愛爾蘭民族主義者眼中的樑木: 喬伊斯和弗萊爾對愛爾蘭民族主義的批判檢視

The Beam in Irish Naitonalists' Eyes: Joyce's and Friel's Critical Examination of Irish Naitonalism

劉虹伶(Liu Hong-ling)

指導教授 ： 莊坤良

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2000年)

摘要

摘要
作者研究喬伊斯及弗萊爾兩位愛爾蘭作家，旨在分析他們作品中對愛爾蘭民族主義的批判檢視。本論文以「民族主義」為出發點，探討喬伊斯和弗萊爾筆下的民族主義者採取何種策略以對抗英國殖民宰制，以及這種種策略所可能引發的問題和危機。在〈獨眼巨人〉中，喬伊斯以反諷諧擬的手法暴露出酒店中激進民族主義分子的可笑言行。「公民」和他的黨羽為了洗清被英國殖民者「女性化」的恥辱，拼命地誇大暴力和性，以建構自己和國家男子氣概的形象。為了保持愛爾蘭的種族純粹度，他們以一種排外／懼外的態度來對付英國人及弱勢邊緣移民。為了強調愛爾蘭文化的獨特性和優越性，他們構想出一個懷舊式的計畫----復興古蓋爾語、英雄傳奇、和田園神話。這種種充滿民族主義激情的策略都是喬伊斯所要質疑的。弗萊爾在討論愛爾蘭民族主義時也是採取批判的立場。在The Freedom of the City和Making History兩部劇本中，我們看到民謠歌手和歷史學家如何扭曲事實和個人特性以建構出能喚起人民愛國情操的民族英雄。而在Translations一劇中，我們看到村民們如何訴諸於純粹的蓋爾語、輝煌的過往等本質化民族主義來抵抗大英帝國的文化入侵。
比較喬伊斯和弗萊爾，我們發現兩位作家對愛爾蘭民族主義有許多相近的觀點和看法：他們皆指控民族主義者在建構民族英雄的同時，也以血腥暴力的殉道精神替人民洗腦；他們皆主張以「挪用」這項新的語言策略取代不實際的蓋爾語復興運動；他們皆批評民族主義者利用愛爾蘭傳統建立一個田園式的桃源仙境；他們皆認為愛爾蘭不應該被侷限在一個固定的國家定義中，而應該是一個能包容不同聲音、尊重異質元素的開放空間。不同於愛爾蘭民族主義者狹隘的本土化意識型態，喬伊斯和弗萊爾希望提供一種開放的、國際性的思維方式，以應對殖民所帶來的種種問題。不同於愛爾蘭民族主義者以美化國家、歷史、文化作為其表達愛國的方式，喬伊斯和弗萊爾誠實地檢討並揭露愛爾蘭自身的問題，期待其人民能在自我反省中獲得進步的力量。

關鍵字

愛爾蘭民族主義 ； 喬伊斯 ； 弗萊爾 ； 獨眼巨人 ； 後/殖民主義 ； 英雄崇拜 ； 愛爾蘭文化復興運動

並列摘要

Abstract
My intention of studying Joyce’s and Friel’s literary works is to see how the two writers interrogate Irish nationalism in a critical manner. Joyce’s “Cyclops” (the twelfth chapter of Ulysses) and Friel’s plays—The Freedom of the City, Making History, and Translations—is scrutinized in terms of Irish nationalism: what kind of strategies the nationalists adopt to defy the British Empire, and how the authors criticize their strategies and find problems in them. In “Cyclops,” Joyce applies parodies to expose various ridiculous words and deeds of the radical nationalists in Barney Kiernan’s: in order to wipe away the humiliation of being feminized by the English colonizer, the Citizen and the other barflies desperately construct their masculine images by invoking physical and sexual violence; in order to keep Ireland as racially pure as possible, they assume intolerant and xenophobic attitudes toward the English and minor immigrants; and in order to emphasize the peculiarity and superiority of Irish culture, they conceive a nostalgic project of reviving the ancient Gaelic language, heroic legends, and Arcadian myths. Friel also takes a critical stance when examining Irish nationalism. In The Freedom of the City and Making History, dangers are revealed when the nationalist balladeer and historian contort the reality and depersonalize their protagonists in order to turn them into national heroes who can arouse Irish people’s patriotism; in Translations, problems are uncovered when the nationalist villagers counter the invasion of British cultural imperialism with the essentialist claim of a pure language and a golden past.
Comparing the two writers’ examination of Irish nationalism, we find that they share many similar opinions on the issues of national heroes, language, ancient folklore, and national identity: both of them accuse Irish nationalists of propagating blood sacrifice by martyrizing those who die willingly or unwillingly for their country; both of them consider the revival of the Gaelic language unpractical and thus adopt a new linguistic strategy—appropriation—to challenge the supremacy of English; both of them criticize the nationalist way of constructing an ancient, pastoral arcadia with the help of Irish folklore; and both of them object that Ireland should be fixed to a static identity but would rather it become an open space in which divergent elements can equally display their uniqueness and interact with each other. Unlike Irish nationalists who employ a limited, nativist manner to defy the political and cultural invasion of the British Empire, both Joyce and Friel try hard to provide the Irish with a more open-minded, international way of thinking to confront Ireland’s various colonial problems. And unlike Irish nationalists who display their patriotism toward Ireland by embalming the nation in a beautiful, glorious image, both writers show their love and expectation to their motherland by exposing its defective side, hoping that through self-examination, Ireland and its people can make progress and become better in the future.

並列關鍵字

Irish Nationalism ； Joyce ； Friel ； Cyclops ； Post/colonialism ； Hero Worship ； Irish Cultural Renaissance

參考文獻

Cairns, David and Shaun Richards. “What ish my Nation?” Writing Ireland:

Hyde, Douglas. “The Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland.” The Field Day

Yeats, W. B. “Cathleen Ni Houlihan.” The Collected Plays of W. B. Yeats.

Works Cited

Agnew, Paddy. “Talking to Ourselves.” Delaney 144-48.