裘力斯·恺撒

裘力斯·恺撒

图书基本信息
出版时间:2008-1
出版社:中国人民大学出版社
作者:(英)戴维·丹尼尔
页数:393
书名:裘力斯·恺撒
封面图片
裘力斯·恺撒
内容概要
The Arden Shakespeare is now nearly one hundred years old.The earliest volume in the series,Edward Dowden's Hamlet,waspublished in 1899.Since then the Arden Shakespeare has becomeinternationally recognized and respected.It is now widely acknowledged as the pre-eminent Shakespeare series,valued byscholars,students,actors,and 'the great variety of readers'alikefor its readable and reliable texts,its full annotations and its richlyinformative introductions.
作者简介
编者:(英国)戴维·丹尼尔
书籍目录
List
of
illustrationsGeneral
editors'
prefaceAcknowledgementsIntroduction
The
play
Julius
Caesar
in
London
in
1599
The
language
of
Julius
Caesar
Structures
Shakespeare's
sources
Julius
Caesar
and
the
critics
Julius
Caesar
m
performance
The
textJULIUS
CAESARAppendix:
Plutarch's
Lives
of
the
Noble
Grecians
and
RomanesAbbreviations
and
references
Abbreviations
used
in
notes
Shakespeare's
works
and
works
partly
by
Shakespeare
Editions
of
Shakespeare
collated
Other
worksIndex
编辑推荐
《裘力斯·恺撒》权威,集莎学研究之大成,是学习者、研究者、收藏者的必备之选。
图书标签Tags
莎士比亚,英国文学,戏剧,经典,文学,原版
下载链接

裘力斯·恺撒下载

评论与打分
  •     书好价廉。
  •     好的无话可说!
  •     影印Arden版本,但纸质很好。比原版书便宜多了
  •     阿登版的,不须多说。希望人大出版社把剩下的都出了。不要那么计较赚钱不赚钱,开出版社的,要有济世之心,功在学界,勿以善小而不为。开书店不是开当铺哦
  •     感谢北大引进,排版,纸质印刷都很满意
  •       格式都乱了!(其实这么多英文字我自己都不高兴看完。。。如果不是我自己写的)
      
      
      Antony: The Dancer on the Blade
      In the very end of Julius Caesar, Octavius declares: ‘Most like a soldier, ordered honourably. /So call the field to rest, and let’s away, / To part the glories of this happy day.’ (Julius Caesar 5.5.78-80) Here we see the defeated Brutus is regarded ‘honorable’ while the victors are also ‘glorious’. The ambiguity of ‘honor’ emerges. It isn’t unfamiliar that in the history both sides of the war claim to be the representation of justice. But here the compliment is from an enemy and at least it seems to be sincere. So the question is how opposite sides could be honorable and justified at the same time? Or this is just an ironic discourse as Antony says to the plebeians: ‘And Brutus is an honourable man.’ (3.2.95)
      The ‘honourable’ Brutus is viewed as ‘the most complex character in Julius Caesar and is also the play’s tragic hero’ (“SparkNote on Julius Caesar.”) for among all the conspirators is he the only one who assassinated Caesar for the sake of republic. But I’m not going to focus on Brutus because his sense of honor is more like an ideal type which one might think it should be like this but few can really behave in this way. Actually as we’ve seen, ‘honor’ is so frequently used in the play, but it’s rather an ideological expression than a virtue as it seems to be. The complexity and flexibility of ‘honor’ indicate that there is no real honor in politics, from ancient Rome to the globalized world, although everyone talks about honor.
      The two speeches successively given by Brutus and Antony best represent the battle of these two kinds of honor, or two discourses on honor, while critics usually see the assassination of Caesar as the climax of the whole play. The seemingly irreversible failure of Caesar is reversed by Antony’s speech. And this is also the true turning point of the whole situation. Caesar’s alliance is now weak but growing rapidly while the conspirators are still populous but doomed to fail. It’s something like Mao’s insight in his early work On Protracted War, in which Mao give several reasons that Japanese invaders will finally fail. When Brutus realized this and says to Cassius :
      The enemy increaseth every day;
      We, at the height, are ready to decline.
