從天才到文化資本：科律芝與赫茲利特的莎士比亞評論

From Genius to Cultural Capital: Coleridge’s and Hazlitt’s Criticism of Shakespeare

科律芝的莎士比亞系列講座以及赫茲利特的《論莎士比亞劇中人物》一書，是莎士比亞評論的重要里程碑，標誌著莎士比亞逐漸成為具有超驗性質的文化權威象徵。這兩位文學評論家重新詮釋了莎士比亞，將先前粗野且脫離正軌的天才形象，重新塑造成一位具有想像力和感受力的普世天才。在科學技術進步逐漸侵蝕傳統價值觀的時代，兩位評論家都將此現象歸因於機械哲學的發展，並將莎士比亞視為人類價值的典範。在他們的重新詮釋中，科律芝和赫茲利特將莎士比亞去脈絡化，轉化成為一個具內在價值的超驗、神聖形象，使其成為一位具有神聖意義的文化偶像。將莎士比亞理想化，旨在藉以挽救人類價值，同時也促使莎士比亞成為一項文化資本。由於講座和書籍出版本身都是一種經濟活動，他們的詮釋旨在塑造出獨特風格，在市場上打造個人品牌，藉以吸引特定的觀眾／讀者群。雖然這兩位評論家在評論中都強調自由意志的重要性，科律芝倡導案頭戲，強調運用想像力和閱讀而非觀看以充分享受戲劇，這種模式與上層階級的文藝品味相契合；而赫茲利特強調情感，將之理解為一種同時具有理性和道德意義的力量，訴諸於一群重視感性和理性交錯、且熱衷於依循自由意志來參與周遭環境事務的中產階級讀者。

Coleridge’s serial lectures on Shakespeare and Hazlitt’s book Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays (1817) marked milestones in Shakespearean criticism when the bard was elevated to a transcendental symbol of cultural authority. Both literary critics reinterpreted Shakespeare and vindicated him from the previous image of a wild and eccentric talent. They transformed these charges into an image of a universal genius invested with the power of imagination and sensibility. Living in an age when the progress of science and technology was eroding traditional values, both critics attributed this decline to the development of mechanical philosophy and positioned Shakespeare as an exemplar of true human values. In their reinterpretation, Coleridge and Hazlitt decontextualized and transfigured Shakespeare into a transcendental, semidivine figure with unique intrinsic values. In effect, Shakespeare became a culturally consecrated icon. Their idealization of Shakespeare aimed to restore humanistic values, even as it contributed to the formation of cultural capital. As the lectures and the book were forms of economic activity, their interpretation shaped a unique brand in the market, targeting a specific group of audiences and readers. Though both critics promoted the idea of“free will,”they provided the audiences and readers with different forms of cultural capital: Coleridge’s advocacy of closet drama promoted a reflective, imagination-driven engagement with Shakespeare, a mode often linked to upper-class literary culture. In contrast, Hazlitt’s focus on passion, understood as a rational and morally significant force, appealed to a group of the middle class who valued the interplay between feeling and reason and were enthusiastic about engaging with their environment in accordance with the exercise of free will.