Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35961
|
| Title: | “See, See the Fate of Robber Birds!”: A Post-Colonial Reading of Peter Shaffer’s The Royal Hunt of the Sun
“鑑察掠奪者的命運！”：彼德•謝弗《皇家獵日》之後殖民解讀 |
| Authors: | 張倚鳳
Chang Yi-feng |
| Contributors: | 姜翠芬
Tsui-fen Jiang
張倚鳳
Chang Yi-feng |
| Keywords: | Peter Shaffer
The Royal Hunt of the Sun
colonialism
the backlash of colonialism against the colonizers |
| Date: | 2002 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 16:38:06 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本論文自後殖民角度檢視英國劇作家彼德•謝弗之《皇家獵日》一劇。筆者論證，劇作家雖身為當代殖民國之一員，在劇中卻撻伐殖民主義且對被殖民者深表同情。此外，劇作家在劇中亦強調殖民者遭受之反撲，藉以呈現十六世紀時，西班牙與印加帝國跨文化接觸對被殖民者及殖民者造成之毀滅。
論文第二章探討謝弗在劇中對殖民的控訴。筆者援引薩依德（Edward W. Said）、西賽爾（Aimé Césaire）、戴蒙（Jared Diamond）及帕瑞克（Bhikhu Parekh）之觀點，分析殖民利益薰心的真面目及藉口。筆者試圖證明，劇作家藉由揭露劇中各殖民者汲汲營營追求各自的利益，表達他對此類唯利是圖的殖民者之唾棄及控訴。
第三章重點則在討論劇作家對劇中皮薩羅（Francisco Pizarro）此殖民者之矛盾的情感。劇作家一方面批評皮薩羅對印加帝國及其國王的迷思，另一方面又表達對此年邁又絕望的殖民者的同情。在探討劇作家對皮薩羅的批評時，筆者引用薩依德在《東方主義》（Orientalism）中對他者（the other）的探討。而討論劇作家對皮薩羅的憐憫時，筆者則並置歷史中之皮薩羅及劇作家呈現之皮薩羅，藉以比較出劇作家對此角色之同情。
筆者於論文第四章則著重在劇尾之探討。筆者援引梅彌（Albert Memmi）及西賽爾之觀點，指出事實上殖民對殖民者有一反撲之力量。劇末，不論是殖民者或被殖民者，其國家、宗教及個人都呈現出毀滅之狀。筆者認為，劇作家藉此結局表達對殖民（colonial apparatus）的強烈譴責，並傳遞「掠奪者必遭應得之懲罰」的訊息。此結局同時也透露出劇作家悲觀的情懷。
謝弗於1950年代創作此劇，於1964年上演，當時後殖民意識並不普遍，然有感於周遭大環境之改變，敏感如謝弗之劇作家，於劇中表達他的看法。謝弗一方面站在人道立場，表達他對被殖民者的同情，另一方面則試圖為殖民者表達其遭受殖民反撲之痛苦命運。此一探討殖民者受到的反撲於後殖民研究中相當罕見，謝弗這一觀點實為他的遠見及對後殖民研究的貢獻。
This thesis examines The Royal Hunt of the Sun written by the British playwright, Peter Shaffer, from a post-colonial perspective. I argue that Shaffer, as a member of the twentieth-century colonial world, censures colonialism and holds a sympathetic attitude towards the colonized in The Royal Hunt of the Sun. Accentuating the backlash against the colonizer, the playwright presents the destructive force in the cross-cultural encounter for both the colonizer and the colonized.
In chapter two I discuss Shaffer’s accusation of colonization. To analyze the profit-driven colonization and the pretexts adopted by the colonizers, I apply post-colonial and anthropological concepts expounded by Edward W. Said, Aimé Césaire, Jared Diamond, and Bhikhu Parekh. I maintain that by disclosing the colonizers’ fervent pursuit of interests in The Royal Hunt of the Sun, the playwright brings his accusation against both the colonizer and the act of colonization.
