雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说
·廖 康·
一言兴邦是许多文人的梦想。但文人治国,未必真有良策。“李白诗才高千古,”但他最多也就是“一纸国书退匈奴。”说“最多”,因为那故事很可能夸张了李白的翻译作用。他在皇宫里也就是个御用诗人,他的好诗还是在皇宫外写的。安史之乱后,他的政治选择亦不明智。反之,倒是政客经常利用文辞的力量煽动群氓,鼓舞愚民盲动以实现其野心。在较为民主的西方,因更需要直接获得民众的支持,尤其是这样。从古希腊到纳粹德国,讲演定国的例子不胜枚举。最精彩的,当属莎士比亚戏剧《裘利斯•凯撒》第三幕第二场中安东尼的演说。那毕竟是经过文豪加工的,相信比历史上的更有文学美,也更有煽动性。
罗马文化很多是从希腊继承来的,包括演说的艺术。说服人,要凭借三条绝技:权威、逻辑、情感。1 现代的法庭辩论最体现这三条。首先,要找专家来验证并说明死者是你老婆,她身上有你的血迹。专家要是弄错了或者被收买了,你就惨了;陪审员通常会相信撒谎的专家,而不会相信说实话的文盲。其次,检查官要论证你有动机、有时机,要把前因后果讲得清清楚楚,无懈可击;要是碰上一位能把死人说成活人的善辩者,你就更惨了;你那公家指定的律师连三段论都还给老师了,话也说不利落,怎么替你辩白?最后,控方还一定要描述受害者多么可爱,多么聪明;虽然陪审员明知即便受害者是丑八怪、二百五,也不该被杀害,但还是因其美丽、聪明而认为你罪必当诛。反之亦然,有钱请大专家、请好律师,就可能买到无罪释放。
下面,就让我们看看这三条绝技是怎么应用的。在安东尼讲演前,布鲁托斯已经对公众说了,杀死凯撒,“并不是我不爱凯撒,可是我更爱罗马。”2 他说服听众,使用的仅仅是权威。因为他的家族曾因捍卫罗马共和国立下过汗马功劳,他是元老院名望最高的成员,他的高贵品质举国皆知,他具有说一不二的权威。他问道:“你们宁愿让凯撒活在世上,大家作奴隶而死呢,还是让凯撒死去,大家作自由人而生?”没有人想到还会有第三种可能,即让凯撒活下去,大家照样做自由人。他又问道:“这儿有谁愿意自甘卑贱,做一个奴隶?要是有这样的人,请说出来;因为我已经得罪他了。这有谁愿意自居化外,不愿做一个罗马人?要是有这样的人,请说出来;因为我已经得罪他了。这儿有谁愿意自处下流,不爱他的国家?要是有这样的人,请说出来;因为我已经得罪他了。我等待着答复。”众市民同声高喊:“没有,布鲁托斯,没有。”当然不会有,不仅是因为他们慑服于布鲁托斯的权威,而且谁也不愿意承认自己“卑贱、野蛮、下流”3,但这种演说仅仅是一时封了众人的嘴,没有运用逻辑和情感,很难真正说服人。
安东尼主首先运用逻辑来推翻布鲁托斯的权威,他反复声称布鲁托斯是个正人君子,但每恭维他一次,便立即举例说明凯撒如何慷慨、仁慈、谦逊,反证布鲁托斯并非正人君子:“他[凯撒]曾经带许多俘虏回到罗马来,他们的赎金都充实了公家的财库;这可以说是野心者的行径吗?穷苦的人哀哭的时候,凯撒曾经为他们流泪;有野心者是不应当这样仁慈的。然而布鲁托斯却说他是有野心的,而布鲁托斯是一个正人君子。你们大家看见在卢柏节那天,我三次献给他一顶王冠,他三次都拒绝了,这难道是野心吗?然而布鲁托斯却说他是有野心的,而布鲁托斯的的确确是一个正人君子。我不是要推翻布鲁托斯所说的话,我所说的只是我自己所知道的事实……唉,理性啊!你已经遁入了野兽的心中,人们已经失去辨别是非的能力了。原谅我;我的心现在是跟凯撒一起在他的棺木之内,我必须停顿片刻,等它回到我自己的胸腔里。”
