臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：戲劇鏡中的自我反身：五齣英國文藝復興劇作中的後設劇場研究
作者：儲湘君 引用關係
作者(外文)：Hsiang-chun Chu
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：外國語文學系研究所
指導教授：彭鏡禧
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2003
主題關鍵詞：後設劇場；自我反身；角色扮演；劇作家似的劇中人物；戲中戲；鏡子；凝視；metatheater；self-reflexivity；role-playing；playwright-character；play-within-the-play；mirror；gaze
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:94
　　本研究探討後設戲劇所呈現的自我反身性，部份英國文藝復興劇作企圖擺脫模擬論的侷限，多方挖掘、不斷探究戲劇藝術本身的性質與可能，開展出戲劇研究的其他空間。本論文採用亞伯（Lionel Abel）、凱德武（James L. Calderwood）、侯恩比（Richard Hornby）與修伯（Judd D. Hubert）等學者所提出的後設劇場批評觀點來閱讀下列五部劇作：馬羅（Christopher Marlowe）的《浮士德》（Doctor Faustus）、莎士比亞（William Shakespeare）的《仲夏夜之夢》（A Midsummer Night’s Dream）、《奧賽羅》（Othello）及《哈姆雷》（Hamlet）與《復仇者悲劇》（The Revenger’s Tragedy） ；亦將旁及同時期其他劇作，以便對相關議題有更完整的討論。本論文以議題為導向，討論的主題包括角色扮演（role-playing）、劇作家似的劇中人物（playwright-character）、戲中戲（inset play）、觀眾反應（audience perception）。
　　第一章介紹文藝復興時期對戲劇的看法與理論，並簡要描述一九六０年以降後設劇場評論的主要論點。
　　第二章探討《哈姆雷》與《復仇者悲劇》兩部作品中戲劇人物的角色扮演。他們有如變色龍般，不斷轉換角色或偽裝以欺騙對手，劇作家更藉此揭示戲劇人物的假裝與戲劇的幻相。
　　第三章剖析劇作家似的劇中人物，如梅斐士多佛立（Mephostophilis）、伊亞哥（Iago）等人。他們如同劇作家般，不但為自己也為他人塑造角色、設計戲中戲欺騙敵人、甚至就地取材即興演出。
　　第四章討論戲中戲。《哈姆雷》與《仲夏夜之夢》將戲劇演出與劇場藝術融入劇情當中，深入探究戲劇的各個層面，諸如演員的演出、戲劇的道德功能、人生與戲的關係。
　　第五章則研究觀眾看戲的心理：既投入又疏離。劇作家有時利用旁白或獨白讓觀眾認同劇中人物；有時又運用一些後設手法使觀眾抽離戲劇幻相，進而思考戲劇意涵。
　　後設劇場不斷的自我反省，透過自我反射（self-reflexivity）的手法，自我分析，舉起一面鏡子映照自我，界定戲劇作為虛幻、想像、現實與真實可以彼此相遇或產生糾葛的空間。它同時也映照出觀眾/讀者對戲劇的凝視與自我反思的神態，呈現了戲劇的回視（return of the gaze）。
　　This study explores the theatrical self-reflexivity in five English Renaissance plays in terms of metatheatrical critical perspective advocated by Lionel Abel, James L. Calderwood, Richard Hornby, and Judd D. Hubert, to name just a few. Though overwhelmed by the mimetic mission, some English Renaissance dramatic works endeavor to struggle against this bondage, and turn to themselves instead. They display unflagging excavation and disclosure of the dramatic art itself. Their self-conscious exploration of the nature and function of dramatic art gives us a chance to reconsider the dramatic medium. The plays I discuss in detail are Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Othello and Hamlet, and The Revenger’s Tragedy. In addition, some relevant contemporary plays are brought in for further comparisons. This study organizes its discussion in each chapter in accordance with some of the most important metatheatrical topics: role-playing, playwright-character, inset play and audience perception.
