机。在《泰特斯·安特洛尼克斯》中，卢修斯被罗马皇帝放逐，使得他有自由带领哥特军队返回了罗马。在《罗密欧与朱丽叶》中，罗密欧被迫离开维罗纳，反而促进他和朱丽叶想尽各种办法来维系爱情。

以上提到的放逐是在高潮或者临近剧终、剧情错综复杂时才出现的，莎翁的《李尔王》却在一开始就出现了放逐，而且剧情自始至终围绕这个主线展开。其他剧在放逐和返回之间的情节处理得很浓缩，或者几乎不提，《李尔王》却专注于这个中间地带，把笔墨泼于接受放逐的过程以及在有清晰结局前的困惑。这个剧中的放逐既不是政治意义上的或者军事意义上的放逐，也不是轻易栽赃罪过的无情的放逐，它的复杂性表现在公共形象和礼节与私下的关系和常态之间的冲突以及当人们难以区别这两者的关系时所带来的后果。这种复杂性并不是表现于莎士比亚如何展开《李尔王》中放逐的情节，而是表现在剧中的人物如何有意识地展示他们自己，如何依赖与别人合作逢场作戏。在这种摆平私人亲属关系和公共角色的策略中，唯一逃脱的途径就是通过放弃本我形象或者在公共场合装傻装疯。有了这样装傻的自由，私下的声音可以在公共场合说出来，繁缛的礼节就可以正当地省掉。

科迪莉亚被李尔王放逐是由李尔王脾气的异常转变所展开的。李尔王使得这样一个个人决定的过程，一个瓜分王国财产和势力的过程看上去似乎与他人有过互动。他让他的女儿们把个人的想法公开说出来：“我的女儿们，告诉我——既然我们现在要放弃我们的统治、领土和政务——你们当中哪一个可以说是最爱我们的？（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）李尔王这里用了第一人称复数，表示他代表王国，这使他的问题不带有亲密性，但实际上是说他要放弃统治，他要问他的女儿哪一个是最爱他的。他似乎不知道她的大女儿刚乃绮和次女瑞干对他的孝顺不同于她们作为臣子的责任。李尔王通过给一些线索试图把在场的其他人卷进这戏剧化的一幕。对他的幺女考地利亚，他是这样问的：“你有什么要说的，可以赢得比你姊妹更为丰美的一块？你说。”（1.1.84-85）显然，这不仅是个策略，而且与李尔王上面说的话明显不合乎逻辑。如果李尔王已经割出了给刚乃绮和瑞干的地区，并宣称这样的继承是“永久的（perpetual）”（1.1.65），那么剩下的领地该多大就应该是多大了。所以，给考地利亚的部分不可能更丰美，或者倘若按李尔王的说法，事先设计是更大一些，那么他问考地利亚的问题既没用也不真诚。考地利亚回答得很简单：“没有什么说的，陛下。”虽然考地利亚的这句话是发自她内心的，但是它立即在公共场合丢了李尔王的面子、降低了他的国王威严。对于李尔王来说，接受小女考地利亚的回答，继续给她土地，就意味着承认他刚才说的话毫无意义，是送空人情，这样他的国王威严就会大打折扣。莎翁设计的这场剧情曲折的李尔王在公共场合亮相的戏，是想借李尔王原本要最后一次展示王权之际，颠覆性地剥夺一下他的王权，然后看看接下来能发生什么。结果，当李尔王把家庭私事和公共王权的事情混在一块时，李尔王便被锁在了统治者的面具下，不能推翻他以前的言行了。

值得注意的是剧中弄臣这一角色可能是唯一反对放逐考地利亚的人，他的胡言乱语后来对国王是有影响的，但是在国王宣布放逐考地利亚这场戏中，他并没有在场。显然，在场的人无论谁对国王要放逐考地利亚的决定发表任何意见都可能会遭殃。坎特伯爵挺身为考地利亚辩护，并提醒李尔王这样做不妥，坎特说：“我从不珍视我的姓名，只当作是和您的敌人打赌的赌注；我并不怕失掉它，我的动机是为求您的安全。”李尔王简短地说：“滚出我的视线！”（1.1.155-158）然而，在随后的剧情中，当弄臣与李尔王争辩时，弄臣并没有受到伤害。当李尔王问弄臣他自己是否也是个傻子时，弄臣回答：“别的官衔您都放弃了；只剩这个是您与生俱来的。”（1.4.129-131）对此，李尔王并没有大怒。为什么会这样呢？放逐与违反规矩有着如此紧密的联系，以至于一个被承认脱离了社会圈的人就会免于不良后果；从某种意义上说，这些人已经被“放逐”了。考地利亚为她的言辞辩护是从她是国王的女儿的角度进行的；坎特伯爵为她的言辞辩护是从他是国王大臣的角度进行的。他们转向基本的社会关系并没有使他们脱离公共和私人关系的羁绊，反而使他们陷入其中。

与考地利亚被放逐这场戏相对应的是莎翁如何描述后来李尔王被大女儿和二女儿驱逐的戏。起初，他还以曾经做国王时的口气说话：“国王要和康瓦说话；父亲要和他的女儿说话，传她来问话。”（2.4.95-96）然而，他已不再是国王，其他人也不会像从前那样附耳听命于他。李尔王最终不得不改用第一人称单数的形式说话：“去，告诉公爵和他的妻子，我要跟他们说话。”（2.4.110）李尔王被女儿驱逐不是一个公开让大家都知道的事，而是一个私下的事；这个情形的唯一戏剧化是外面下着暴雨，他气他的两个女儿背叛了他，主要在于她们在公共场合中承认他为父王，而在私底下却背叛了他。

