「哈姆雷特」中的鬼魂和文字

Ghost and Writing in Hamlet

Ayers claims that Hamlet is 'anticipating Derrida by some three and a half centuries.' Derrida has always been a bitter critic of the logocentric tradition. If Hamlet is really anticipating Derrida, Hamlet must also be a disbeliever in language. Logocentrism is a belief centered on presence. Derrida tries to prove that all language is writing, and all writing implies absence. The logocentric tradition, on the other hand, insists that language, and especial speech, implies presence. This tradition has dominated the Western thought for millennia. In the works of Shakespeare, there are strong evidences suggesting that Shakespeare has been heavily influenced by this tradition. In my analysis, I will show that Shakespeare's Hamlet is not immune from its contagion, either. The trial Hamlet undergoes may offer him a glimpse at the fact that language implies absence. But he refuses to accept this fact. At last, Hamlet chooses to retreat into a ghostly but eternal existence provided by language.本文是對艾爾斯（P. K. Ayers）的〈閱讀、書寫和哈姆雷特中〉的回應。從艾爾斯的角度看來，德希達的學說並不具原創性，因為「早在德希達之前三百五十年，哈姆雷特就提出類似的議論了。」德希達對批評「理體中心論」（logocentrism）一直不遺餘力。如果哈姆雷特也具有德希達的洞察力，他必須對語言也懷著相同的執疑態度。理體中心論強調的是實存。根據這套理論，語言就意味著實存。德希達則認為語言就是書寫，而書寫就意味著非實存。理體中心論引領西方西想已有數千年了。在莎士比亞比亞的著作中，就不時浮現出理體中心論的身影。身為莎士比亞筆下的人物，哈姆雷特自然也擺脫不了語體中心論的影響。在哈姆雷特短暫波折的一生中，他或許曾有剎那的覺醒，了解到語言終究不能和實存畫上等號。但他最後仍選擇投向語言的懷抱，在語言中獲得虛幻的永生。