　　Chapter One begins with a summary of the Renaissance critical views toward dramatic art to set up the historical framework for the discussion. Next, a survey of the metatheatrical criticism beginning around the 1960s is given to supply a condensed overview of the critical effort in metatheater.
　　The second chapter explores the significance of role-playing in Hamlet and The Revenger’s Tragedy. Hamlet and Vindice are especially prone to role-playing, adopting role after role to cheat others. By exposing the excessive disguises and calculating manipulation of these chameleon-like figures, dramatists make manifest the pretense of these characters, and lay bare the fiction of the theatrical illusion. By extension, the illusive nature or the theatricality of life is implied. Through these characters’ metatheatrical sensitivity, playwrights could bring forth the dialectics of drama and life, illusion and reality, seeming and being, acting and doing illustrated in the mechanism of role-playing.
　　The third chapter portrays the type of playwright-characters who dramatize roles for themselves or for others, create mini-plays or inset playlets to deceive others, and improvise action or scenes with any available resources. They conduct their action like dramatists. Faustus and Othello are playwright-characters, who tend to cast themselves in different roles and endeavor to be the authors of their own fate. Mephostophilis and Iago, however, are somewhat different. They tend to manipulate their fellow characters with carefully wrought illusion.
　　Chapter Four delves into the treasure of plays within. Like many other Renaissance plays, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Hamlet play up the subject of theater and theatrical performance in their dramatic action with the mounting of inset plays. These plays within supply a very good opportunity for us to consider the nature of dramatic art, including the impersonation of the actor, the moral function of drama, and the analogy of theatrum mundi.
　　The fifth chapter deals with the dramatic mechanism of audience perception: engagement and detachment. Asides and soliloquies are two common devices that playwrights use to engage their audience. In contrast, some devices, including the use of dramatic imagery, plot repetition and role-playing, are applied to encourage detachment for the benefit of increasing reflection on the meaning of the play.
　　Finally, the predominance of self-reflexivity and self-consciousness in the drama I have examined highlights its self-analysis. Metatheatrical drama is a mirror that keeps reflecting itself and defines itself as a medium where illusion, imagination, reality and truth may meet and interact. In addition, it is a mirror through which we, as audience or readers, can see our gaze upon the theater and our reflection upon the theater─the return of the gaze.
Abel, Lionel. Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form. New York: Hill and Wang, 1963.
Adams, Hazard, ed. Critical Theory Since Plato. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.
Adamson, Sylvia. “Literary Language.” The Cambridge History of the English Language, 1476-1776. Vol. III. Ed. Roger Lass. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 539-653.
Armstrong, Philip. “Watching Hamlet Watching: Lacan, Shakespeare and the Mirror Stage.” Alternative Shakespeare. Vol. 2. Ed. Terence Hawkes. London: Routledge, 1996. 216-61.
Bacon, Francis. The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall. Ed. Michael Kiernan. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1985.
Barish, Jonas. “The Antitheatrical Prejudice.” Critical Quarterly 8 (1966): 329-48.
Bethell, S. L. “Shakespeare’s Imagery: The Diabolic Images in Othello.” Shakespeare Survey 5 (1952): 62-80.
---. Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition. London: King and Staples, 1944.
Bodkin, Maud. Archetypal Patterns in Poetry. London: Oxford UP, 1968
Booth, Stephen, ed. “On the Value of Hamlet.” Hamlet. Ed. Martin Coyle. London: Macmillan, 1992. 57-67.
---. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. New Haven: Yale UP, 1977.
Bradbrook, Muriel C. “Cyril Tourneur.” Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy. London: Cambridge UP, 1935. 165-85.
Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1992.
Brooks, Harold F., ed. “Introduction.” A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The Arden edition. London: Methuen, 1979. xxi-cxliii.
Cain, Tom, ed. “Introduction.” Poetaster. By Ben Jonson. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. 1-60.
Calderwood, James L. To Be and Not to Be: Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.
---. Metadrama in Shakespeare’s Henriad. Berkeley: U of California P, 1979.