市民们听出来安东尼演说讽刺的语气和真实的含义了。他们也不是一点儿脑子都没有,所以安东尼停顿下来让他们想想。市民们议论道:“我想他的话说得很有道理。”
“仔细想起来,凯撒是有点死得冤枉。”
……
“你们听见他的话吗?他不愿接受王冠;所以他的确一点没有野心。”
对于普通百姓,理性的力量远不如情感,尤其在讲演这种时间性很强的活动中。安东尼深谙此道;他知道三个理由足够了,再制造个悬念就该用情感来打动听众的心了。他提了一下凯撒昔日的辉煌,又说:“你们大家知道,他们都是正人君子。我不愿干对不起他们的事;我宁愿对不起死人,对不起我自己,对不起你们,却不愿对不起这些正人君子。可是这儿有一张羊皮纸,上面盖着凯撒的印章;那是我在他的卧室里找到的一张遗嘱。只要让民众一听到这张遗嘱上的话——原谅我,我现在还不想把它宣读——他们就会去吻凯撒尸体上的伤口,用手巾去蘸他神圣的血,还会乞讨他一根头发回去作纪念……作为传给后代的一项贵重遗产。”
市民们自然想听遗嘱,但安东尼故意吊他们的胃口:“你们不能忍耐一些吗?你们不能等待一会儿吗?是我一时失口告诉了你们这件事。我怕我对不起那些用刀子杀死凯撒的正人君子;我怕对不起他们。”
此时,市民已经被安东尼捏在手心里了,立即喊出他想听到的话:“他们是叛徒,什么正人君子!”但他知道火候还未到,他还要深入人心。他说:“那么你们一定要逼迫我读那遗嘱吗?好,那么你们大家环绕在凯撒尸体的周围,让我给你们看看那写下这遗嘱的人。”于是安东尼走下讲坛,深入群众。他让市民们观看凯撒那被刀剑洞穿的斗篷,说道:“凯歇斯的刀子是从这里穿过的;瞧那狠心的凯歇斯割开了一道多深的裂口;他所深爱的布鲁托斯就从这儿刺了一刀进去,当他拔出那万恶的武器的时候,瞧凯撒的血怎样汩汩不断地跟着它出来,好像急于涌到外面来,想要知道究竟是不是布鲁托斯下这样无情的毒手……这是最无情的一击,因为当尊贵的凯撒看见他行刺的时候,负心,这一柄比叛徒的武器更锋锐的利剑,就一直刺进了他的心脏,那时候他的伟大的心就碎裂了……”
市民们被打动、被激怒了:“啊,伤心的景象!啊,尊贵的凯撒!啊,不幸的日子!啊,叛徒!恶贼!啊,最残忍的惨剧!我们一定要复仇。”
安东尼知道,市民的看法可能会随着政客的如簧之舌轻易转变,他还须进一步煽动他们的激情,他讽刺道:“干这件事的人都是正人君子;唉!我不知道他们有什么私人的怨恨,使他们干出这种事来,可是他们都是聪明而正直的,一定有理由可以答复你们。朋友们,我不是来偷取你们的心;我不是一个象布鲁托斯那样能言善辩的人;他们也知道这一点,所以才允许我为凯撒公开说几句话。因为我既没有智慧,又没有口才,又没有本领,我也不会用行动或言语来激动人们的血性;我不过照我心里所想到的说出来;我只是把你们已经知道的事情向你们提醒,给你们看看亲爱的凯撒的伤口,可怜的、无言之口,让它们代替我说话。可是假如我是布鲁托斯,而布鲁托斯是安东尼,那么那个安东尼一定会激起你们的愤怒,让凯撒的每一处伤口里都长出一条舌头来,即使罗马的石块也将要大受感动,奋身而起,与叛徒们抗争了。”
