| 英文摘要 |
In Taiwan, for decades, Shakespeare’s problem plays had relatively not gotten much attention from scholars, as they should have deserved (despite of the fact that stellar stage productions did come about within these few years). Plays like Troilus and Cressida, All’s Well that Ends Well, Measure for Measure (arguably together with The Merchant of Venice, The Winter’s Tale, and Timon of Athens) had hardly been studied as a “group,” or, a “corpus” under the definition of a specific category “problem plays.” This is the major reason that I would like to further examine on the matter of this subject. To begin with, I will give an overall review on the Western scholarships, relevant to the topic, in an attempt to exhibit how problem plays had been sorted through and discussed for a century. In addition to his tragedy, comedy, and historical chronicle play, Shakespeare’s problem play had emerged as a valid classification which I deem a later invention. Much likely the idea was, in part, “inspired” by the blossoming of naturalism and social realism in theatre in the late 19th century. I will make a comparison between the concepts and practices of “typical” social problem plays and “atypical,” idiosyncratic Shakespearean problem plays, trying to re-contextualize Shakespeare by a rather “modernist” taste, out of which the idea took shape. In a “(post) modern” reflection, problem plays were “ideologically” and “aesthetically” controversial and problematic, thereby theoretically/culturally dialectic and ambiguous. In my analysis from the perspectives of the reception of production history and a critical reading of the texts themselves, including dramatic structure, genre, thematic issue, and theoretical interpretation, I will display that there were indeed a certain number of attributes, which ended up marking those what we called problem plays essentially Shakespearean. |