Abstract This essay argues that Jez Butterworth’s Jerusalem challenges what Mark Shucksmith terms the “visioning of rural areas by hegemonic middle-class culture” (163), which still dominates the way many British people see the countryside and is rooted in nostalgia for a neat and pretty rural idyll, cleansed of untidy (bio)diversity. The second major line of argument is that the shadow of William Blake hangs heavily over the play, and that Rooster both embodies and employs the Blakean imagination in ways that challenge dominant “hegemonic” ideas about the rural. The untidy and disruptive Rooster, and the wood that bears his name, represent a very different kind of mindscape and a very different kind of (living) landscape. Simply by his presence in the wood he symbolizes an alternative way of being in the land. It is true that Rooster’s is an imperfect echo of the mythopoetic Blakean world-view, but it is nevertheless unmistakeably Blakean, so the prologue to Jerusalem, part of the preface to Blake’s Milton: A Poem in Two Books (1808), is central to a proper understanding of the play. Rooster’s verbal combativeness and mythopoetic visions penetrate the hypocrisy behind the veneer of respectability in Flintock, and the justifications for prevailing human relationships with the land.

中文翻译：

---

布莱克的想象和杰兹·巴特沃斯耶路撒冷的土地

摘要 本文认为杰兹·巴特沃斯的《耶路撒冷》挑战了马克·舒克史密斯所说的“霸权中产阶级文化对农村地区的看法”（163），这种看法仍然主导着许多英国人看待农村的方式，并植根于对整洁和美丽的乡村田园风光，清除了不整洁的（生物）多样性。第二个主要论点是，威廉·布莱克的阴影笼罩着这部剧，而公鸡既体现了布莱克的想象力，又以挑战关于农村的主导“霸权”观念的方式运用了布莱克的想象力。凌乱和破坏性的公鸡，以及以他的名字命名的木头，代表了一种非常不同的思维景观和一种非常不同的（生活）景观。仅仅通过他在树林中的存在，他就象征着另一种在土地上的存在方式。的确，公鸡是神话般的布莱克世界观的不完美回声，但它仍然是布莱克式的，因此毫无疑问是布莱克式的，因此耶路撒冷的序幕，布莱克的《弥尔顿：两本书中的一首诗》（1808）序言的一部分，是中心对剧本的正确理解。公鸡的言语好斗和神话般的愿景穿透了弗林托克体面的外表背后的虚伪，以及普遍存在的人类与土地关系的理由。