安东尼声称自己不会说话,只是在摆事实。但实际上,他做了最有煽动性、最有说服力的讲演。群情鼎沸了,市民们要暴动,要去烧布鲁托斯的房子,完全忘记了还有遗嘱那么回事。此时,安东尼才打出最后一张王牌,把他编造的遗嘱念给市民们听:“这就是凯撒盖过印的遗嘱。他给每一个罗马市民七十五个德拉克马……而且,他还把台伯河这一边的他的所有的步道、他的私人园亭、他的新辟的花圃,全部赠给你们,永远成为你们世袭的产业,供你们自由散步、游息之用。这样一个凯撒!几时才会有第二个同样的人?”话音一落,这些市民们便行动起来,用焚尸的火烧了叛党的房子,“布鲁托斯和凯歇斯像疯子一样逃出了罗马的城门。”
在演说中,安东尼堪称是翻手为云、覆手为雨,把那些市民玩弄于掌股之中。我说那遗嘱是他假造的,因为他在剧中根本没有到凯撒卧室里找过东西。他不在刺杀现场,也不可能知道谁是从哪儿刺的。这些无非是他运用逻辑和情感的手段。市民们跑去施暴后,安东尼冷笑道:“让它去玩坏吧。坏招,你已经满地跑了,愿意跑到哪儿,就跑到哪儿去吧!”4 这“坏招”我认为总的来说是指他的演讲,具体则指那假遗嘱。安东尼说他自己不象布鲁托斯那么善于言辞,但他推波助澜、收放自如,把讲演艺术运用得炉火纯青。而且我们若看看英文原著就知道,布鲁托斯的演说是散文体,而安东尼的演说是抑扬格五音步的诗体,节奏铿锵有力,是莎士比亚话剧中最精彩的演说。
莎士比亚描绘的市民显然是一群愚民。这在他其它剧中也有不同程度的反映。人们在欣赏这文学美的同时也意识到雄辩可以如何令人智昏理丧,可能起到什么样的煽动作用和暴乱后果。修辞作为有效使用语言的一门学问,虽然仍是人们学习的课程,但是学者们逐渐认识到其危害,尤其是用在政治上。如今rhetorical这个词已经类似于中文的巧言令色。当年我的英语还是半吊子水平时,我曾经称赞一位朋友的讲演极具修辞美,用的就是rhetorical 这个词。惹得人家恼怒,以为我讥讽他的演说华而不实。回想起来,他的演讲,以及我听过的所有国情咨文,其实全都华而不实。人们若不学会批判地阅读、冷静地分析,若不会运用逻辑和清醒的头脑,而热衷听演讲,一味让情感支配理智,是很容易受安东尼这类政客利用的。
2005年6月17日
注:
1 原文是ethos, logos, pathos, 相当于 credibility, logic, passion. 我译得未必准确,请指教。
2 《裘利斯•凯撒》,朱生豪译,《莎士比亚全集》之八,北京,人民文学出版社,1978年。
3 “自居化外”的原文是so rude,如此野蛮。当时罗马自认为是文明的中心。
4 原文是:Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot, / Take thou what course thou wilt! 朱生豪的译文是:“现在让它闹起来吧;一场乱事已经发生,随它怎样发展下去吧!”因对其不满,自译。
- Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 06/18/2005
老廖写得棒,这是我最喜欢的一段,整出戏里最精彩的。
罗马文化很多是从希腊继承来的,包括演说的艺术。说服人,要凭借三条绝技:权威、逻辑、情感。1 现代的法庭辩论最体现这三条。
总结得好!
- Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 06/18/2005
玛雅喜欢,俺就再写一篇关于哈姆莱特的 To be or not to be... - posted on 01/05/2006
I read a little bit more about Caesar lately. Caesar’s will was real and it indeed left a great amount of estate to the Roman people. (After Caesar’s assassination, his wife gave the will and other documents to Anthony, who was the Consul of the year. That stupid woman!)
Anthony actually promoted proposals for reconciliation in the Senate. Playing Caesar’s card in a radical way wouldn’t benefit him. First of all, it would alienate the Senators; secondly, those who were on Caesar’s camp turned out to be more loyal to Caesar’s adopted son Octavian than to him.
liaokang wrote:我说那遗嘱是他假造的,因为他在剧中根本没有到凯撒卧室里找过东西。他不在刺杀现场,也不可能知道谁是从哪儿刺的。这些无非是他运用逻辑和情感的手段。市民们跑去施暴后,安东尼冷笑道:“让它去玩坏吧。坏招,你已经满地跑了,愿意跑到哪儿,就跑到哪儿去吧!”4 这“坏招”我认为总的来说是指他的演讲,具体则指那假遗嘱。安东尼说他自己不象布鲁托斯那么善于言辞,但他推波助澜、收放自如,把讲演艺术运用得炉火纯青。而且我们若看看英文原著就知道,布鲁托斯的演说是散文体,而安东尼的演说是抑扬格五音步的诗体,节奏铿锵有力,是莎士比亚话剧中最精彩的演说。
- posted on 01/05/2006
一言兴邦是许多文人的梦想。但文人治国,未必真有良策。“李白诗才高千>> 古,”但他最多也就是“一纸国书退匈奴。”说“最多”,因为那故事很可能夸>
一言兴邦的文人梦并不是靠诗歌、文学作品来兴的。反过来了,诗人、文人天生
希望自己胸中的“雄才大略”可以兴邦,不能如愿或受到现实无情打击后才来作诗
作文。所以说,诗、文是雕虫小技,是旁骛,是怀才不遇的“愁苦之好”。至于是
否真有良策,还在其次。即使有也不会体现在诗歌与文学作品里。
罗马文化很多是从希腊继承来的,包括演说的艺术。说服人,要凭借三条绝技:
权威、逻辑、情感。1 现代的法庭辩论最体现这三条。首先,要找专家来验证并
权威、逻辑是演说的工具,而演说的目的是打动情感。所以这三条确实是关键,但
不是并列的东西。理智与情感的动机作用是不同的,西方古人也说,“理智如跛脚
汉,情感如盲健儿”,意思就是理智与逻辑只可明义,情感情绪才能煽而动之。尤
其是群体性的动员。所以,这里权威与逻辑只是达到煽动听众情绪,进而调动其行
为达到目的的手段。权威本身具有情绪感染内涵,逻辑则有可能增强情感也可能消
除情感情绪的盲动性,要看实际情况。
〉而不实。人们若不学会批判地阅读、冷静地分析,若不会运用逻辑和清醒的头
〉脑,而热衷听演讲,一味让情感支配理智,是很容易受安东尼这类政客利用
〉的。
总结的很对,说得更准确一些,对别有用心的人来说,要充分利用权威,盗用逻辑
来煽动情绪情感,而大众则不要盲从权威,用逻辑来克制情感掩盖理智的弊病,尽
量保持清醒头脑。
语言为什么能打动情绪情感蛊惑人心,不是因为其内容的逻辑性和理智性,而是由
于其言语的特性,语调、声调、表情、手势、音量等,靠这些与情绪和情感形态一
致的言语形式来拨动情绪情感。或者可以说,逻辑是语言的内容的特征,而言语表
情则是语言的形式特征。最佳的效果是逻辑与形式的统一,无论这个效果是“好”
还是“坏”。而本质上这两者又可以互相克制,如果逻辑战胜了形式,理智得胜。
如果形式超越了逻辑,情感情绪占上风。而且,理智不转变为情绪情感,则没有巨
大的动机作用。情绪和情感如果被理智克制,起码减小了盲动的危险。
观众与听众的心理学,就是要讲理智与情感交流的复杂辩证法。 - Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 05/27/2010
大家谈论莎士比亚的历史剧,我把这篇提起。历史和历史剧不完全一样。在剧中,安东尼是不可能有哪遗嘱的,但他也许听说过遗嘱的内容,充分利用了。 - posted on 05/27/2010
It is a pipe dream.