---. Shakespearean Metadrama. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1971.
---. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: The Illusion of Drama.” MLQ 24 (1965): 506-22.
Cartwright, Kent. Shakespearean Tragedy and Its Double: The Rhythms of Audience Response. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1991.
Chambers, Edmund. K., ed. The Oxford Book of Sixteenth Century Verse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1932.
---. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1923.
Chiu, Chin-jung（邱錦榮）. Metadrama: Shakespeare and Stoppard. Taipei: Bookman, 2000.
---. “Hamlet: Shakespeare at Metaplay.” Bulletin of the College of Liberal Arts 51 (Taipei: National Taiwan University, 1999) 223-53.
Clark, Kenneth. The Nude: A Study of Ideal Art. London: J. Murray, 1956.
Clarke, C. C. “A Note on ‘To be or not to be.’” Essays in Criticism 10 (1960): 18-23.
Clemen, Wolfgang. Shakespeare’s Monologue. Trans. Charity Scott Stokes. London: Methuen, 1987.
---. “Appearance and Reality in Shakespeare’s Plays.” Shakespeare’s Dramatic Art. London: Methuen, 1980. 163-88.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Coleridge’s Essays & Lectures on Shakespeare and Some Other Old Poets & Dramatists. London: J. M. Dent, 1926.
---. Coleridge’s Shakespearean Criticism. 2 vols. Ed. T. M. Raysor. London: Constable, 1930.
Cope, Jackson I. The Theater and the Dream: From Metaphor to Form in Renaissance Drama. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1973.
Curtius, E. R. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Trans. Willard R. Trask. New York: Pantheon Books, 1953.
Dent, R. W. “Imagination in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare Quarterly 15.2 (1964): 115-29.
Dollimore, Joanthan. Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984.
Doran, Madeleine. Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1954.
Driscoll, James P. Identity in Shakespearean Drama. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1983.
Egan, Robert. Drama Within Drama: Shakespeare’s Sense of His Art in King Lear, The Winter’s Tale, and The Tempest. New York: Columbia UP, 1975.
Eliot, T. S. “Hamlet.” Elizabethan Essays. New York: Haskell House, 1964. 55-63.
Evans, G. Blakemore, ed. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.
Fisch, Harold. “All the World’s a Stage.” Hamlet and the Word. New York, 1971. 153-66.
---. “Shakespeare and ‘The Theatre of the World.’” The Morality of Art. Ed. D. W. Jefferson. London: Routledge, 1969. 76-86.
Fly, Richard. “The Evolution of Shakespearean Metadrama: Abel, Burckhardt, and Calderwood.” Comparative Drama 20.2 (1986): 124-39.
Foakes, R. A., ed. “Introduction.” The Revenger’s Tragedy. By Cyril Tourneur and Thomas Middleton. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996. 1-28.
---, ed. “Introduction.” A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 1-41.
---, ed. The Revenger’s Tragedy. By Cyril Tourneur. The Revels Plays. London: Manchester UP, 1966.
Forker, Charles R. “Shakespeare’s Theatrical Symbolism and Its Function in Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly 14 (1963): 215-29.
Frie, Roger. Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity in Modern Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: A Study of Sartre, Binswanger, Lacan, and Habermas. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
Garber, Marjorie B. “‘Vassal Actors’: The Role of the Audience in Shakespearean Tragedy.” Renaissance Drama 9 (1978): 71-89.
---. Dream in Shakespeare: From Metaphor to Metamorphosis. New Haven: Yale UP, 1974.
Goldman, Michael. The Actor’s Freedom: Toward a Theory of Drama. New York: Viking P, 1975.
Grainger, Roger. Drama and Healing: The Roots of Drama Therapy. London: Kingsley, 1990.
Greenblatt, Stephen, et al., ed. The Norton Shakespeare Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: Norton, 1997.
---. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.
---. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
Greer, Germaine. Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986.
Greg, W. W., ed. Doctor Faustus, 1604-1616. By Christopher Marlowe. Oxford: Clarendon, 1950.