After showing Shaffer’s common stance with most post-colonial scholars—accusation of colonization and sympathy for the colonized—I highlight in chapter three the playwright’s ambivalent sentiment of the colonial commander, Francisco Pizarro. To examine Shaffer’s critique of the Conquistador’s projected expectation of the Inca Empire and its king, I adopt Said’s criticism of Westerners’ stereotypical imagination of the other in Orientalism. I also juxtapose the historical Pizarro with Shaffer’s Pizarro and the turning point of Adela Quested’s attitude in the trial scene of E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India with the change of the colonial general’s attitude in The Royal Hunt of the Sun in order to demonstrate the playwright’s compassion for the aged colonial commander.
Chapter four focuses on the discussion on the ending of the play. Albert Memmi’s and Césaire’s sharp points of colonization’s boomerang effects on the colonizer are brought into this discussion. I argue that the ending shows the playwright’s ultimate reprimand of colonial apparatus and his pessimistic attitude toward cross-cultural contact. The colonized as well as the colonizer is shown destroyed by colonization, and plunder, in whatever means, receives its deserved punishment.
In the global post-colonial sentiment permeating the 1950s and 1960s when Shaffer wrote this play, the playwright expresses his concerns through this play. On the one hand, in the humanistic position, he is sympathetic to the colonized. On the other hand, he also attempts to stand in the perspective of the colonizers in order to express the backlash and harm the colonizers undergo. This perspective is indeed rare in the post-colonial study nowadays and can be treasured as Shaffer’s vision and contribution to the post-colonial study. |
| Reference: | Works Cited
Artaud, Antonin. The Theater and Its Double. Trans. Mary Caroline Richards. New York:
Grove P, 1958.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Post-Colonial Studies: The Key
Concepts. London: Routledge, 2000. 186.
Brustein, Robert. “Peru in New York.” (1965) The Third Theatre. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1969. 114-6. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Vol. 5. Detroit,
Michegan: Gale, 1977. 386.
Césaire, Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism. Trans. Joan Pinkham. New York: Monthly
Review P, 1972.
Dean, Joan F. “Peter Shaffer’s Recurrent Character Type.” Modern Drama 21.3 (Sept.
1978): 297-305.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton, 1997.
Edwards, Ruth Dudley. Harold Macmillan: A Life in Pictures. London: Macmillan, 1983.
134-35.
Elsom, John. Post-War British Theatre Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1981. 96-98.
Forster, E. M. A Passage to India. Taipei: Bookman, 1957.
Gianakaris, C. J. “Drama into Film: The Shaffer Situation.” Modern Drama 28.1 (1985):
83-98.
---. “A Conversation with Peter Shaffer (1990).” In Gianakaris, ed. Peter Shaffer: A
Casebook. 25-38.
---. “The Artistic Trajectory of Peter Shaffer.” In Gianakaris, ed. Peter Shaffer: A
Casebook. 3-23.
---, ed. Peter Shaffer: A Casebook. New York: Garland, 1991.
---. Peter Shaffer. New York: St. Martin’s, 1992.
Glenn, Jules. “Twin in Disguise: A Psychoanalytic Essay on Sleuth and The Royal Hunt of
the Sun.” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 43.2 (1974): 288-302.
Harben, Niloufer. Twentieth-Century English History Plays: From Shaw to Bond. Totowa,
NJ: Barnes & Noble, 1988. 156-212.
Hayman, Ronald. “Like a Woman They Keep Going Back to.” Drama 98 (Autumn
1970): 60-62. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism Vol. 14. Detroit, Michegan:
Gale, 1986. 485.
Hewes, Henry. “Inca Doings.” Saturday Review 13 Nov. 1965, 71.
Hinden, Michael. “Trying to Like Shaffer.” Comparative Drama 19.1 (Spring 1985): 14-
29.
---. “‘Where All the Ladders Start’: The Autobiographical Impulse in Shaffer’s Recent
Work.” In Gianakaris, ed. Peter Shaffer: A Casebook. 151-69.
Howard, Michael, and Wm. Roger Louis, eds. The Oxford History of the Twentieth
Century. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. 91-102; 396-413.
Innes, Christopher. Modern British Drama, 1890-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1992. 349-416.
Kerensky, Oleg. The New British Drama: Fourteen Playwrights since Osborne and
Pinter. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1977. 31-58.