"逻辑和清醒的头脑" is not something that can be taken for granted. Many persons are just driven by their emotion and intuition and are loudly proud of it. 清醒的头脑 is not necessarily one filled with encyclopedias. It is one armed with the understanding of the "laws" behind the things and clearing understanding of the lessons in history - not only the facts in history.
Rhetoric is a very powerful tool for demagogues. Demagogues will forever use it because it is so effective. Hitler was only one of those who once successfully used it.
Acting has long become a crucial part in many of the daily dealings. The so-called "charisma" as used by the politicians are so powerful that even a person wiht 逻辑和清醒的头脑 may fall for it.
Humans are fallible. The above is part of the causes of the fallibility. We have to live with it.
liaokang wrote:
"回想起来,他的演讲,以及我听过的所有国情咨文,其实全都华而不实。人们若不学会批判地阅读、冷静地分析,若不会运用逻辑和清醒的头脑,而热衷听演讲,一味让情感支配理智,是很容易受安东尼这类政客利用的。 " - posted on 05/27/2010
The memory may still be fresh that some persons were even move to tears by some elected official's skin color. And those persons were not women only. Men shed tears on the skin color of some elected officials! And loudly spoke about their pride in their shedding tears!
Now, you can imagine the hopelessness of the dependence on reason. Most persons - men and women - have very weak reason. They are made as that. They are the counterpart in the mutuality with the advantage-takers. Human history was filled with that, I guess. What can you do about it? Maybe the proper question is: What can I do to avoid becoming another pig to be slaughtered AND in the same time a helper of those who slaughter? - posted on 05/27/2010
On the other hand, even reason won't work because a reasoning process requires starting points. A lot of differences among persons' opinions are not caused by differences in reasoning process but caused by the differences in the starting points. If person A believes the earth is a square plate and person B believes it is a huge dough-nut, how could their reasoning results agree with each other?
It is the differences in their world view. The example is not an exaggeration at all. Look around you and you will find out that it is totally hopeless to depend on reason or the reasoning process. My theory has included this one: Humans actually belong to several different species each of which has its own world view. There are square-plate-earth human species; there are huge-dough-nut-earth human species. They cannot communicate with another in another species with reason at all. They can only communicate with non-reason - emotions, etc. Thanks to emotions, they are not that lonely any more! ;--) - Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 05/27/2010
Pure idiots are those who try to reason with another person in another human species. They can only commiserate or be compassionate with each other on the emotion base. Emotion is both the killer and the peace maker! hehehe ;--) - posted on 05/27/2010
老廖也参加萨史剧的讨论,当是欣喜。这篇谈雄辩的作用,倒让我想起来西方一直
的修辞术,都是关于演说争辩用的,注重语音语势,还有许多东西。当我读亚里斯
多德的《修辞学》,就在纳闷,这修辞学与中国人修辞立其诚何等差异?难怪苏格
拉底就把修辞家叫诡辩士打发掉了。
这一篇倒正好可以为我另一线讨论语音作修辞佐证。
但,如果一方当势,又是运用修辞力。另一方不具备回还,哪怕辩解的能力,在言
辞上就吃了亏。这个在我们日常生活的美国难道不是比比皆是?领导层日日口似悬
河,谁也知道都是Bullshit。而受制的人,往往缺的是一张嘴。
记得梭罗《瓦尔登湖》中对演说也发出类似的见解。不知是不是针对爱默生:?
