【作者】 侍中；

【导师】 华泉坤；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 莎士比亚悲剧中的死亡现象尚无系统的研究。作为悲剧高潮的有机构成，死亡不但先行规定着剧情的发展，也是不断向悲剧主人公昭示存在意义而始终在场的核心要素。然而强势悲剧理论有着很强的目的论和伦理观依据，这在亚里士多德、黑格尔以及布拉德雷的悲剧观中是一以贯之的，该理论造成了对死亡现象的长期误读。本文借重海德格尔的相关论述指出：没有人对死亡的觉悟之情悲剧就无从发生，人的存在就是时间性和历史性的存在，作为时间性与历史性确证的死亡无疑也就具有统筹全局的悲剧意味了。此外，海德格尔关于“存在”的本源意义为“去存在”的观点，也提示我们不可以把死亡仅仅视作悲惨不幸的事件，而应把死亡作为贯穿悲剧始终，洞视“存在”意义的途径而加以把握。本文的写作以莎士比亚悲剧中的死亡现象为核心，辨析莎士比亚悲剧中死亡意识与悲剧精神的共生发展，揭示莎士比亚正是站在死亡这一最本己的可能性上探索了生存的种种可能性。本文对悲剧预设的反驳，回应了二十世纪西方哲学和美学领域发生的存在论转向，促进莎士比亚悲剧研究从认识论的立场向存在论立场的转移。 第一章绪论指出：悲剧是关乎存在的，而死亡是存在的核心问题，这契合文艺复兴前后发生的、由超越时空的神性世界到有限时空的人性世界的转变。其二，文章指出“死不是一个事件，而是一种须从生存论加以领会的现象”，是一种人文现象。不难看出这和以目的论和伦理观为依托的悲剧观大相径庭：在那里死亡被视为道德秩序完善自身而进行惩戒的事件。主张研究视角转换的必要性为本文主旨之一。 第二章追溯了忽视死亡意义的缘由，并指出以大批剧名主人公毁灭为显要特征的死亡现象为莎士比亚所独有。二、吸收德国哲学家胡塞尔和海德格尔的相关论述确证莎士比亚悲剧中的死亡始终在场，是“向死而在”的艺术再现，其与悲剧为共生关系。三、文章辨明了莎士比亚悲剧弥漫全剧的死亡意识实为“忧思”，是人作为有限性存在的“基本现身情态”，死亡意识是人觉醒的产物，是莎士比亚悲剧诞生的可能。文章揭示悲剧呈现出的“向死而在”的全过程，即“去存在”、“决断”、“本己能在”以及其与“忧思”间的关联。 第三章探讨死亡方法论的功用。文章指出亚里士多德和黑格尔以及布拉德雷的学说一样忽视了悲剧的存在性质，进一步掩盖了死亡的意义。莎士比亚越过亚里士多德，实现了向“命运”观的回归;，推动莎士比亚的悲剧发展的是悲剧主人公为实现本己能在而做出的决断，决断塑就命运。莎士比亚的命运是人的命运，而不是冥冥中神意的安排。悲剧主人公以一种对死一亡的自由态度走在命运的路上，只有决意本己向死而在的人才有命运，这就是死亡意识弥漫全剧的缘由。最后，有了对死亡的态度，也就有r相应的赴死方式。本文依据自杀与他杀两大方式区分出两大悲剧部类:即人文L义悲剧和超越的悲剧，前者以《哈姆雷特》、《李尔王》和《麦克白》为代表;后者以《罗密欧与朱丽叶》、《奥赛罗》和《安东尼与克莉奥佩特拉》为代表。初步指出两类悲剧分别以复仇和爱情为题材，分别体现出以生拒死的入世精神和以生蹈死的出世精神为特征的两大悲剧精神，它们相激相荡，是贯穿莎士比亚悲剧的两条主线。 第四章谨慎地指出剧作中疯狂与风暴场景是既定世界的紊乱而导致的生存意义的丧失，并进而体现在_上人公身土的此类现象实为死亡的前兆。_二、悲剧主人公以相当的主体性精神重塑世界，;t以“复仇”的形式表现出来。他们以人神的姿态出现，在重塑意义的途中，死}’不断地向其昭示着本真的、“存在”的意义。它们之所以被冠以最伟人的悲剧是因其体现了以生拒死，重塑世界的悲剧精神。文章强调指出笼罩全剧的诡异的气氛，是人文性的，表现了莎士比亚对人文主义思想的深刻反思。三、悲剧仁人公皆意识到存在的意义，文章解析了死亡的不可避免性。四、文本分析显示:《哈姆雷特》不是通常意义_上的复仇悲剧:相反，复仇是潜越卜帝的表现。该剧在死亡敞开的“无”面前揭开了世界的荒诞性。《哈姆雷特》是一部关于复仇不再可能的存在悲剧。麦克白谋杀起家却不相信自己也是有死的。在不断的杀戮中，死亡不断地向其启示着“无”，而能体会到时间性的存在就足以构成超绝的超人形象(海德格尔语)。李尔王放弃了复仇，然而在充满对抗的世界卜，他的愿望终难实现，这也是爱情在此类悲剧中天折的原因所在。统而一言之，死亡不断地把人神拉回到人的本真存在，悲剧以一种舞台形式探索了存在的种种可能性。 第五章指出人文主义悲剧的意义所在是人神，而此类悲剧则落在了爱神上。当现实进迫时悲剧主人公不断退隐，直至婚床和陵墓。文章分析了二者所被赋予的超越意义:一方面是生存空间的急剧缩减:同时又寓指生死擅变的场所。二、阐释了自杀作为以生蹈死而被注入的超越意义。文章指出:“此在本质上是共在”’它规定了人的存在方式就是历史性和时间性存在，是自我与世界的关系，这种对世界的自我割绝也就拒斥了生存的根本从而坠入了生命的乌托邦。 第六章综述本更多还原

【Abstract】 No systematic study has yet been done on the death phenomena in Shakespearean tragedy. Death, a constitutive part of dramatic climax, is evidently rich in meaning and plays a vital role in the overall scheme of dramaturgy. The dominant theory of tragedy, which has teleology and ethics as its philosophic basis, has so far failed to perceive that death is an intrinsic part of Shakespeare’s tragic universe.On the strength of Heidegger’s relevant thoughts, the paper maintains that without human awakening to its own finite being, the birth of tragedy would hardly be possible. Heidegger declared loudly that human existence is that of temporality and his-toricality, and death, as the surest proof of human finite being and the quintessence of temporality and historicality, finds itself placed at the heart of tragedy.Another consideration is that "existence" means "to come into being" and always entails action throughout, an understanding that resists the conventional assumption of death as a kind