Reviewed by:

• Shakespeare's Big Men: Tragedy and the Problem of Resentment by Richard van Oort
• Andrew Moore (bio)

In his new book, Shakespeare's Big Men: Tragedy and the Problem of Resentment, Richard van Oort offers up generative anthropology as an interpretative lens through which we might better understand the dynamics of Shakespearean tragedy. Van Oort sees in the work of cultural anthropologist Eric Gans a humanistic (that is, nonscientific) way of approaching certain fundamental categories—the first principles of human community. Once established, these categories can then be used to illuminate the structures and basic tensions in literary texts.

More specifically, van Oort finds in Gans an account of the deep interconnection between mimesis and resentment. According to Gans's "originary hypothesis" humans develop representation as a strategy for deferring conflict. Because a representation can (at least temporarily) stand in for the thing itself, violent competition over resources can be suspended so long as competitors can be satisfied with partaking in the sign of a thing rather than actually possessing the desired object. This could be the origin of ritual. However, due to its illusory character, representation can only ever defer conflict, for "in attending to the word, the subject experiences resentment at not having the object. This experience leads the subject to return to the object in a characteristic oscillation between word and object that is the hallmark of the aesthetic" (13).

The "Big Men" of van Oort's title begin as individuals who symbolically take possession of desired goods and therefore occupy a position at the social center; however "with the advent of agriculture in the Neolithic revolution" (15) this occupation becomes economically entrenched: "The desire that was formerly restrained by ritual sacrifice now becomes a reality of human praxis" (15). This appropriation of the center has consequences for human resentment. It develops into: "a mature form of resentment that is no longer abstractly directed at an inaccessible sacred centre but at the centre's real human occupant" (16). Over the course of the ensuing five chapters, van Oort demonstrates the interpretative potential of this theory for Shakespearean tragedy.

Van Oort wisely begins his study of Shakespeare's tragedies with Julius Caesar, the play in which an economy of resentment is most clearly visible. This chapter includes a compelling interpretation of Cassius as a quasi-allegorical figure, an embodiment of envy. Cassius "personif[ies] a sentiment we all experience but rarely acknowledge as our own" (29). During the temptation of Brutus, Cassius paints a self-serving and uncharitable picture of Caesar, which typifies "the periphery's resentful representation of the centre" (31). [End Page 297]

The book's treatment of Hamlet is similarly effective. Hamlet's petulance and anxiety fits nicely into van Oort's anthropological framework. Following G. Wilson Knight, van Oort offers up a sympathetic assessment of Claudius as a more-than-capable king, suggesting his introductory speech is "a model of tact and imagination" (61). Though not entirely persuasive, this reading is still provocative, and it highlights the degree to which Hamlet's assessment of Claudius's various defects is rooted more in the prince's jealousy than in principled judgment. Moreover, van Oort illustrates in this chapter how the audience can be drawn in to tragedy's representational dynamics. Hamlet's enduring appeal in this analysis is based on our desire to partake in the feeling of resentment. Hamlet's sense of "moral indignation" (68), no matter how misplaced or self-serving, is intoxicating to us.

On Othello, van Oort echoes A. C. Bradley and finds Iago "to be rather like you and me—a thoroughly bourgeois and insignificant individual" (99). His frustration at being passed over for a job indicates the "utterly mundane or ordinary nature of Iago's resentment" (100). Notably, in this chapter van Oort advocates for a developmental logic in Shakespeare's exploration of tragic resentment. From Brutus, to Hamlet, to Iago, van Oort perceives an increasingly ironic attachment to the sacred center (101). While Brutus's attempt to usurp...

审核人：

• 莎士比亚的大人物：悲剧与怨恨问题理查德·范·奥尔特（Richard van Oort）
• 安德鲁·摩尔（生物）

理查德·范·奥特（Richard van Oort）在他的新书《莎士比亚的大人物：悲剧和怨恨问题》中，提出了生成人类学作为解释镜头，通过它我们可以更好地理解莎士比亚悲剧的动态。范·奥特（Van Oort）在文化人类学家埃里克·甘斯（Eric Gans）的工作中看到了一种人道的（即非科学的）方式来处理某些基本类别-人类社区的首要原则。一旦建立起来，这些类别就可以用来阐明文学文本中的结构和基本张力。

更具体地说，范·奥特（Van Oort）在甘斯（Gans）发现了模仿与怨恨之间深深的内在联系。根据Gans的“原始假设”，人类发展了表征作为推迟冲突的策略。因为表示可以（至少暂时地）代替事物本身，所以只要对竞争者能够满意地购买事物的标志而不是实际拥有所需的对象感到满意，就可以中止对资源的激烈竞争。这可能是仪式的起源。然而，由于其虚幻的特性，表象只能推迟冲突，因为“在听单词时，主体对没有客体感到不满。

凡·奥尔特（Van Oort）头衔的“大人物”始于象征性地占有所需商品并因此在社会中心占据一席之地的个人。然而，“随着新石器时代农业的出现”（15），这种职业在经济上变得根深蒂固：“以前被仪式牺牲所束缚的欲望现在变成了人类实践的现实”（15）。对该中心的拨款会导致人类的不满。它发展为：“一种成熟的怨恨形式，不再抽象地针对无法接近的神圣中心，而是针对中心的真实人类居住者”（16）。在随后的五章中，范·奥特证明了这一理论对莎士比亚悲剧的解释潜力。

范·欧特（Van Oort）明智地开始了尤利乌斯·凯撒（Julius Caesar）对莎士比亚悲剧的研究，在那部戏中，最明显的是不满情绪。本章包括对卡修斯作为准寓言人物的令人信服的解释，这是嫉妒的体现。卡西乌斯（Cassius）“表达了一种我们都经历过但很少承认为我们自己的情感”（29）。在布鲁图斯的诱惑中，卡修斯描绘了凯撒的自私自利的一幕，描绘了“外围对中心的愤慨表示”（31）。[完页297]

该书对《哈姆雷特》的处理同样有效。哈姆雷特（Hamlet）的肥胖和焦虑与范·奥特（van Oort）的人类学框架非常吻合。范·奥特（G. Wilson Knight）继范·威尔逊·奈特（G. Wilson Knight）之后，对克拉迪乌斯（Claudius）胜任力强的国王表示了同情，表明他的介绍性讲话是“机智和想象力的典范”（61）。尽管这并不完全具有说服力，但这种解读仍然具有挑衅性，它突显了哈姆雷特对克劳迪乌斯各种缺陷的评估在多大程度上植根于王子的嫉妒而不是原则上的判断。此外，范·奥特（van Oort）在本章中说明了如何将观众吸引到悲剧的表征动力中。村庄在这种分析中，持久的吸引力是基于我们渴望分享不满情绪的愿望。哈姆雷特的“道德愤慨”感（68），无论放错了地方还是出于自我服务，都使我们陶醉。

范·欧特（van Oort）在奥赛罗（Othello）上与AC布拉德利（AC Bradley）呼应，并发现艾阿古（Iago）“像你我一样，是个完全资产阶级且微不足道的人”（99）。他因受聘而受挫而感到沮丧，这表明“ Iago的怨恨完全是平凡的或平常的”（100）。值得注意的是，在本章中，范·奥尔特主张莎士比亚在悲剧性怨恨探索中的发展逻辑。从布鲁图斯（Brutus）到哈姆雷特（Hamlet）到艾阿古（Iago），范·奥特（van Oort）都对圣心（101）越来越有讽刺意味。当布鲁图斯企图篡夺...