liaokang wrote:
大家谈论莎士比亚的历史剧,我把这篇提起。历史和历史剧不完全一样。在剧中,安东尼是不可能有哪遗嘱的,但他也许听说过遗嘱的内容,充分利用了。
这一部Julius Caesar, 还有一部古罗马Antony and Cleopatra, 一般不归类于
萨翁的史剧,而是悲剧。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
Histories
King John
Richard II
Henry IV, part 1
Henry IV, part 2
Henry V
Henry VI, part 1†
Henry VI, part 2
Henry VI, part 3
Richard III
Henry VIII†
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_history
Tragedies
Romeo and Juliet
Coriolanus
Titus Andronicus†
Timon of Athens†
Julius Caesar
Macbeth†
Hamlet
Troilus and Cressida‡
King Lear
Othello
Antony and Cleopatra
Cymbeline*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_tragedy - Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 05/27/2010
好文章! - Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 05/27/2010
Based on my reasoning above, there is little point in reasoning with other living people. Just reason with oneself and keep moving on. Do you reason with a dog? Do you reason with a cat? If you do, you are an idiot. There of species different from yours! - Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 05/27/2010
With whom are you reasoning here? What does your last sentence mean?
shudai wrote:
...There of species different from yours! - posted on 05/28/2010
I liked this article the first time I read it. And I still like it the second time it surfaced.
Besides the mesmerizing narratives and analysis--as characteristic in author's many other works, I particularly enjoyed a discourse of Shakespeare in the context of law. This, obviously, is a very interesting topic in itself, as there are already many books on this: for example, “The Law in Shakespeare”, “Shakespeare and the Law”, and “Shakespeare and Lawyers.” It’s intriguing just to see how Shakespearean works are somehow inherently linked to law, for various reasons, which may differ greatly from author to author. It is no easy task to put an entire Shakespeare’s play into a capsule, with added ingredients of elements of argument, historical background, a short detour to a hypothetical murder trial, and author's own commentaries. But the author skillfully synthesized these pieces and pulled out a very readable product.
As a footnote, it is one thing to move a crowd to act your way, it is quite another to persuade an expert to view things your way. In practice, it is a form of art, a skill that is difficult to develop. The best tools available, in my view, no longer lie in Aristotle or Shakespeare. Surprisingly—to me at least, the most effective mechanism is actually revealed in the early works of Dale Carnegie.
liaokang wrote:
雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说
·廖 康·
罗马文化很多是从希腊继承来的,包括演说的艺术。说服人,要凭借三条绝技:权威、逻辑、情感。1 现代的法庭辩论最体现这三条。首先,要找专家来验证并说明死者是你老婆,她身上有你的血迹。专家要是弄错了或者被收买了,你就惨了;陪审员通常会相信撒谎的专家,而不会相信说实话的文盲。其次,检查官要论证你有动机、有时机,要把前因后果讲得清清楚楚,无懈可击;要是碰上一位能把死人说成活人的善辩者,你就更惨了;你那公家指定的律师连三段论都还给老师了,话也说不利落,怎么替你辩白?最后,控方还一定要描述受害者多么可爱,多么聪明;虽然陪审员明知即便受害者是丑八怪、二百五,也不该被杀害,但还是因其美丽、聪明而认为你罪必当诛。反之亦然,有钱请大专家、请好律师,就可能买到无罪释放。
- Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 05/28/2010
得失寸心知。 - posted on 05/29/2010
liaokang wrote:
大家谈论莎士比亚的历史剧,我把这篇提起。历史和历史剧不完全一样。在剧中,安东尼是不可能有哪遗嘱的,但他也许听说过遗嘱的内容,充分利用了。
廖老师是在以雄辩论雄辩的作用哈.好文章.
雄辩的口才,激昻的文字,加上生动的肢体语言,按理,有抱负,雄心勃勃男士都应该具备这样的才能.才能当leader啊!可沙瓮偏偏让这位政客安东尼得心应手地用上, 莎士比亚 以角色的矛盾,冲突,来展现戏剧性,是沙剧的之最.他在呼喊人性的悲剧.
