【解读】暴风雨2 角色和问题：复仇、爱情、救赎

The Tempest - Part 2 - Revenge, Romance, Redemption

暴风雨——第二部分——复仇、爱情、救赎

In our first episode on The Tempest, we touched on the extraordinary scope of this tightly constructed play: the wealth of motifs it shares with many of Shakespeare’s plays; the range of emotions it confronts; and the diversity of tone and locale. Are we in the Old World, the New World, or an unreal world? Are we awake, asleep, or enchanted? And how do these questions affect the play’s profound inquiry into responsibility, freedom, and forgiveness? Guiding our discussion is Laurie Maguire, Professor of English at the University of Oxford.

上集节目，我们领略到了戏剧结构紧凑的《暴风雨》那异常宽广的维度。和其他莎剧一样，《暴风雨》也有着丰富的思想主题，剧中的情感丰满充沛，戏剧的风格和场景也一直处于变幻之中。我们不禁疑惑，我们所处的是旧世界，还是新世界，还是非现实世界？我们究竟是醒着的还是睡着了，还是中了魔法？同时我们还会思考这些问题对于戏剧在责任、自由和饶恕这些话题的深入探究上有着怎样的影响？今天，牛津大学英语文学教授劳里·马圭尔将继续带领我们展开新的探索与讨论。

Laurie Maguire: There's a lot of critical ink spilt over arguing it's a New World play or it's a European play. And the answer is clearly there are tantalizing hints to both, aren’t there? We've got all these European references -- Milan, Naples, Tunis, Carthage, Sycorax comes from Algeria. But we've got the kind of all the New-World references -- the “brave new world” that's invoked by Miranda, the reference to the Bermudas, the Patagonian God Setebos that Sycorax worshipped, Prospero's enslavement of a native, and Trinculo’s plan to exploit Caliban by exhibition, which is what Europeans did with Amerindians. So basically, we have to dislocate this play. It plays around with references, but it doesn't locate itself.

劳里·马圭尔：《暴风雨》究竟是一部关于美洲新世界的戏剧，还是一部关于欧洲旧世界的戏剧，对此存在很多争议。其实针对这两种观点，我们都可以找到不少足以证明它们的蛛丝马迹，剧中有很多与欧洲有关的内容，例如：米兰、那不勒斯、突尼斯、迦太基，以及来自阿尔及利亚的西考拉克斯。但同时，剧中也存在各种与美洲新世界相关的元素，比如米兰达口中那“新奇的世界”，百慕大群岛，还有西考拉克斯信奉的巴塔哥尼亚神明塞提柏斯等等。除此之外，普洛斯彼罗对于岛上土著居民的奴役，以及特林鸠罗计划把凯列班抓去欧洲展出也都是欧洲殖民者曾经对美洲土著人做出过的。我们不得不把戏剧架空。因为剧情虽然是围绕着这些元素而展开的，但它并没有把明确自己究竟归属于哪个空间领域。

The play is ambiguous not only in its physical space but also in its mental space. Ferdinand is mesmerized by Ariel’s music; Alonso and his followers fall into a magic sleep and “fits” of madness. Many of the characters invoke dreams and move in and out of altered states of reality.

这部剧不但空间领域模糊，它的精神范围也同样令人捉摸不透。腓迪南被爱丽儿的歌声催眠；阿隆佐和他的同伙在魔法的作用下深入梦境，动不动就陷入癫狂状态。剧中许多角色都做过朦胧的梦，这些梦境是现实的扭曲，他们往来穿梭与这样的状态中。

Laurie Maguire: Part of this play is realistic, and part of it is very stylized. On the one hand, you can see the play as this science-fiction technical world of another planet, an uninhabited island, but at the same time, it has a kind of dreamlike quality about it. There's so many scenes that end with characters saying, ‘I feel like I'm dreaming,’ or ‘I don't quite get this.’ So there's a very hypnotic effect, a very kind of narcotic feel to the play. It's like we've just entered the land of the Lotus Eaters. If we go right back to when we're talking about the geography of the play, that's what dislocates the play from its geography that we are in this, well, dream world. And for me, the play works best when you set it in one of those suspended states, whether it's underwater or dreaming or drugged or whatever, but I think it's not realistic. It's not an identifiable place.