      There is a tide in the affairs of me
      …
      And we must take the current when it serves,
      Or lose our ventures.’ (4.3.214-222)
      It’s already too late because it had been done on the funeral speech.
      1. Antony’s Speech on the Funeral
      No one will argue that Antony is not a gifted orator except himself. He reminds us of Socrates in the Plato’s dialogue Apology. The great Greek philosopher provoked the Athenian plebeians and received death sentence by the democratic voting. It’s another long story, and it’s obvious that Socrates might be the worst orator ever in the history, because his apology even made many people who thought he was not guilty finally agree to put him to death! Socrates surely has his reason; in short, he thought himself to be righteous because he is stating the truth no matter what the consequence would be. In contrast to Socrates, Antony is just a sophist if he was born in ancient Athens, who only focuses on art of speaking but don’t care about whether the viewpoint in the speech is righteous or not.
      Antony is undoubtedly a great sophist. He knows clearly what audiences love to hear and how to lead them to be mobs in the way he designed. He is a combination of realism and idealism. On one hand, he didn’t give up his loyalty to his friend Caesar who is already dead and betrayed by even Brutus. On the other hand he knows the moodiness of the mobs so well that he won’t try to tell them the murder directly, because this will have no effect on these changeable forgetful mindless mobs.
      The climax of mobocracy is in 3.3. When the mobs meet Cinna the poet, Cinna says: ’I am not Cinna the conspirator.’ (3.3.32) The plebeian says: ’It is no matter, his name’s Cinna. Pluck but his name out of his heart and turn him going.’ (3.3.33-34). As we have seen death of Cinna the poet here and the death of Socrates in Apology, we find that people’s judgments are not always correct as Mao said. People’s frenzy decides in both democracy and mobocracy. Thus, mobocracy is not that distinct from democracy. Actually, in Aristotle’s view, democracy is just the worst of the good regimes while its opposite side, the mobocracy is still the best among the bad regimes. Also for Plato, democracy is just not the worst regime. Therefore, to what extent the ‘republic’ of Rome is the republic that worth sacrificing the great Caesar?
      Brutus is apparently naïve about this. He explains for the assassination:
      Believe me for mine honour and have respect to mine honour ... [T]his is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all freemen? ... [B]ut as he was ambitious, I slew him.’(3.2.14-27)
      He thinks this will persuade the plebeians that he, the ‘noble’ Brutus, assassinated Caesar for the freedom of everyone in the republic of Rome and the future of the republic as a regime. So he presumes these plebeians respect him because of his nobleness and the basic respect for honor and freedom in their minds.
      And all the audiences seem to be persuaded. They shout: ‘None, Brutus, none.’ (3.2.35) and ‘Live Brutus, live, live.’ (3.2.48) Brutus is satisfied and confident, actually over-confident now. He gives Antony chance to speak and believe Antony’s praise will only add to his nobleness. But he is wrong.
      Antony knows so clearly that the names of great things like ‘republic’, ‘honor’, ‘freedom’ instead of the deeds will bring euphoria to the mobs. Mobs enjoy zeal and frenzy, but after these they have to go back to their stupid life as in the very beginning of the play. The cobbler thus explained to Flavius:
      Truly, sir, all that I lived by, is with the awl … I am indeed, sir, a surgeon to old shoes; when they are in great danger, I recover them. As proper men as ever trod upon neat’s leather have gone upon my handiwork.’(1.1.22-27)
      Truly, sir, to wear out their shoes, to get myself in to more work. But indeed, sir, we make holiday to see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph. (1.1.30-32)
      Here we see the cobbler only cares about his daily work. ‘To wear out their shoes’ is not only a joke. It indicates that to the plebeians like the cobbler, Caesar’s triumph has no special meaning or changing to his daily life, but everyone talked about Caesar, so it must be important though he doesn’t know what it is.
      Murellus and Flavius are frustrated by such disloyalty, but their loyalty is no wiser. Only Antony knows such changeable minds are double-edged swords. As old Chinese saying goes: ‘Without water boats can never move, but boats also sink into water.’ (水能载舟亦能覆舟). To Antony, these stupid but populous plebeians are never the followers of great values or great thoughts but only ‘water’
      If we still remember, Brutus used a metaphor of tide as we have mentioned in a previous quotation. Now we see that Brutus is only a victim of this tide, but Antony surfs on it.
