柯律芝《非神職人員講道書》中的同情與誹謗

Sympathy and Calumny in Coleridge’s Lay Sermons

本文旨在探討《非神職人員講道書》中所採用的文本策略，並將重點擺放在柯律芝如何處理富有同情心和具有誹謗性這兩種不同的讀者。不同於在其它文類中的詩人或是散文作家角色，柯律芝在《非神職人員講道書》中扮演了一名非神職人員講道者，對中上階級讀者提出了他對於國家議題的看法。柯律芝清楚瞭解後拿破崙時代的英國政治氛圍，並據此劃清明確界限，將他潛在讀者的最大公約數設定在宗教上清教徒、政治上支持政府，同時摒除獨神論派和議會改革派，以作為他的主要批判目標。在《政治家手冊》中，非神職人員講道者和上層階級之間的預設立場一開始就造成了矛盾的緊張關係。為了緩解焦慮，柯律芝採用不同的策略方法拉近與讀者的距離，營造親切感，但他先前在《朋友》這本期刊中所發展的雙言巧語，在《政治家手冊》中反倒表現出作者的優越感，進一步深化了與讀者的距離。與此相對，在《一部非神職人員講道書》中，由於他與中產階層讀者處於相同的社會階層，引起共鳴的方法在於直接訴諸具有相同政治和宗教立場的讀者，無需文本策略的親切示好，或是故弄玄虛的知識優越。在沒有階級差異的前提之下，柯律芝公開指責政治改革派和獨神論派是造成社會動盪的主要原因，透過迂迴的方式藉此報復他在1816年出版《克里斯塔貝爾》這本小冊子所遭受的誹謗評論。

This article explores Coleridge’s textual strategy adopted in Lay Sermons, with special attention to his configuration of sympathetic readers and denigration of calumnious ones. Unlike all the other personas he has adopted, be it Coleridge the poet or the prose writer, Coleridge plays the role of a lay priest in Lay Sermons, addressing higher and middle-class readers on national issues. Fully aware of the political climate in the post-Napoleonic period, Coleridge sets a clear boundary to identify the common denominator among those Protestant in religion and pro-government in politics as his potential readers, with only one type of Unitarian dissenter and parliamentary reformist as the main target of attack to announce his stance. In The Statesman’s Manual, the presumed relationship between the priest and the higher-class reader causes tension from the very beginning. To ease his anxiety, Coleridge adopts different approaches to show intimacy, but the double talk he develops in The Friend only shows superiority and furthers distance from his readers. In sharp contrast, because he is on the same social level as his middle-class readers, in A Lay Sermon the only method to draw sympathy is appealing to readers with similar political and religious stances. No textual strategy, such as a friendly address or belittling mysticism, is used to fill the gap between the author and the reader. Coleridge felt comfortable pointing the finger at the opposing side, political reformists and Unitarianism, as the cause of social unrest, through public accusation of political reformists and Unitarianism in retaliation for their calumnious reviews of his Christabel pamphlet in 1816.