Gruber, William E. “The actor in the script: affective strategies in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.” Comparative Drama 19 (1985): 30-48.
Gurr, Andrew, ed. “Introduction.” King Richard II. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. 1-50.
Hall, Joan Lord. The Dynamics of Role-Playing in Jacobean Tragedy. London: Macmillan, 1991.
Hansen, William F. Saxo Grammaticus & the Life of Hamlet. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1983.
Hawkes, Terence. “Or.” Meaning by Shakespeare. London: Routledge, 1992. 11-41.
Hazlitt, William. Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. London: Oxford UP, 1916.
Homan, Sidney R. When the Theater Turns to Itself. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell UP, 1981.
Honigmann, E. A. J., ed. “Introduction.” Othello. The Arden edition. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1999. 1-111.
Hornby, Richard. Drama, Metadrama, and Perception. London: Associated UP, 1986.
Hubert, Judd D. Metatheater: The Example of Shakespeare. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1991.
Hyman, Stanley Edgar. Iago: Some Approaches to the Illusion of His Motivation. New York, 1970.
Jenkins, Harold, ed. Hamlet. The Arden edition. London: Methuen, 1982.
Jonson, Ben. Ben Jonson: Works. 11 vols. Ed. C. H. Herford, Percy and Evelyn Simpson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925-52.
---. The Complete Plays of Ben Jonson. 4 vols. Ed. G. A. Wilkes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.
---. Poetaster. Ed. Tom Cain. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995.
Jump, John D., ed. Doctor Faustus. By Christopher Marlowe. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1962.
Kahn, Coppélia. Man’s Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981.
Kastan, David Scott. “‘His semblable is his mirror’: Hamlet and the Imitation of Revenge.” Shakspeare Studies 19 (1987): 111-24.
Kennedy, Alan. The Protean Self. London: Macmillan, 1974.
Kermode, Frank. “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.” The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. 1183-88.
Kernan, Alvin. “Catching the Conscience of the King: Politics and Theater in Hamlet.” The Playwright as Magician. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979. 85-111.
Kiernan, Pauline. Shakespeare’s Theory of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.
Knight, G. Wilson. The Wheel of Fire. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966.
Kyd, Thomas. The Spanish Tragedy. Ed. David Bevington. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.
Lacan, Jacques. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycoanalysis. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1981.
Lake, David J. The Canon of Middleton’s Plays: Internal Evidence for the Major Problems of Authorship. London: Cambridge UP, 1975.
Lee, Chi-fan （李啟範）. The Plays within the Plays in Shakespeare. Taipei: Hai Kuei Cultural Enterprises, 1985.
Lee, Wei-yao（李為堯）. Shakespeare’s Inset Plays: Semiological Studies of Henry IV, Part One, Hamlet, and A Mid-Summer Night’s Dream. M.A. Thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan U, 2002.
Leinwand, Theodore B. The City Staged: Jacobean Comedy, 1603-13. Madison: The U of Wisconsin P, 1986.
Levin, Harry. “An Explication of the Player’s Speech.” The Question of Hamlet. New York: Oxford UP, 1959. 139-64.
Lisca, Peter. “The Revenger’s Tragedy: A Study of Irony.” Philological Quarterly 38 (1959): 242-51.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others. Trans. Allan Gilbert. 2 vols. Durham, N.C.: Duke UP, 1965. I, 10-96.
Mack, Maynard. “The World of Hamlet.” Tragic Themes in Western Literature. New Haven: Yale UP, 1955. 30-58.
---. “Engagement and Detachment in Shakespeare’s Plays.” Essays on Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig. Ed. Richard Hosley. Columbia: U of Misssouri P, 1962. 275-96.
Marlowe, Christopher. Doctor Faustus. Ed. John D. Jump. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1962.
Marston, John. Antonio’s Revenge. Ed. W. Reavley Gair. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1978.