      But how could these meaningless, empty discourses or ‘names’ be so powerful? And why is Antony the only one who managed to use this so handily?
      2. ‘Honor’ as a tool
      The strategy Antony adopted is not complicated. He firstly gives some response to Brutus’s accusing speech but in a very careful way keeping his promise to the conspirators. This is to maintain his speech in some kind of formal justice, this is crucial to avoid counterattack by the conspirators. He praised Brutus and his fellows in a very ironic way: ’For Brutus is an honourable man; / So are they all, all honourable man.’(3.2.84-85). This is under the rule but apparently have the reversed effect. He listed several things that prove Caesar is not ambitious as Brutus has said. More importantly, Antony knows it is far from enough. His ultimate weapon is Caesar’s testament. He declares Caesar will denote his fortune to all Romans. Whether it is true or not important, money even only its name is more tangible than honor. So when we talk about honor, we’d better have money to support it though we should say any word about money, which will be considered dishonorable. Antony is a master more than this: ‘Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up.’ (3.2.203); ’I am no orator, as Brutus is.’ (3.2.210). When the tide of plebeians get high, he stays low; when plebeians are willing to hear, he knows how to use their emotions best. This is, again, something like old Chinese saying: ’If you want to catch it, you have to know how to release it.’(欲擒故纵)
      Back to the issue of honor, honor is a rigid ideal Roman spirit to Brutus. But to Antony it’s only a useful tool. We can see clearly that in the ‘real’ Rome rather than the ideal Rome, honor is something more like an ideology. To most people or ‘plebeians’, honor is too big a concept to understand. Despite talking about honor, glory or nobleness endlessly, these concepts themselves can be interpreted with totally different ways. So if there is a talented orator, such as Antony, they will rage and become zealot though they will think they are fighting for justice or honor or whatever. It’s just ideology.
      In Marxist view, ideology is created by the ruling class to rule over the lower class. It usually provides beautiful promises but scarcely makes them come true like Antony did. Shakespeare is apparently not a follower of Karl Marx, neither is Antony. However, Antony is using ‘honor’ as an ideology efficiently and the big question concerning all Marxists is that why the ruled class seldom rebel even if they never see the promises come true. Shakespeare’s possible answer is the human nature of forgetfulness.
      For now, we know that inside Roman minds, ‘honor’ are discourses which ideologically unite Romans together and identify themselves as Romans despite the fact that Rome itself is also an empty expression. For both ruling class and ruled class, ideology is meaningless. But it serves as different functions. It’s true that Antony is a master in using ideology as a discursive system in order to give himself formal justice. But we have already seen he has adopted several tools other than merely ideology to dominate plebeians, so we have to go further.
      3. Instrumental rationality versus substantive rationality
      Antony used every possible method to achieve his final goal no matter it’s about the revenge or getting power by the revenge while Brutus assassinated his friend Caesar for the value in his noble mind. This would be a conflict between instrumental rationality versus substantive rationality, in which instrumental rationality finally wins. Actually, instrumental rationality had already overcome the substantive rationality when the conspirators except Brutus have their self-interests instead of assassinating Caesar for value of notions like freedom and republic. The later civil war is about two forces of instrumental rationality.
      Brutus decided to avoid killing Antony after the assassination of Caesar and allowed Antony to speak to the public after him. These two things best reflect Brutus’s substantive rationality. And if Brutus hadn’t persuaded the other conspirators not to kill Antony, Antony would die and the conspirators who are working for their self-interests would finally win. In both situations, instrumental rationalities win. But Antony is far more instrumentally rationalized so that he wins in the end.
      These two kinds of rationalities draw from classic sociologist Max Weber and later critical sociology, namely Frankfurt School. Briefly, instrumental rationality literally means that such rationality sees actions as instruments to achieve goal. The actions’ value is not important. Substantive rationality tells people the actions are part of the whole thing so it should also be judged by values using rationality.