劳里·马圭尔：在《暴风雨》中，有的部分很写实，但有的部分却又是超现实的。你可以把它看作是一部科幻故事，故事发生在另一个星球或一座无人居住的岛屿中，但同时戏剧又有着梦幻的氛围。在很多场景中，故事主角最后都会说：“我觉得我好像在做梦。”“我也不是很清楚。”戏剧透着朦胧和迷幻。我们似乎踏入了“安乐乡”，来到了吃忘忧树的人生活的那片领地。如果回到前面对于戏剧的地理位置的讨论，我们会发现这种梦幻迷离使得戏剧超脱于现实的地理方位，我们仿佛置身于梦境之地。对于我来说，想要呈现这部戏剧最好的状态，就需要把场景设置在某种悬浮飘忽的状态中，水底也好，梦中也罢，或是那迷蒙的状态中，总之故事的发生地应该是非现实的，不是某个清晰可辨的地点。

Is the play an analysis of real-world colonial practices? A symbolic representation of an inner spiritual journey? These are interpretive questions raised by the setting and tone. The play’s structure raises similar questions, pairing parallel events, prompting us to ask how they compare.

戏剧反映了现实世界中的殖民扩张吗？它以象征手法再现了人们内心的精神之旅吗？这些阐释性问题源自戏剧的背景和风格。同样，戏剧结构也引出了类似的问题，剧中有很多成对的情节和人物形象，他们之间的对比让我们不禁思索它们之间的关系究竟是怎样的。

Laurie Maguire: It's constantly giving us the same situation over and over again. So we've got a good father and a bad mother, the good father Prospero, the bad Sycorax. We've got a good brother and a bad brother. We've got the good child and the monstrous child in Miranda versus Caliban, or maybe Ariel versus Caliban. The good servant, the bad one. We've got white magic, black magic.

劳里·马圭尔：戏剧不断地在我们面前上演相似的场景。剧中有一位好父亲和一位坏母亲。好父亲是普洛斯彼罗，坏母亲是西考拉克斯。有一位好哥哥和一位坏弟弟。有一个好孩子和一个坏孩子，他们可以是米兰达对凯列班，也可以是爱丽儿对凯列班。还有一个好仆人和一个坏仆人，以及好魔法和黑魔法。

These pairings might seem to emphasize differences, sharpening the categories that distinguish each member: white, black, good, bad. But in fact, the pairings also reveal similarities -- similarities that make it harder to know how to judge these characters.

这一组接一组的对比似乎是在强调差异，在突出黑白善恶的区别。但事实上，我们从这些对比中也看到了相似。这些相似让我们愈发难以对剧中这些角色下判断。

Laurie Maguire: It’s conventional to see Prospero's magic as artful, good, as sort of academic ambition versus the charms of Sycorax. But we've got the very disturbing parallels because both Sycorax and Prospero are banished figures. Both Ferdinand and Caliban want Miranda. Caliban tried to take her. Ferdinand is chastely holding off. But the fact that we see them doing the parallel activities of hauling logs again troubles any clear cut distinction between them. So it overlaps its characters that make us troublingly aware of how good and bad are not necessarily separate categories.

劳里·马圭尔：人们会习惯性地认为普洛斯彼罗的魔法是精巧善良的，带着某种学术研究的性质，而西考拉克斯法术是黑暗邪恶的。但普洛斯彼罗和西考拉克斯却又有着一些令人不解的相似点，因为他们都是被流放的人。腓迪南和凯列班也是一组对比，他们都想得到米兰达。凯列班曾经试图强暴米兰达，腓迪南则与米兰达保持着相敬如宾的距离。然而，腓迪南和凯列班都干过同一件苦差事，他们都为普洛斯彼罗搬运过木头，于是这两个角色之间那鲜明的差异似乎又变得不那么明显了。角色之间的重叠让我们不得不承认好坏并不是一定。

We find another important parallel in how the play replays the overthrow of rulers.

戏剧在再现推翻统治者这个情节上也有对比呼应。

Laurie Maguire: We're interested in authority and overthrowing authority, and we've got this action replay in two ways, really, because we're now going to get the Naples usurpation the way we had a Milanese usurpation. And then we've got Stephano and Trinculo about to overthrow, with Caliban, Prospero on the island. So we've got this continual replay of overthrow of authority.

劳里·马圭尔：我们对权威和推翻权威很感兴趣。戏剧演绎了两场推翻权威的戏码，在那不勒斯的篡位戏中，我们看到了与米兰公国中曾经发生过的篡位相似的情形。斯丹法诺和特林鸠罗也伙同凯列班一起谋划，企图推翻普洛斯彼罗在小岛上的统治。篡位的剧情不断上演。

Three attempts at usurpation. If we ask only whether these moments are “similar” or “different,” we’re asking important political questions. The buffoonish Stephano and Trinculo, who want to kill Prospero and keep Caliban in subjection, have no real claim to the island. The hard-hearted Sebastian and Antonio seem no more justified in their plot to assassinate Alonso while he sleeps. We might infer that all three usurpations are wrong -- including Antonio’s overthrow of Prospero. But then we remember a fourth example: Caliban’s subjugation by Prospero: “For I am all the subjects that you have,” Caliban says bitterly, “Which first was mine own king.” Was Prospero just as wrong to “depose” Caliban as Antonio was to depose him? Of course, Prospero insists that Caliban deservedly lost his liberty by attacking Miranda. But did Prospero, in some way, also deserve to lose his dukedom? What is it that makes a rebellion illicit or just?

对于这三次篡位事件，如果我们只是单纯地问它们是“相似”还是“不同”，那么我们就已经触及到一些重要的政治问题了。斯丹法诺和特林鸠罗愚蠢滑稽，他们企图杀死普洛斯彼罗，奴役凯列班。但他们对这座岛屿根本没有所有权。铁石心肠的西巴斯辛和安东尼奥企图谋害睡梦中的阿隆佐，这个行为也是非正义、不道德的。我们也许会觉得这三起篡位，包括之前安东尼奥篡夺普洛斯彼罗爵位那次，都是非正义的。但我们不要忘了第四起篡夺行为，即普洛斯彼罗对凯列班的征服。凯列班对此曾怨恨地说到：“本来我可以自称为王，现在却要做你的惟一的奴仆。”普洛斯彼罗夺去了凯列班的地位，这是不是和安东尼奥夺取他的地位一样都是错误、不道德的呢？当然，普洛斯彼罗一再坚称凯列班是罪有应得，因为他曾企图强暴米兰达。那么，反过来看，普洛斯彼罗被夺取爵位是否也是他自作自受呢？我们要如何评判篡位谋反的正义与否呢？

Laurie Maguire: Those are examples of just one very large question about authority, ownership, mastery, subjection, good ruler-ship. Clearly, Prospero was negligent when he was Duke of Milan. By spending all his time studying, he allowed his brother’s nature to become bad. Prospero bears a lot of responsibility. If we're part of an ecosystem, an emotional ecosystem, how you behave has effects on how other people behave. So then you can't just turn the blame round on them. And this is where the word ‘colonizer’ becomes very helpful. But I'm thinking in its etymological Latin sense, what's my responsibility as a colonus, a gardener, an agricultural person, a farmer. We all need to cultivate our own gardens. And then we'll be better equipped when we show up on desert islands to know how to deal with the people and the land that we find there.

劳里·马圭尔：这些事件的核心是一个非常宏大的问题，是一个有关权威、所有权、统治、征服和优秀统治者的宏大问题。显然，身为米兰公爵时，普洛斯彼罗并没有尽到自己的责任。他把所有的时间都花在了自己感兴趣的研究上，他默许了弟弟野心的膨胀和最后所犯下的罪行。普洛斯彼罗需要为此负主要责任。我们的行为是会影响他人的所作所为的。所以，我们不能只是对他人横加指责。从这个角度去思考“殖民者”（coloniser）这个词很有帮助。不过我这里所说的“殖民者”更接近于它的拉丁语词源意义，指的是封建小农（colonus）、园丁、农业从业人员，或者农民。我们要思考如果我们从事的是这个职业，我们主要的职责是什么？我们需要耕作自己的花园。只有这样，当我们来到荒岛时，才能更好地应对这里的人和土地。

As Shakespeare was writing this play, Europeans were engaging in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonizing parts of North, Central, and South America. European accounts often (though not always) described the peoples of Africa and the Americas as barbaric, an implicit justification for seizing their land and their labor. Shakespeare channels and reinforces some of his culture’s most disturbing ideas about racial and cultural “others” in how he represents Caliban.

在莎士比亚创作这部剧的年代，欧洲人正在进行跨大西洋奴隶贸易，正在北美洲、中美洲和南美洲进行殖民扩张。欧洲人的文献记录中经常（虽然不是全都如此）将非洲人和美洲人描述为野蛮人，似乎因为这个原因他们就有权利夺取当地土著人的土地，并将他们作为劳动力进行贩卖。在刻画卡利班时，莎士比亚采纳甚至强化了他所处文化中有关种族和文化“异族人”的一些最可怕的观念。

Laurie Maguire: The First Folio description of Caliban describes him as a savage and deformed slave. He’s talked about as a “misshapen knave” and “brutish.”

劳里·马圭尔：在第一对开本中，凯列班被描述成一个野蛮人，一个畸形的奴隶。在别人口中，他是“奇丑的恶汉”，是“野东西”。

Shakespeare represents Caliban as foul-mouthed, foul-smelling, prone to drunkenness, and -- more seriously -- unapologetic about his attempt to rape Miranda. But Caliban also shares intensely in human feelings and in predictable human responses to subjugation.

在莎士比亚笔下，凯列班浑身臭烘烘，满嘴脏话，一喝酒就醉。而且，更让人无法接受的是他对于自己企图强暴米兰达毫无歉意。不过，凯列班也有着强烈的人类情感，对于被奴役、被征服他也有着人类共通的反应。

Laurie Maguire: He's got a very strong sense of betrayal by Prospero, that he shared all the secrets of the isle. And then he attempted to rape Miranda, and there's a school of thought says: How would he know not to unless he had been taught not to? So where is the culpability there? He feels that Prospero let him down.

劳里·马圭尔：他觉得普洛斯彼罗深深地背叛了自己，因为他曾经向普洛斯彼罗透露了岛上所有的秘密。而对于他想要强暴米兰达，有一派学者表示：如果没有人教导凯列班不要这样做，他怎么可能知道这样做是不对的呢？这究竟是谁的错？毕竟凯列班对普洛斯彼罗是十分失望的。

Caliban shares his feelings in language that can communicate great poetry, as well as great anger.

凯列班用语言表达他的感受，他的语言既带着伟大的诗意，也述说了强烈的愤怒。

Laurie Maguire: Caliban dreams, Caliban weeps, Caliban appreciates beauty. You've got Caliban’s wonderful discussion of language, “You taught me language and my profit on it is / I know how to curse,” I can use this back against you. The first act that any invading power does over another country is that you deny them their native language and you give them a new language, because that's how you enslave people. There's something so wonderfully beautiful and ironic about Caliban speaking English and doing it so poetically -- “you taught me how to name the bigger light and the lesser,” as if he is now giving the invader back something that is far more than the invader gave him. 劳里·马圭尔：凯列班会幻想，凯列班会哭泣，凯列班也会欣赏美好事物。对于语言，凯列班有过一段精彩的表述，他对米兰达说：“你教我讲话，我从这上面得到的益处只是知道怎样骂人。”在凯列班看来，他可以用米兰达教他的语言去进行反击。侵略者在入侵他国时，做的第一件事就是否定当地的语言，然后教当地人新的语言，而这正是侵略者奴役当地人的手段。卡利班学会了英语，他还把英语说得极具诗意，这真是既美妙又讽刺。他说：“（你）教给我白天亮着的大的光叫什么名字，晚上亮着的小的光叫什么名字。”这句话很优美、很动人，似乎他还给侵略者的东西已经超越了侵略者当初所给予他的那些了。

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, as European empires were dismantled, many African, Caribbean, and Latin American writers have chosen to speak through Caliban’s voice, as a way of responding to Shakespeare’s play and the colonial project that Prospero seems to represent.

在20世纪和21世纪，欧洲帝国逐渐土崩瓦解，来自非洲、加勒比海地区，以及拉丁美洲的许多作家开始利用凯列班发声，以此来回应莎士比亚的戏剧以及普洛斯彼罗所象征的殖民行为。

But what Prospero represents has been subject to debate. Readers over time have offered wildly different answers.

不过，对于普洛斯彼罗到底象征了什么依旧存在争论。不同时期的读者都有着截然不同的解读。

Laurie Maguire: Prospero has changed a lot during the course of my lifetime. There was this fantastically beneficent view of him as the artist, and in the last decades, he is the horrible little invader, the colonizer. He's gone from one extreme, Prospero as Shakespeare, to Prospero as colonizer.

劳里·马圭尔：在我的人生中，我就目睹了普洛斯彼罗的形象的巨大变化。曾经，人们把他看作一个正面角色，把他视作是一位仁慈的艺术家。但最近几十年，人们又把他看作是可怕侵略者和殖民者。他从一个极端走到了另一个极端，从莎士比亚的化身变成了殖民者的化身。

As a figure who conjures up a play through his “art,” Prospero the magician seems like a natural analogue for the playwright. And when Prospero says “Our revels now are ended” and “my charms are all o’erthrown,” it’s hard not to hear a coded message from Shakespeare himself, who would retire from the stage shortly after writing this play. But the magician-playwright parallel doesn’t answer other important questions about Prospero. He can control powerful magical forces; but the play also focuses on what he cannot do or what he struggles to do.

魔法师普洛斯彼罗运用“法术”上演了一出戏剧，人们自然会把他和剧作家进行类比。普洛斯彼罗说：“我们的狂欢已经终止了”，“现在我已把我的魔法尽行抛弃”。我们很难不把这段话看作是莎士比亚本人写给我们的一段加密信息。莎士比亚在创作完这部剧后不久，就告别了戏剧舞台。但魔法师和剧作者的这种相似性依旧无法解答有关普洛斯彼罗的其他重要问题。普洛斯彼罗纵然有着强大的法术，但是戏剧也关注了他无法实现以及他拼尽全力去努力实现的那些事。

Laurie Maguire: Prospero is the magician figure. He can create a storm, and he can bring his enemies to the island. He can make Ferdinand meet Miranda. He cannot make them fall in love. When his brother shows up, he hasn't got the power to make his brother contrite and repent. So how do you affect human beings is such a big question -- how does the human heart work?

劳里·马圭尔：普洛斯彼罗是个魔法师。他可以召唤暴风雨，可以把仇敌带到小岛上。他可以让腓迪南和米兰达相遇，却无法让两人相爱。普洛斯彼罗的法术也无法让他的弟弟忏悔自己的罪行。由此可见，想要影响人类很难。那么人心到底是如何运作的呢？

The question of the human heart is most clearly expressed in an exchange between Prospero and Ariel. Since the beginning of the play - perhaps since his exile - Prospero has focused on vengeance. Now, Ariel has driven his enemies nearly into madness: “Your charm so strongly works ’em,” Ariel says, “That if you now beheld them, your affections / Would become tender.” “Dost thou think so, spirit?” says Prospero. “Mine would, sir, were I human,” Ariel replies.

普洛斯彼罗和爱丽儿之间的一段对话让我们清晰地看到有关人心的这个问题。从戏剧开始，甚至从普洛斯彼罗被流放开始，他就一心想着复仇。当爱丽儿即将把他的仇人们逼得发疯时，爱丽儿对普洛斯彼罗说：“你在他们身上所施的法术的力量是这么大，要是你现在看见了他们，你的心也一定会软下来。”普洛斯彼罗听后反问：“你这样想吗，精灵？”爱丽儿回答道：“如果我是人类，主人，我会觉得不忍的。”

Laurie Maguire: That moment with Ariel is the moment of turning, isn't it, where he is having to look into his own heart and his own emotions and his own affections for the first time. And it's such an unexpected moment, because all of a sudden, it's Prospero now talking about his responses rather than his controlling actions. And the struggle within him is there: “though with their high wrong's, I'm struck to the quick / Yet with my nobler reason against my fury / Do I take part.” And when he talks about his fury, that is what we have seen for five acts is the angry Prospero, the angry brother, the angry father, the angry potential father-in-law.

劳里·马圭尔：爱丽儿说这段对话时，普洛斯彼罗发生了转变。这是他第一次直面自己的内心，正视自己的情绪和感情。这段剧情的发展令人意外，普洛斯彼罗突然地开始讨论起自己的内心感受，而不是对他人的操控。他内心很挣扎，他说：“虽然他们给我这样大的迫害，使我痛心切齿，但是我宁愿压伏我的愤恨而听从我的更高尚的理性。”当他说到自己的“愤恨”时，我们眼前闪过了在之前五幕剧中他的模样，那愤恨的普洛斯彼罗、愤恨的兄长、愤恨的父亲、愤恨的岳父。

We could take Ariel’s words to mean it is natural or normal for humans to show compassion to each other. It’s a beautiful sentiment. But we’ve also seen a good deal of treachery and anger from the humans in this play. Perhaps it’s more truthful to say that humans can and should feel pity. With this, Prospero seems to agree. He agrees to treat his enemies kindly, saying, “The rarer action is / In virtue than in vengeance” - and “rarer” here means not only “less common”, but also “more excellent, more desirable”.

从爱丽儿的话中，我们明白怜悯之心是人类自然、普通的一种情绪，这是一种美好的情绪。但在剧中，我们也看到了许多的背叛和愤恨。但人类也许更可以，也更应该具备怜悯之心。普洛斯彼罗似乎也认同这个观点，所以他答应善待自己的仇敌，他说：“道德的行动较之仇恨的行动是珍稀可贵得多的。”这里的“珍稀可贵”不仅仅是说这样的做法很“少见”，也在说它“更杰出、更宝贵”。

At the play’s end, Prospero is reunited with his brother, Alonso finds his son is alive, both fathers celebrate their children’s planned marriage, and Prospero is given back his dukedom. But the work of repentance and forgiveness - the work of the human heart - seems not quite over.

戏剧结尾处，普洛斯彼罗和他的弟弟再次团聚，阿隆佐也找回了自己的儿子。这两位父亲筹划着孩子们的婚礼，普洛斯彼罗也拿回了自己的公国。然而，忏悔和原谅的作用——人心的作用——似乎还没有停止。

Laurie Maguire: We've got the king of Naples saying ‘I resign you your dukedom back.’ But Antonio doesn't voluntarily offer anything. That's deeply troubling, isn't it? Is he harboring resentment that he's just being called out? Prospero, he forgives his brother in a line that reminds his brother of all the things he's done wrong: ‘I forgive your faults, all of them, all the really bad things you did. Don't worry. I've forgotten about them.’ No, he hasn't. I mean, that's not convincing at all.

劳里·马圭尔：那不勒斯王阿隆佐说：“你的公国我奉还给你。”但普洛斯彼罗的弟弟安东尼奥却并没有任何表示。这很让人不安，不是吗？他对于自己被剥夺了爵位是否感到愤恨？普洛斯彼罗原谅了自己的弟弟，他说了一段话提醒安东尼奥他曾经犯下的过错，大意就是在说：“我原谅你的罪行，原谅你所有的罪行，原谅你以前做过的所有坏事。别担心。我已经把那些不愉快全忘记了。”但真是这样吗？不，他没有忘记。他的那番话一点也没有说服力。

Prospero struggles to pardon Antonio. Perhaps he is also struggling to admit that he might need pardon too. When he confronts Antonio, he points to his brother’s “rankest fault.” But earlier, Prospero told Miranda that his own actions “Awaked an evil nature” “in my false brother.”

对于原谅安东尼奥，普洛斯彼罗的内心十分挣扎。他也许还在挣扎着想承认他自己也需要别人的原谅。当着安东尼奥的面，他说他的这位弟弟犯下了“最卑劣的罪恶”。但之前，普洛斯彼罗却对米兰达说是他自己的行为“引起了我那恶弟的毒心”。

Laurie Maguire: It comes back to cultivation, doesn't it, that he can't sort out his enemies until he’s sorted out himself. I would say I think he's been carrying guilt throughout the play, that the whole set-up in Milan was because of him -- he prized his books above his dukedom. That is negligent government -- he's known that from the beginning -- and that's what he's had to come to terms with.

劳里·马圭尔：于是，这又回到了之前那个有关自我修养的问题上了。普洛斯彼罗在理清自己的问题前是无法理清仇敌的问题的。可以说，在整部剧中，他都背负着自责与愧疚。发生在米兰的那次篡位完全是他自己导致的，因为他把书本和知识看得比公国更重要。从一开始他就知道，是自己的无心政事导致了后来的一系列悲剧，这都是他自作自受。

Prospero may also have to come to terms with his treatment of Caliban. Caliban has attempted to overthrow him just as Antonio did. But when Prospero exposes Caliban’s plot, he says, “This thing of darkness I / Acknowledge mine.” Elsewhere, Shakespeare uses the word “acknowledge” to mean “recognize as one’s child.” Prospero may see that he created some of the “darkness” in Caliban by the way he treated him, just as he helped “beget” the “falsehood” in Antonio.

同样，他也不得不忍受自己恶劣对待凯列班所引发的后果。和安东尼奥一样，凯列班也试图推翻普洛斯彼罗的统治。但是普洛斯彼罗揭穿凯列班阴谋时，他说：“这个坏东西我必须承认是属于我的。”在其他的剧目中，莎士比亚曾经使用“承认”这个词意指“承认某人是自己的孩子”。普洛斯彼罗大概也认识到，凯列班身上的一部分“坏”是自己造成的，就像当初他“引起了”安东尼奥的“毒心”一样。

Laurie Maguire: It leaves you thinking, “Wow, does Caliban go back to Milan with Prospero?” I kind of think he does, but there are lots of productions where he doesn't. Is he slave? Is he free?

劳里·马圭尔：你不禁会想：“哇，凯列班和普洛斯彼罗一起回米兰了吗？”我个人觉得他们一起回米兰了，但也有不少作品不是这么演绎的。我们还会想知道他是奴隶吗？他获得了自由吗？

Prospero struggles with granting both forgiveness and freedom. Ariel is always asking to be free; Prospero only frees him in the play’s last lines. He pardons Antonio while calling him “most wicked sir.” Perhaps this struggle -- his still-imperfect generosity -- is one more fault that Prospero recognizes in himself. In any case, he does seem to ask the audience for pardon in the epilogue, through the metaphor of freedom: “release me from my bands / With the help of your good hands ... As you from crimes would pardoned be, / Let your indulgence set me free.”

在给予原谅和自由上，普洛斯彼罗一直很纠结、很挣扎。爱丽儿一直在向他乞求自由，但他直到戏剧的最后才放爱丽儿自由。他虽然原谅了安东尼奥，但还是称他是“最邪恶的人”。也许普洛斯彼罗也意识到这种挣扎，这种“不完美的慷慨”是自己的又一个缺点。在收场白中，他运用对自由的隐喻，乞求观众们的原谅，他说：“求你们解脱了我灵魂上的系锁，赖着你们善意殷勤的鼓掌相助；……你们有罪过希望别人不再追究，愿你们也格外宽大，给我以自由。”

One of Shakespeare’s most characteristic strategies as an artist is the way he leaves us uncertain about key elements of his plays. Because of its strange, mixed nature, reading sometimes as realism, sometimes as allegory, The Tempest presents us this uncertainty at a new scale. It has been read as a dark parable of colonialism and as a transcendent vision of spiritual renewal.

莎士比亚艺术创作的一个典型技巧就是他会让观众和读者无法透彻地解读戏剧中的一些关键元素。《暴风雨》那古怪混杂的特点使它读起来有时是现实主义向的，有时又像是一个寓言故事，它的不确定性达到了一个新的广度和高度。这部剧既可以被看作是有关殖民主义的黑暗寓言，也可以被看作是讲述精神新生的超然作品。

Laurie Maguire: One could say that the really beautiful and positive leitmotif is the line that Ferdinand has when he says, “Though the seas threaten, they are merciful.” And, you know, that's such a wonderful definition of the late plays, where human beings mess up and they get given a second chance. Now you can see why a Victorian critic like Dowden and lots of critics ever since have seen this as a very mellow, mature, irenic kind of Shakespearean vision of the late plays. It's about generosity. And certainly when I was an undergraduate in the 70s, the conventional way of reading this play was about Christian allegories -- you have to cross a body of water, it was seen as a metaphor for baptism and, you know, a new human being. I think it's very hard to read the play that way now. I mean, Prospero talks about being in despair at the end. It's part of the questions about Prospero that we start with at the beginning: Is he a tyrant or is he someone who's being hard done by? Is he a good magician? Why is he giving up his magic? I end this play with as many questions as I began. They're just different questions.

劳里·马圭尔：有人会说，戏剧最美好、最积极的主旨体现在腓迪南的一句话上，腓迪南说：“海水虽然似乎那样凶暴，然而却是仁慈的。”这完美地诠释了莎士比亚晚期戏剧的特点，在那些戏剧中，人类把事情搞砸了之后都获得了第二次机会。所以很多维多利亚时期以及之后的批评家们都认为《暴风雨》是典型的莎士比亚晚期戏剧，认为它温柔、成熟、平和。认为它是一部讨论慷慨的戏剧。当然了，在70年代我读大学的时候，人们还普遍认为《暴风雨》是一部基督教的说教戏剧。跨过一片水域，被看作是在隐喻基督教的洗礼，隐喻重获新生。但现在就不适合再解读这部剧了。因为，普洛斯彼罗在收场白中述说了一种绝望的情绪。这又回到了我们最开始问的有关普洛斯彼罗的那个问题上了：他究竟是一位暴君，还是一个陷入困境中的人？他是优秀的魔法师吗？他为什么要抛弃自己全部的法术？在戏剧结尾我们遇到的问题和戏剧开始时一样多。只不过他们是不同的问题罢了。

The deep moral ambiguities of The Tempest flow from so many other questions about the play: where it takes place, what kind of reality we’re in, and even what genre it is.