Kiernan, Victor Gordon. The Lords of Human Kind: Black Man, Yellow Man, and White
Man in an Age of Empire. Boston: Little, 1969.
Klein, Dennis A. Peter Shaffer. Rev. ed. New York: Twayne, 1993.
Lawson, Wayne Paul. “The Dramatic Hunt: A Critical Evaluation of Peter Shaffer’s
Plays.” Diss. The Ohio State U, 1973.
Levin, Bernard. “Yes, It’s the Greatest Play in My Lifetime.” Daily Mail 10 Dec. 1964,
18. Rpt. in Elsom 144-45.
Lounsberry, Barbara. “‘God-Hunting’: The Chaos of Worship in Peter Shaffer’s Equus
and Royal Hunt of the Sun.” Modern Drama 21.1 (1978): 13-28.
---. “The Cosmic Embrace: Peter Shaffer’s Metaphysics.” In Gianakaris, ed. Peter Shaffer:
A Casebook. 75-94.
MacMurraugh-Kavanagh, M. K. Peter Shaffer: Theatre and Drama. Houndmills:
Macmillan, 1998.
McCarten, John. “Gods Against God.” The New Yorker 6 Nov. 1965, 115-16.
McInnis, Judy B. “History into Drama: Peter Shaffer and William Prescott.” MACLAS:
Latin American Essays 9 (1995): 80-95.
Meli, Wilma Marie Mickler. “A Record of the Design and Execution of Costumes for
‘The Royal Hunt of the Sun.’” MFA Thesis. California State U, Long Beach, 1990.
Memmi, Albert. Preface. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston: Beacon P, 1965. vii-
xviii.
---. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston: Beacon P, 1965.
Parekh, Bhikhu. “The West and Its Others.” Cultural Readings of Imperialism: Edward
Said and the Gravity of History. Eds. Keith Ansell-Pearson, Benita Parry, and Judith
Squires. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1997. 173-93.
Plunka, Gene A. Peter Shaffer: Roles, Rites, and Rituals in the Theater. Rutherford:
Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1988.
Podol, Peter L. “Contradictions and Dualities in Artaud and Artaudian Theater: The
Conquest of Mexico and the Conquest of Peru.” Modern Drama 26.4 (Dec. 1983):
518-27.
Rathbun, Paul Roland. “American Indian Dramaturgy: Situating Native Presence on the
American Stage (Diane Glancy, William Yellow Robe, Hanay Geiogamah, Mark
Medoff, Peter Shaffer, ‘Pocahontas’).” Diss. U of Wisconsin, Madison, 1996.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1978.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Introduction. Trans. Lawrence Hoey. The Colonizer and the Colonized.
Albert Memmi. Boston: Beacon P, 1965. xxi-xxix.
Shaffer, Peter. Introduction. The Royal Hunt of the Sun: A Play Concerning the Conquest
of Peru. New York: Stein and Day, 1965. v-vi.
---. Preface. The Collected Plays of Peter Shaffer. New York: Harmony Books, 1982. vii-
xviii.
---. The Royal Hunt of the Sun. The Collected Plays of Peter Shaffer. New York: Harmony
Books, 1982. 239-311.
Simard, Rodney. Postmodern Drama: Contemporary Playwrights in America and Britain.
Lanham, Md.: UP of America, 1984. 99-115.
Stacy, James R. “The Sun and the Horse: Peter Shaffer’s Search for Worship.”
Educational Theatre Journal 28.3 (Oct. 1976): 325-35. Rpt. in Gianakaris, ed. Peter
Shaffer: A Casebook. 95-113.
Taylor, John Russell. Peter Shaffer. Harlow: Longman, 1974.
Thomas, Eberle. Peter Shaffer: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland, 1991.
Walder, Dennis. Post-Colonial Literatures in English: History, Language, Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1998.
Watson, John Clair. “The Ritual Plays of Peter Shaffer.” Diss. U of Oregon, 1987.
Westarp, Karl-Heinz. “Myth in Peter Shaffer’s The Royal Hunt of the Sun and in Arthur
Kopit’s Indians.” English Studies 65.2 (Apr. 1984): 120-28. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
88551003
91 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0088551003 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 693 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