      We can also find similar conflicts in Macbeth but less clearer. When Macbeth returned to his castle and discuss the prophecy with Lady Macbeth, he says:
      Besides, this Duncan borne his faculties so meek, hath been
      So clear in his great office, that his virtues
      Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongu’d against
      The deep damnation of his taking-off; (Macbeth 1.7.16-20).
      This is something like a value judgment, namely substantive rationality tells him that he shouldn’t murder Duncan because of he represents human virtue. But he then decided to kill Duncan when his only goal is to realize the prophecy. Therefore the corruption of Macbeth can also be seen as a process that instrumental rationality eventually overcomes substantive rationality. However, Macbeth is not born evil, as Shakespeare described. So he constantly receives the pain from such conflict inside him: ‘Methought, I heard a voice cry, ‘Sleep no more! / Macbeth does murther Sleep’—the innocent Sleep’ (2.2.34-38)
      And he sees the ghost of Banquo in 3.4. We usually call this Macbeth’s conscious, but I view it as the inside judgment by his substantive rationality.
      Therefore Shakespeare is, to some extent, talking about such conflict between rationalities in his, at least two, plays. Weber and Frankfurt School are both in 20th century and their critics focus on the capitalism and modernity. But in Shakespeare’s plays, we have already seen the evident discussion on this. In the Introduction to Julius Caesar, it writes: ‘Julius Caesar probably written to open the new Globe theatre in 1599.’ and ‘The play he had just completed in the summer of 1599, Henry V, celebrates and ideal king in heroic actions blessed by God: yet he is a king caught in casuistical politics.’ (Julius Caesar, Introduction 3) In the language of Weberian sociology, the instrumental rationality sometimes will be switched by formal rationality. If we still remember, Antony kept his promise to give himself formal justice. So the politics in 1599 was casuistical because it only demanded formal justice, namely the justice gained by the correct procedure.
      The last question, however, comes to us: since we distinguish Antony and Brutus by the different types of rationalities, but why did Macbeth who follows his instrumental rationality become evil in the end while Antony keeps loyal to Caesar? The answer is that Antony is not only a talented orator but also a person who has his own value inside which cannot be destroyed by others, something like Kafka’s indestructible core. And such value makes Antony the unique dancer on the extremely dangerous blade between instrumental and substantive rationalities.
      4. The Dancer on the Blade
      As Brutus judges:
      Alas, good Cassius, do not think of him
      If he love Caesar, all that he can do
      Is to himself – take thought, and die for Caesar.
      And that were much he should, for he is given
      To sports, to wildness and much company.’ (Julius Caesar, 2.1.184-188)
      Antony is only ‘the arm of Caesar’. But this is only a mask to conceal his true self and his true value. Because his value is individual, it won’t be accepted by others. So he has to keep this under his mask. Thus he is balancing his inside value and outside performance as the ‘unity of private self and public self.’(“SparkNote on Julius Caesar.”). He is, ‘florid, indulgent, extravagant: he could be debauched and distastefu’l. (Julius Caesar, Introduction 68) But ‘Macbeth is a noble and gifted man who chooses treachery and crime, not believing he has any justification for his deeds, but knowing them precisely for what they are.’(Macbeth, Introduction xliv) Now we see a clearer comparison between Antony and Macbeth. Macbeth was a ‘brave and capable warrior’ (“SparkNote on Macbeth.”), so he was talked about in this way. He was very loyal to Duncan so he would fight for Duncan. But such loyalty is unbearable for him so later he was tempted by three witches and finally murder Duncan. Because it’s the fastest way to get to the goal as his instrumental rationality indicates. Such loyalty seemed to be solid because everybody thinks so but could be dramatically reversed as we have seen Macbeth’s tragedy.
      And the basic assumption here is that Antony is still loyal to Caesars after Caesar’s death and he make the whole plan not to get power in the name of Caesar but to revenge Caesar. This is more reasonable because Caesar has no other friends in these elites after his death. If Antony turns to the conspirators like the plebeians will otherwise do, he won’t risk so much to be against Brutus and his populous company. If we say it is because he doesn’t want to share power with these men, there’s still no obvious reason to risk one’s life to pursue the invisible power against the powerful enemies at hand, especially to smart Antony.