Massinger, Philip. The Plays and Poems of Philip Massinger. Ed. Philip Edwards and Colin Gibson. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
McAlindon, Thomas. “Cyril Tourneur (?): The Revenger’s Tragedy.” English Renaissance Tragedy. London: Macmillan, 1986. 135-52.
Mehl, Dieter. “Forms and Functions of the Play within a Play.” Renaissance Drama 8 (1965): 41-61.
Mercer, Peter. Hamlet and the Acting of Revenge. London: Macmillan, 1987.
Middleton, Thomas. Women Beware Women. Ed. William C. Carroll. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1994.
Montaigne, Michel de. The Essayes of Michael Lord of Montaigne. Trans. John Florio. 3 vols. London: Oxford UP, 1904-6.
Montrose, Louis Adrian. “The Purpose of Playing: Reflections on a Shakespearean Anthropology.” Helios, n.s. VII (1980): 51-74.
Muir, Kenneth. The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978.
Murray, Peter B. Shakespeare’s Imagined Persons: The Psychology of Role-Playing and Acting. London: Macmillan, 1996.
Murry, John Middleton. Things to Come: Essays. London: J. Cape, 1938.
Nellhaus, Tobin. “Social Ontology and (Meta)theatricality: Reflexions on Performance and Communication in History.” Journal of Dramatic Theory & Criticism 14.2 (2000): 3-39.
Nelson, Robert J. Play within a Play: The Dramatist’s Conception of His Art: Shakespeare to Anouilh. New Haven: Yale UP, 1958.
Newell, Alex. “The Dramatic Context and Meaning of Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ Soliloquy.” PMLA 80 (1965): 38-50.
Newey, Katherine. “Melodrama and Metatheatre: Theatricality in the Nineteenth Century Theatre.” Journal of Dramatic Theory & Criticism 11.2 (1997): 85-100.
Novy, Marianne L. “Patriarchy and play in The Taming of the Shrew.” ELR 9 (1979): 264-80.
Parry, P. H. “Visible Art and Visible Artists: Reflexivity and Metatheatricality in As You Like It.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 34 (1998): 1-15.
---. “The Boyhood of Shakespeare’s Heroines.” Shakespeare Survey 42 (1990): 99-109.
Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys. Ed. Robert C. Latham and William Mattews. 11 vols. London: Harper Collins, 1995.
Perng, Ching-Hsi（彭鏡禧）. “‘Time to Counterfeit’: Playacting and the Hal-Falstaff Relationship in Henry IV, Part I.” Studies in Language and Literature 4 (1990) 59-69.
---. “The Playwright’s Nightmare: A Histrionic Reading of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Studies in Language and Literature 3 (1988): 57-71.
Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1967.
Replogle, Carol. “Not Parody, Not Burlesque: The Play Within the Play in Hamlet.” Modern Philology 67 (1969): 150-59.
Richards, Irving T. “The Meanings of Hamlet’s Soliloquy.” PMLA 48 (1933): 741-66.
Righter, Anne. Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play. London: Chatto & Windus, 1962.
Ringler, William A., Jr. “Hamlet’s Defense of the Players.” Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig. Ed. Richard Hosley. Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1962. 201-11.
Robson, W. W. “Did the King See the Dumb Show?” Cambridge Quarterly 6 (1975): 303-26.
Ross, John F. “Hamlet: Dramatist.” Five Studies in Literature 8.1 (1940): 55-72.
Salingar, Leo. Shakespeare and the Traditions of Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1974.
Sanders, Norman, ed. “Introduction.” Othello. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 1-51.
Scragg, Leah. Shakespeare’s Mouldy Tales: Recurrent Plot Motifs in Shakespearian Drama. London: Longman, 1992.
---. “Iago─Vice or Devil?” Shakespeare Survey 21 (1968): 53-65.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Harold Jenkins. The Arden edition. London: Methuen, 1982.
---. King Richard II. Ed. Andrew Gurr. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.
---. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. R. A. Foakes. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
---. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. Harold F. Brooks. The Arden edition. London: Methuen, 1979.