而且越拥有权威,地位,势力,金钱,野心……这出悲剧将会演得更残烈.
重温沙剧,是不是莎士比亚的生日?好象是四月份哎,记得莎士比亚生死是同一天, 死时52岁,可能这是上帝给一位戏剧家的特殊恩惠,上帝也学会了编剧.
- Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 06/02/2010
liaokang wrote:
得失寸心知。
老廖,这句话什么意思? - Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 06/04/2010
秋子:
William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564; died 23 April 1616)
from wiki - posted on 06/04/2010
Maya:
经你的提示,认真地考证了一下哈,
William Shakespeare was born in April of 1564. There is no specific date of birth because at that time the only date of importance was the date of baptism, though infants often were baptized when they were three days old. Shakespeare's baptismal date was April 26, 1564.
http://www.springfield.k12.il.us/schools/springfield/eliz/shakespearebiog.html
---------
看来, William Shakespeare was born in April 23 of 1564,是推算出来的,
出生后三天, baptismal date受洗日是April 26.
His birthdate is assumed from his baptism on April 26
生死同一天,似乎真是上帝戏剧性地安排了一下.
还有who is William Shakespeare ? 一直是个谜,有很多的说法和版本.
*******
廖老师提到写一篇关于哈姆莱特的 To be or not to be......
能不能贴一下.期待着.
- Re: 雄辩的作用:细读莎剧《裘利斯•凯撒》中安东尼的演说posted on 06/09/2010
大文人中还有个更大的巧合;马克土温出生那天有哈雷彗星,死的那晚哈雷彗星正好转一圈回来了,如他自己所预料。 - posted on 07/06/2010
雄辩与胡闹,乃金银之别,然胡闹是金。;)
不过,我到觉得安东尼通篇pathos, 没有丝毫的logos。
现在的政客们,pathos运用的炉火纯青,或者当今的民众,同2千年前没什么不同?
安东尼到底说了些什么,无人知晓,只留下道听途说的蛛丝马迹作为史料。
以下是莎翁的杰作,
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, --
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men, --
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome.
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, --not without cause:
What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him?
O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason! --Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
............
But yesterday the word of Caesar might
Have stood against the world: now lies he there,
And none so poor to do him reverence.
O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men.
But here's a parchment with the seal of Caesar, --
I found it in his closet, --'tis his will:
Let but the commons hear this testament, --
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read, --
And they would go and kiss dead Caesar's wounds,
And dip their napkins in his sacred blood;
Yea, beg a hair of him for memory,
And, dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it as a rich legacy
Unto their issue.
........................
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it;
It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And, being men, hearing the will of Caesar,
It will inflame you, --it will make you mad:
'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!
..........................
Will you be patient? will you stay awhile?
I have o'ershot myself to tell you of it:
I fear I wrong the honourable men
Whose daggers have stabbed Caesar; I do fear it.
...........................
You will compel me, then, to read the will?
Then make a ring about the corpse of Caesar,
And let me show you him that made the will.
Shall I descend? and will you give me leave?
.............................
Nay, press not so upon me; stand far
.............................
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle: I remember
The first time ever Caesar put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, in his tent,
That day he overcame the Nervii:--
Look! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Casca made:
Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed;
And, as he plucked his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved.
If Brutus so unkindly knocked or no;
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquished him: then burst his mightly heart;
And, in his mantle muffling up his face,
Even at the base of Pompey's statue,
Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.
O what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourished over us.
O, now you weep; and I perceive you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Caesar's vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is himself, marred, as you see, with traitors.
........................
Stay, countrymen.
........................
Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable; --
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it; --they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
Show you sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Brutus,
And Brutus Antony, there were an Antony
Would ruffle up your spirits, and put a tongue
In every wound of Caesar, that should move
The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.
- posted on 07/06/2010
He is using logos in these lines:
He hath brought many captives home to Rome.
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation