Nothing but Fancies: John Ford's Indirect Resistance to the Cult of Platonic Love in "The Fancies,Chaste and Noble"

只是遐想：福特在《貞潔高貴的綺思》中對柏拉圖式愛情風潮的委婉抵抗

陳明秀(Ming-Hsiu Chen)

柏拉圖式愛情 ； 隱匿 ； 故作風雅 ； 性政治 ； 陰柔 ； Platonic love ； secrecy ； preciosite ； sexual politics ； effeminacy

小說與戲劇

21卷2期（2012 / 04 / 01）

93 - 122

英文

約翰‧福特（John Ford）的劇本《貞潔高貴的綺思》（The Fancies, Chaste and Noble），常因其劇情逆轉、造做的戲劇性、及引人誤解的現象，而飽受評論家批評。本文藉爬梳本劇與當時宮廷時興之柏拉圖式愛情風潮（the cult of Platonic love）間的關係，來辯明本劇之深意。筆者主張福特透過情節鋪陳與人物刻劃來嘲諷此風潮，對其進行委婉的抵抗。本文將披露福特如何借用、影射、及操弄當時英國、法國、與義大利等三種不同版本的柏拉圖式愛情論述，來引發觀眾對它的疑慮。文中首先討論的是福特如何操弄源於當時英國騎士戲劇（Cavalier drama）之「隱匿」（secrecy）技巧，來引發觀眾對此愛情形式的質疑。接下來說明的是福特藉某些人物刻劃，來影射並嘲諷當時宮廷中受皇后及法國沙龍盛行之「風雅」時尚（préciosité）所影響，而附庸風雅之「才子」（wits）與「貴婦」（précieuses），及他們用來掩飾其荒淫行徑的柏拉圖式求愛言行（Platonic gallantry）。再者，藉劇中性無能的「柏拉圖式戀人」（Platonic lover）奧克塔維奧（Octavio），來分析福特如何借用與扭曲義大利作家卡斯堤吉歐內（Baldassare Castiglione）在《朝臣》（The Book of the Courtier）中透過班博（Peter Bembo）所闡述的柏拉圖式愛情理念，用以嘲弄「陰柔的」（effeminate）柏拉圖式戀人。本劇在末景與收場白特別就劇中啟人疑竇部分所做的澄清，筆者將其詮釋為福特因劇中對宮廷時尚人士的嘲諷，而必須徹底推翻前論的表態。他將劇中所有對柏拉圖式愛情的不利指控及觀眾因此對它所產生的疑慮，都推諉成作品及觀眾自身的遐想，如此而已。

John Ford's play The Fancies, Chaste and Noble has been criticized by commentators for its Fletcherian surprise, theatricality, and inducing the audience's misconstruction of the playwright's real intent. In contrast, this paper reads it in light of its relation to the cult of Platonic love initiated through the influence of Queen Henrietta Maria at the court of Charles I. It is contended that Ford offers tempered criticism of this cult, which is revealed in his sarcastic presentation of Platonic gallantry through the contrivance of both the plot and characterization. Ford's borrowing, allusion, and manipulation of three contemporary versions of Platonic love- the English, French, and Italian- will be identified to illustrate his attempt to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience regarding this approach to love. Ford's borrowing and manipulation of secrecy, the distinctive feature of Cavalier drama inspired by Platonic courtship, will first be discussed. It will be shown that the concealment of key information about the relationship between Octavio and his bower of fancies substantiates the oblique presentation of Platonic love, where the sensual appraisal of it tends to overpower its understated or belated clarification in order to arouse the audience's suspicions. Next to be examined is Ford's direct ridicule of the fashionable lovers at court- the wits and précieuses who follow the queen's lead in assuming the etiquette of préciosité practiced at Hôtel de Rambouillet and popularized through Honoré d'Urfé's L'Astée. The mocking wit Romanello, the ”antique” précieuse Flavia, and the two hypocritical Platonic lovers Camillo and Vespuci, illustrate the dramatist's satire of the fashionable men and women at court. Finally, Ford's borrowing and twisting of the Platonic doctrine advanced by Peter Bembo in Baldassare Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier will also be elucidated. Through his characterization of the old, impotent Platonic lover, Ford accomplishes his indirect resistance to this cult of love, for Octavio's impotence not only safeguards the chastity of his love but also subjects him to mockery. The indirect derision of the effeminate Platonic lover is sustained by the direct ridicule of Octavio's comic counterparts Spadone and Secco, when these three men all tarnish their male honor through their sexual incompetence. The alleged twist in the final scene as well as the epilogue will be read as the compromise Ford had to make in his attacks on the cult, as all that is revealed in the play or conceived by the audience is claimed to be nothing but mere fancies.

1. “An Homely of the State of Matrimonie.” The Seconde Tome of Homelyes of Such Matters as Were Promised and Instituted in the Former Part of Homelyes, Set out by the Aucthoritie of the Quenes Maiestie: And to Be Read in Euery Paryshe Churche Agreablye 1563: 256-66. Early English Books Online. Web. 26 Dec. 2009.
2. Fletcher, Jefferson Butler. The Religion of Beauty in Woman. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Print
3. Sensabaugh, George F. The Tragic Muse of John Ford. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1944. Print.
4. Leech, Clifford. “The Caroline Audience.” The Modern Language Review 36.3 (1941): 304-19. Print
5. “Fancy.” OED Online. Oxford UP, n.d. Web. 7 Aug. 2011
6. “Quack.” OED Online. Oxford UP, n.d. Web. 7 Aug. 2011
7. Anderson, Donald K.(Ed.)(1986)."Concord in Discord": The Plays of John Ford, 1586-1986.New York:AMS P.
8. Anderson, Donald K., Jr.(1972).John Ford.New York:Twayne.
9. Burton, Robert.The Anatomie of Melancholy.Oxford:
10. Castiglione, Baldassare,Hoby, Thomas(Trans.)(1956).The Book of the Courtier.London:J. M. Dent & Sons.
11. Cobbett, William,Hansard, T. C..Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period 1066 to the Year 1803.London:
12. Ewing, S. Blaine(1969).Burtonian Melancholy in the Plays of John Ford.New York:Octagon Books.
13. Farr, Dorothy M.(1978).John Ford and the Caroline Theatre.New York:Barnes & Noble.
14. Ford, John,Hart, Dominick J.(Ed.)(1985).The Fancies, Chast and Noble.New York:Garland.
15. Ford, John,Moore, A. T.(Ed.)(2002).Love's Sacrifice.Manchester:Manchester UP.
16. Ford, John,Spencer, T. J. B.(Ed.)(1980).The Broken Heart.Manchester:Manchester UP.
17. Foyster, Elizabeth A.(1999).Manhood in Early Modern England: Honour, Sex and Marriage.London:Longman.
18. Harbage, Alfred(1964).Cavalier Drama: An Historical and Critical Supplement to the Study of the Elizabethan and Restoration Stage.New York:Russell & Russell.
19. Hopkins, Lisa(1994).John Ford's Political Theater.Manchester:Manchester UP.
20. James, I..The Workes of the Most High and Mightie Prince, Iames by the Grace of God, King of Great Britaine, France and Irdland, Defender of the Faith.London:
21. Jonson, Ben,Percy, C. H. Herford(Ed.),Simpson, Evelyn(Ed.)(1986).Ben Jonson.Oxford:Oxford UP.
22. Kenyon, J. P.(ed.)(1986).The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688: Documents and Commentary.Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
23. Leech, Clifford(1957).John Ford and the Drama of His Time.London:Chatto and Windus.
24. Lynch, Kathleen M.(1975).The Social Mode of Restoration Comedy.New York:Octagon Books.
25. Neill, Michael(1978).Wits Most Accomplished Senate': The Audience of the Caroline Private Theaters.Studies in English Literature,18(2),341-60.
26. Oliver, H. J.(1955).The Problem of John Ford.Melbourne:Melbourne UP.
27. Robson, Ian(1983).The Moral World of John Ford's Drama.Lewiston:The Edwin Mellen.
28. Sargeaunt, Margaret Joan(1969).John Ford.Oxford:Blackwell.
29. Sturgess, Keith(1987).Jacobean Private Theatre.London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
30. Suckling, Sir John,Hazlitt, W. Carew(Ed.)(1982).The Poems, Plays and Other Remains of Sir John Suckling.London:Reeves and Turner.
31. Sutton, Juliet(1967).Platonic Love in Ford's The Fancies, Chaste and Noble.Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900,7(2),299-309.
32. Upham, Alfred Horatio(1965).The French Influence in English Literature from the Accession of Elizabeth to the Restoration.New York:Octagon Books.
33. Veevers, Erica(1989).Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainment.Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
34. Witte, John, Jr.(1997).From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition.Louisville:Westminster John Know P.