---. The Norton Shakespeare Based on the Oxford Edition. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York: Norton, 1997.
---. Othello. Ed. E. A. J. Honigmann. The Arden edition. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1999.
---. Othello. Ed. Norman Sanders. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
---. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.
---. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Ed. Stephen Booth. New Haven: Yale UP, 1977.
---. The Taming of the Shrew. Ed. Ann Thompson. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
Shapiro, Michael. “Role-Playing, Reflexivity, and Metadrama in Recent Shakepearean Criticism.” Renaissance Drama 12 (1981): 145-61.
Silverman, Kaja. “The Gaze.” The Threshold of the Visible World. New York: Routledge, 1996. 125-61.
Smith, G. Gregory, ed. Elizabethan Critical Essays. 2 vols. London: Oxford UP, 1904.
Smith, Molly Easo. “The Theatre and the Scaffold: Death as Spectacle in The Spanish Tragedy.” Revenge Tragedy. Ed. Stevie Simkin. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 71-87.
Spivack, Bernard. Shakespeare and the Allegory of Evil. New York: Columbia UP, 1958.
Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Art and Artifice in Shakespeare: A Study in Dramatic Contrast and Illusion. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1933.
Stroup, Thomas B. “The World as Stage.” Microcosmos: The Shape of the Elizabethan Play. Lexington, Ky.: U of Kentucky P, 1965. 7-36.
Styan, J. L. “In Search of the Real Shakespeare; or, Shakespeare’s Shows and Shadows.” New Issues in the Reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Theatre. Ed. Franklin J. Hildy. New York: Lang, 1990. 185-205.
Thompson, Ann, ed. “Introduction.” The Taming of the Shrew. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 1-41.
Thorne, Alison. “Hamlet and the Art of Looking Diversely on the Self.” Vision and Rhetoric in Shakespeare: Looking through Language. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. 104-33.
Tourneur, Cyril. The Revenger’s Tragedy. Ed. R. A. Foakes. London: Manchester UP, 1966.
---, and Thomas Middleton. The Revenger’s Tragedy. Ed. R. A. Foakes. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.
Van den Berg, Kent Talbot. Playhouse and Cosmos: Shakespearean Theater as Metaphor. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1985.
Van Laan, Thomas F. Role-playing in Shakespeare. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1978.
Vickers, Brian, ed. English Renaissance Literary Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.
Weisinger, Herbert. “Theatrum Mundi: Illusion as Reality.” The Agony and the Triumph: Papers on the Use and Abuse of Myth. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State UP, 1964. 58-70.
Wilds, Lillian. Shakespeare’s Character-Dramatists: A Study of a Character Type in Shakespearean Tragedy Through Hamlet. Salzburg, Austria: Universitat Salzburg, 1975.
Wilshire, Bruce. Role Playing and Identity: The Limits of Theatre as Metaphor. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1982.
Wilson, J. Dover. What Happens in Hamlet. New York: Macmillan, 1935.
Worthen, William B. “The weight of Antony: staging ‘character’ in Antony and Cleopatra.” SEL 26 (1986): 295-308.
李啟睿（Chi-jui Lee）。〈試探高行健「三重性表演」的實踐方法──以第三人稱表演為例〉，《華岡藝術學報》6（2002）：57-81。new window
黃美序（Mei-shu Hwang）。〈高行健的第三隻眼〉，《華岡藝術學報》6（2002）：9-32。new window
彭鏡禧（Ching-Hsi Perng），譯注。《哈姆雷》，莎士比亞原著。台北：聯經，2001。
廖朝陽（Chaoyang Liao）。〈反身與分離：王童的《紅柿子》〉，《中外文學》31.11（2003）：15-41。new window
儲湘君（Hsiang-chun Chu）。〈假戲真作：劇場、後設劇場、《哈姆雷》〉，《中外文學》31.1（2002）：35-58。new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：816（臺灣：792，外國：24） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2156165 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67965440
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上