在《李尔王》中，在放逐战斗中幸存的人必须放弃与个人和公共形象的所有联系。伯爵坎特被剥夺了贵族身份，再回来时是以平民凯厄斯的身份出现的。他不再与任何人有联系，并且避开社会关系网的羁绊来保护和伺奉李尔王。埃德加是被放逐的格老斯特的儿子，之后以疯子汤姆的形象出现，并从这样一个疯人的身份中汲取了力量。莎士比亚安排埃德加成为汤姆后的一场独白戏正是向观众展示埃德加想逃脱别人的指引和控制，他不想再听埃德蒙让他假装打架的话：“我得做出拔剑刺你的样子：拔出剑来；做出抵御的样子；现在你假装奋力相斗。”（2.1.29-30）脱离了公共和个人网，陌生人和疯子都表现得比那些深陷其中的人更潇洒。“若是埃德加，一刻也不得活。”这个新的汤姆说，然而，他失去自我，也正是说明他开始控制他眼前的情形。

然而，考地利亚却不能与埃德加和坎特相提并论。与后者不同的是，考地利亚被放逐以后基本上没在剧中露面；等她再次露面时已经接近剧终，并很快就死了。莎翁设计考地利亚被放逐后消失，与她被李尔王问起她多么爱他时所表现的缄默态度很相称，但是，考地利亚的消失却自始至终存在在剧情中，本身几乎就是一个空的角色，伴随着李尔王出现在弄臣的每个笑话中。尽管考地利亚在死之前跟李尔王见过面，并说过话，但是从来都没有在私下里见过面。剧中缺少彻底的、令人满意的父女和解场景使得这个空的角色无休止地空下去。源于缄默，的确一切都是空白。当李尔王抱着考地利亚的身体，他惊叫道：“看她，看她的嘴唇，看那边，看那边！”（5.3.308-309）尽管这表明李尔王自己死之前幻想女儿还有口气，这就好像李尔王终于明白了女儿考地利亚的缄默、没有说出的爱。李尔王想找回小女儿被他封住的话。

《李尔王》中的放逐并没有割断亲情，反而凝聚了亲情，就是对那些放逐后以伪装的身份回来的人，仍然在理解和修正他们的世界，以便恢复他们原来的身份。尽管李尔王放逐了考地利亚、坎特以及后来他本人被放逐，最初都被理解为是大脑疯狂、冲动所致，其实李尔王的错误是困扰着所有《李尔王》中角色的共同问题：个人和公共义务的双重性。

There never seems to be a successful banishment in Shakespeare’s repertoire of banishments.No banished 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.InTitus Andronicus，Lucius’sexpulsion by the Roman Emperorfrees Lucius to lead the Goth army on a march back on Rome.In Romeo and Juliet,Romeo’s departure from Verona increases his and Juliet’s embracing ofdesperate 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 playswhere the interim between banishmentand return is compressed or unexplored,Lear wallows in thatmid dle space,in the struggle ofaccepting banishmentand 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 extemporaneous 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 decorum’s significance can dissolve.

Cordelia’s banishment by Lear is staged as an unexpected,capricious turn of Lear’s 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).Lear’s 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 opulentthan yoursisters? Speak.”（1.1.84-85）Not only is artifice asked for,but also there is a striking illogic to Lear’s words.If Lear has already carved outregions for Goneriland 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 Lear’s previous design,his request for Cordelia is a bit useless or insincere.Cordelia’s 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 hisking’sdignity.Shakespeare’ssetup ofLear’s elaborate public display is to subversively take away agency from Lear,when Learoriginally 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 minglespublic 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,isabsentin thisscene.There isno mediator or commentator who can voice subversive thoughtswith 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.”Cordelia’s defense of her speech is grounded in her assertions of being a child of a parent;Kent’s 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,Shakespeare’s depiction of Lear’sousting by Goneril and Regan directly answers to the grand theatricality of Cordelia’s earlier banishment. Under the delusion of his agency to set up and directa public performance,Learusesthe 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 I’d 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.Lear’s 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 banishmentin King Lear,the successfulsurvivor mustgive up both private and public ties.Kent shakes off his nobleman’s identity and returns as the common Caius,free from connection to anyone and able to slip through the web of social intrigue to protectand serve Lear.Edgar,banished son of Gloucester,assumesthenew identity of Tom o’Bedlam,and draws strength from the uncategorized yet undeniable power of madmen.That Shakespeare chooses to give Edgar’s soliloquy of becoming Tom its stand-alone scene,exemplifies Edgar’s 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.Shakespeare’s choice on keeping Cordelia absentseems 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 itselfa characteralmost,a void following Lear, present in the Fool’s 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 Cordelia’s 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 theirprevious identities.While King Lear’s ousting of Cordelia and Kent,and later on,his own ousting,can be initially read as the results of miscalculationsof a uniquely delusional mind,Lear’s faults are only the slight magnification of the common troubles besetting almost all characters in King Lear：the duality of private and public obligations.

Shakespeare William.King Lear（Conflated Text）.The Norton Shakespeare：Based on theOxford Edition Tragedies.Ed.Ste phen Greenblatt.New York：Norton，2008.

编 辑：康慧 E-mail:kanghuixx@sina.com

Artifice and Banishment in King Lear Nancy Yi Fan

This essay explores how the portrayal of banishment in William Shakespeare’s 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 successfulnegotiation back into society requires not only adopting temporary new identities, but also realigning of public and familial obligations.

banishment Shakespeare’sKing Lear public and private spheres balance of tact with sincerity