of single event; on the contrary, death is constantly present long before its final actualization. Centering on the death phenomena in Shakespearean tragedy, this paper endeavors to elucidate the symbiotic relation between the death awareness and the tragic spirit embedded in the tragedies. The paper believes that it is on the height of the human "ownmost possibility" that Shakespeare ventured deep into the realm of "Being". The present study advocates a similar turn from episte-mology to ontology for Shakespeare studies.Chapter one tries to establish the tie between tragedy and existence. As death concerns the heart of existence, it agrees with the transformation from God-oriented society to man-oriented society. Secondly, the paper makes it understood that "Dying is not an event; it is a phenomenon to be understood existentially". 1Death is essentially a human phenomenon, refuting the teleological and ethical understanding of it as a form of punishment. A change of perspective forms a major concern for the present paper.Chapter two tries to pinpoint the reason for the insufficient study of death phe-nomena, pointing out the comparative uniqueness of having so many titular characters ended in death in Shakespearean tragedies. Secondly, the paper, on the strength of the philosophies of Husserl and Heidegger, argues for a fresh understanding of death as an inalienable part of life, and thus proving that death in Shakespearean tragedies is an artistic representation of Being-Towards-Death. The paper then goes on to illuminate that Shakespeare’s death awareness is what Heidegger believed to be the basic state-of-mind-angst, a product that resulted from the human awakening. The paper maps out the actual course of Being-Towards-Death as is exhibited in the tragedies, that is, to be its Being, resolution, authentic potentiality-for-Being and their interplay with angst.Chapter three demonstrates how Aristotelian, Hegelian and Bradleyan tragic conceptions have failed to catch the existential nature of tragedies, and, accordingly, have further obliterated the significance of death. Secondly, Shakespeare’s distinctive use of Aristotelian teleology and his return to the time-honored tragic notion of "fate" are expounded at some length. Lastly, the attitude towards death and the way they meet their doom come to the foreground of this section and on the basis of this distinction, that is, death, violent or voluntary, the paper distinguishes two tragic spirits embedded in the character’s death, the worldliness or the humanistic tragedies and the other-worldliness or the transcendental tragedies. The former category is represented by tragedies like Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear, which takes northern countries as its setting, while the latter Romeo and Juliet, Othello and Antony and Cleopatra, which takes the Mediterranean as its setting.Chapter four proves that the recurring phenomena like madness, storm, and some supernatural entities are caused by the evaporation of existential meaning on the part of the protagonists更多还原