      Such value inside Antony is crucial. On one hand, he is an indulgent but innocuous young man. On the other hand, he is a dangerous weapon when something violates his core value. Antony is a dancer on the blade. He won’t talk about the values which everybody talks about endlessly. They are just tools for Antony and he knows exactly how to master the tools and the talkers. He is not only a talented orator but also a genius to see through the whole situation and choose every possible method to achieve his goal. Such great ability plus strong instrumental rationality would be disastrous as they do to Macbeth. But Antony doesn’t overcome the blade. He stays on the very edge thanks to his unchangeable inner part of self-judged value which tells him what is correct to do. Such judgments might, under most circumstances, look ordinary or even stupid. So Antony is loyal but never talks about it while other people talks about loyalty everyday but when it’s needed they have piles of excuses.
      So far Shakespeare, in my view, has told us the best way of living in modernity. It’s Antony’s way. When everybody uses instrumental rationality to benefit, you have to learn some or there will be no place for you. But do not let your substantive rationality shrink. Without the profound value inside your mind, you will be either an elite or a plebeian but without soul. The art of living is dancing on the blade, falling to neither side. Macbeth and Brutus are both tragic heroes for they just have one side. This is some kind of Aristotelian golden mean or Chinese 中庸 but not necessarily the same.
      At the very end, I still want to mention the ‘mask’ that Antony wears. It seems to be against the principle of golden mean or 中庸. But it is the key to such fragile balance. Try to imagine that Antony talks about loyalty like everybody else talks about honor. Is there any difference? Antony will eventually confuse his true value and others’ changeable and greedy minds. So the best way is to have a mask whatever it is about lust, indulgence, foolishness or any kind of things the ‘honorable’ men despise. These are not important because such ‘honorable’ men have no rights to judge of you by their shallowness and soullessness. The only worthy thing in secular life is the inside your indestructible core and the mask you wear ensures it won’t look same as those facile junks though they declare to be ‘noble’.
      
      
      
      Works Cited
      Daniell. David. Introduction. Julius Caesar. The Arden Shakespeare. Beijing: China Renmin U.P., 2008. Print.
      Julius Caesar. The Arden Shakespeare. Beijing: China Renmin U.P., 2008. Print.
      Macbeth. The Arden Shakespeare. Beijing: China Renmin U.P., 2008. Print.
      Muir. Kenneth. Introduction. Macbeth. The Arden Shakespeare. Beijing: China Renmin U.P., 2008. Print.
      “SparkNote on Macbeth.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2002. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
      “SparkNote on Julius Caesar.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2007. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
      
  •     是强大啊程神!虽然不知道在说些神马,但看上去好厉害的样子!!!@@
  •     =-= 其实我也不知道在说神马。。
  •     某学士的课能拿A!!好崇拜!
  •     同葱白!
  •     大概是通选课要求低!
  •     分几天看完吧、
  •     你说这书么?。。
  •     便宜啊,很有文学青年的感觉!!!
  •     奥登仰慕已久了,体会离开之前的日子···
    但很遗憾···
  •     除了字小点以外,情节入胜
  •     希望引进更多的书。,但是应该很好看
  •     这些小说是买来坐飞机的时候看的,挺好。
  •     翻译的注释很到位,翻译不行。没有翻译出王尔德的唯美。
  •     不错的一本书 ,尊重原著。
  •     林徽因很有才气,还好吧。
  •     英剧好看,看完以后推荐给朋友
  •     翻译还是不错的,这本书无论是大小重量厚度都非常和我心意
  •     剧本版的,不看此书
  •     挺有启发的.., 中华民族为什么写不出这样的作品?
  •     孩子看不懂。,还在阅读当中
  •     、毛姆三大作品之一,最喜欢经典名著
  •     五四时从封建启蒙,下册没来得及看
  •     同为王尔德受害者发来贺电,就是太薄了。
  •     五星推荐,讲述每个人都会有的爱、悲伤和愤怒
  •     莎士比亚以戏剧出名,孩子喜欢就行
  •     魔戒这套是早就想收集的书了,很适二年级学生读
  •     买来留着日后水平提高读的,仙军出动