重探莎劇《亨利四世》（上）、（下）及《亨利五世》中的馬基維利主義：權力、修辭、與戲劇再現

Abstract

本論文旨在透過「修辭」以及「戲劇再現」兩種視角探討莎劇《亨利四世》(上)、 (下)及《亨利五世》中,關於馬基維利式權力建構的議題。本文將以維多利亞•卡恩 (Victoria Kahn) 對於馬基維利名著《君王論》(The Prince)的重新詮釋,作為重探莎士比亞此三齣史劇的理論基礎。根據卡恩的論點,修辭與戲劇再現乃馬基維利政治思想中的兩項核 心概念。卡恩指出,馬基維利企圖藉由《君王論》闡述一要旨,亦即:君王的首要課題並非 學會如何「當」個稱頭的王,而是懂得如何「演」得像個稱頭的王;卡恩也表示,王權或政 權的本質,大體而言,往往建構於形象塑造或角色扮演的工夫上。事實上,此種將王權視為 一種演現(performance)的思考模式也同時存在於莎翁的三齣史劇之中。莎翁將霍爾王子(Prince Hal)──也就是後來的亨利五世(Henry V)──形塑成一位擅於利用表演以及辯才來鞏固自身權力的君主,試圖展現在操作權力的過程中,戲劇再現及修辭經常是不可或缺 的手段。藉由仔細重讀《君王論》、《亨利四世》(上)、(下)以及《亨利五世》,筆者發現馬基維利與莎士比亞均嘗試探究權劇再現之間的關係,並且以一種較為戲劇化的觀點重新思考政治的運作。更重要的是,從兩者作品間的相似之處,我們不但得以一窺文藝 復興時期的人如何以更為世俗的眼光反思政治的本質,亦能明瞭權力(或政治)與戲劇之間的界線並非總是涇渭分明。

This thesis aims to explore the topic of Machiavellian power construction in Shakespeare’s two parts of Henry IV and Henry V from the perspective of rhetoric and of theatrical representation. The main approach applied to the rereading of the three history plays is based on Victoria Kahn’s revisionary interpretation of Machiavelli’s Prince. According to Kahn, rhetoric and theatrical representation are the two key concepts in Machiavelli’s political thought. The most important message Machiavelli intends to convey in The Prince, she explains, is that the primary lesson that a prince is required to learn is not how to “be” a proper prince but how to “act” like a proper prince, suggesting that the essence of kingship or political power, to a great extent, is constructed upon image-making or role-play. Such a way of understanding that kingship as a performance, in fact, can also be found in Shakespeare’s two parts of Henry IV and Henry V. Through his portrayal of Prince Hal/Henry V as a monarch well understanding how to maintain power with the moderation of acting and eloquence, Shakespeare attempts to present the idea that theatrical representation and rhetoric are often used as indispensable methods in the practice of power. By carefully rereading The Prince and the three history plays, I discover that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare endeavor to investigate the relationship between power and theatrical representation, trying to reconsider the working of politics in a more theatrical aspect. More significantly, from the parallel between their works, we can not only see how Renaissance men reflect the essence of politics in a more secular view but also realize that the distinction between power (or politics) and theater can be very blurred at times.