《暴风雨》深刻的道德模糊性源于其他许多与戏剧有关的问题，比如：这个故事发生在哪里？我们身处的现实是不是足够真实？以及这部剧属于哪个流派？

Laurie Maguire: Shakespeare is just throwing everything in there, science fiction, morality, allegory. So he is giving us a play that flirts with being one genre and then decides to go in a different direction. Prospero's acting out his revenge, and all of a sudden at the end, it says, Actually, I think I'll go for the forgiveness route. It's pulling back. And then the question you ask is, “So why? Why is he doing this?” Partly it is his own showman's tricks late in his career, ‘Let me just see how much I can play around with convention.’ But there is also, I think, the genuine, serious, ‘I want to keep you on your toes so that you're always thinking about why, what does this mean and where is it going?’ And that's actually a profoundly ethical question. One of the things that Shakespeare gets increasingly interested in as his career goes on is the difficulty of coming to quick judgments. He's creating a world in which we cannot be sure of anything, not even the genre of the play we are in, so we have to question everything as it comes along. And that means questioning the ethical stance of Prospero. I think The Tempest is very interested in, ‘Here’s what the perspective looks like from Prospero’s point of view. If you're Caliban, you have got a completely reasonable alternative perspective.’ Both those voices get equal airing in this play.

劳里·马圭尔：莎士比亚在创作中融合了各种元素，如科幻元素、道德元素和寓言元素。他创作的这部剧游离于不同流派中。普洛斯彼罗一心想要复仇，但突然在戏剧结束时，他又表示：实际上，我打算原谅他们。他放弃了最初的打算。于是，我们会问：“为什么？他为什么要这么做呢？”这一部分是因为莎士比亚作为戏剧创作大师想在职业生涯晚期玩弄点小把戏吧。他也许在想：“让我看看我的创作可以多么地离经叛道。”但这个戏剧天才还有可能想“让读者和观众时刻保持警觉，希望大家可以不停去思考为什么，去思考这是什么意思，去思考剧情会如何发展。”这是一个非常深刻的伦理道德问题。随着创作生涯的不断发展，莎士比亚对迅速作判断的困难性越来越感兴趣。在他笔下的世界里，一切都是不确定的。我们所欣赏的这部剧《暴风雨》，甚至连它所属的流派都是不确定的，随着故事的发展，我们必须质疑一切。所以，对于普洛斯彼罗的道德立场我们也必须保留一定的怀疑。《暴风雨》十分关注这类问题，“从普洛斯彼罗的角度看是事情是这样的。但从凯列班的角度看，事情就完全是另外一副模样了。”这两种声音和观点在剧中有着完全平等的表达。

Laurie Maguire: And it's that kind of perspectival glimpsing that The Tempest is playing around with. And that's why it doesn't give us answers, because it wants us to look at it from the front door, the back door, the window, and then see what we make of it. And that's how The Tempest works for me. Any time I'm about to formulate an opinion or a judgment, the ground shifts underneath my feet and I have to start rethinking and taking another perspective.

劳里·马圭尔：这是《暴风雨》所采用的“透视法”。戏剧为什么不直接给我们答案呢？因为它希望我们从不同的角度去解读、去分析。它希望我们从前门往里看，再从后门往里看，然后再从窗户往里看，最后自己去思考看到了什么。我就是这样去解读《暴风雨》的。我一开始会先形成一个观点和判断，接着随着故事的发展和场景的变换，我不得不重新思考，再得出新的结论。

Laurie Maguire: I think the experience of watching The Tempest is a profoundly uncomfortable experience. It's full of conundrums. It's full of loose ends. It's full of knots that really don't get untied. Ethically, nothing in this play is clear-cut. And that is an intellectually very destabilizing feeling. And as Shakespeare said in the problem plays, the web of our life is a “mingled yarn,” good and ill mixed together. This play is the mingled yarn par excellence.

劳里·马圭尔：我认为欣赏《暴风雨》实在算不上是一个愉悦舒适的过程。因为剧中充满了谜题，充满了悬念，充满了没有解开的结。甚至可以说，这部剧中没有一样东西是确凿无疑的，一切都让人疑惑，让人不解。就像莎士比亚在问题剧中曾经说过的那样：我们的人生就是一张网，这张网是用善与恶揉成的纱线编织而成的。而《暴风雨》就是这善与恶揉成的纱线编制而成的典范之作。

In our next episode, we’ll look closely at some of the play’s most tangled moments: the extraordinary poetry spoken by someone who claimed his only “profit” from language was knowing how to curse; an equally poetic vision of the world coming to an end; and a man who has defined himself through his magical power, now offering to give that power up.

下集节目，我们将进一步深入分析戏剧中最紊乱、最纠缠的片段：一个声称自己从语言中获得的唯一“益处”是知道怎样骂人的人却说出了一段极富诗意的文字；一段同样诗意的文字描述的却是世界末日；一个通过法术定义自己的人却提出要抛弃所有的法术。