本論文主要探討彼得‧謝弗的《戀馬狂》與《阿瑪迪斯》其中兩種相異文化的衝突和對峙及其間交錯複雜的 (chiasmatic) 關係。而此處所指兩種相異並對立的文化，乃分別藉德國哲學家福萊得瑞克‧尼采（Friederich Nietzsche) 就其第一本哲學著述《悲劇的誕生》所揭櫫「阿波羅式精神」與「戴奧尼索斯式精神」，及同時代英國文學家，也是社會評論學者馬修‧阿諾（Matthew Arnold）在其《文化與無政府》中所闡述之「希臘文化」與「希伯來文化」，來詮釋並分析彼得‧謝弗這兩個劇本中，兩種相異的文化，反映在人物性格、思想、處世態度、意識形態，乃至心理、精神、道德…等等層面之衝突、對立，並相互作用影響下所產生的調合。
自七O年代「解構主義」盛行以來，傳統理論所強調之〝二元對立〞觀點，似乎早已被推翻，更甚而被嗤之以鼻！然而，〝二元對立〞之觀念與想法卻絕對是謝弗劇本中不可或缺的元素，尤以《戀馬狂》與《阿瑪迪斯》為然。由此可見，縱使謝弗為人所熟知的劇本創作時間皆於「後現代主義」盛行時期，其創作理念卻橫跨「現代主義」與「後現代主義」的理論。
論文主要分五章，第一章說明彼得‧謝弗就當代劇作家的地位，並解釋以尼采和阿諾的哲／文學理論分析謝弗劇本《戀馬狂》與《阿瑪迪斯》之因。第二章分別揭示尼采筆下「阿波羅式精神」與「戴奧尼索斯式精神」和阿諾所論「希臘文化」與「希伯來文化」之真正意義，並釐清兩人理念之異同及其間之關係。第三章與第四章則分就尼采和阿諾哲／文學理論詮釋並解析《戀馬狂》與《阿瑪迪斯》兩劇本中，兩種異質文化的衝突和對峙。最後一章總論彼得‧謝弗的戲劇成就，及其戲劇當中縱橫交錯的〝二元文化對立與調合〞，不單超越了傳統純粹〝二元對立〞的想法，更為讀／觀／詮釋者提供並開拓了對人性、文化等不同的討論角度，以觸及更廣大深邃的詮釋空間。

This thesis mainly discusses conflicts and confrontations

between the two pairs of diametrical cultures--Friederich

Nietzsche’s philosophical theory--“Apollinian spirit” vs./

and “Dionysian force”--in his first published book The Birth

of Tragedy, and Matthew Arnold’s literary, philosophical as

well as social conception--Hellenism vs./and Hebraism--in

his Culture and Anarchy. In addition, their concepts of

these two polar cultures will be used to interpret the inter-

actively complicated relationships--the conflicts and con-

frontations as well as reconciliation between them--in Peter

Shaffer’s Equus and Amadeus, which are reflected on the two

pairs of the main characters’ personalities; ideas; life

attitudes; ideologies; mental, psychological, and moral dis-

positions in Equus and Amadeus.

The concept of “binary opposition” was not challenged until

Deconstruction which flourished in 1970s. “Binary opposi-

tion,” however, is an inevitable element in Shaffer’s plays,

especially in Equus and Amadeus. We thus can be sure that,

although some of Shaffer’s well-known plays were created in

the so-called Deconstruction (or Post-structuralism) period,

his creative rationales have something to do with both

Modernist and Post-modernist theories.

The introductory chapter illustrates not only the status

of Peter Shaffer among contemporary playwrights, but also the

reasons why Equus and Amadeus will be interpreted in the light

of Nietzsche’s and Arnold’s concepts. The second chapter

elucidates in detail the real meanings of both Nietzschean

and Arnoldian theoretical philosophies, and, above all,

clarifies the homogeneity and heterogeneity between them.

Chapters Three and Four deal individually with the con-

flicts and confrontations between the two cultures in Equus

and Amadeus. The final chapter talks about Peter Shaffer’s

great achievements in contemporary drama; moreover, his

chiasmatic idea of conflicts and reconciliation between two

polar cultures not merely excels traditional “binary opposi-

tion,” but provides readers/audiences/interpreters with

wider and deeper space and miscellaneous perspectives on

human nature and cultures as

well.

Abrams, M. H., et al., eds. The Norton Anthology of English Literature Vol. 2. 5th ed. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1986.

Adams, Hazard, ed. Critical Theory since Plato (Revised Edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1992.

Anderson, Michael, et al. Crowell’s Handbook of Contem-porary Drama. New York: Thomas Y. Crwoell, 1971.

Anselment, Raymond A. The Realms of Apollo: Literature and Healing in 17th-Century English. London: Associated University Press, 1995.

Arens, Katherine. “Mozart: A Case Study in Logocentric Repression.” Comparative Literature Studies 23 (1986):141-69.

Arnold, Matthew. Culture and Anarchy. Ed. J. Dover Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Artaud, Antonin. The Theater and Its Double. Trans. Mary Caroline Richards. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1958.

Bach, Susanne. “Extending Ancient Myths: Freud, Fromm, and the Plays of Peter Shaffer.” Classical and Modern Literature: A Quarterly 15 (1995):345-56.

Barnet, Sylvan, Morton Kerman, and William Burto, eds. Types of Dramas: Plays and Essays. 5th Edition. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1989.

The Bible. King James Version.

Brown, David H. “The Dionysian and Apollinian Pathos of Distance in World History.” CLIO:A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 18 (1989):347-59.

Clarke, Gerald. “Eight Cheers for the Music Man.” Time 8 Apr. (1985):52.

Clarke, G. W., ed. Rediscovering Hellenism: The Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Collini, Stefan, ed. Culture and Anarchy and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Connell, Brian. “The Two Sides of Theater’s Agonized Per- fectionist.” The Times (1980): Apr. 28.

Corliss, Richard. “Mozart’s Greatest Hit.” Time 10 Sep. (1984):74-5.

Cornish, Roger, and Violet Ketels, eds. Landmarks of Modern British Drama Vol. 2: The Plays of the Seventies. London and New York: Methuen London Ltd., 1986.

Day, Martin S. History of English Literature: 1837 to the Present. Taiwan: Bookman Books Ltd., 1987.

Dean, Joan F. “The Family as Microcosm in Shaffer’s Plays.” Ball State University Forum 23 (1982):30-4.

Detienne, Marcel. Dionysos at Large. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. London, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Trans. of Dionysos a Ciel Ouvert.

Ebner, I. Dean. “The Double Crisis of Sexuality and Worship in Shaffer’s Equus.” Christianity and Literature 31 (1982):29-47.

Emelson, Margaret A. “A Horse of a Different Color: A Critique of Peter Shaffer’s Equus.” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 1 (1980):75-80.

Evans, G. Lloyd, and B. Lloyd Evans, eds. Plays in Review (1956-1980): British Drama and the Critics. London: Batsford Academic and Educational, Inc., 1985.

Frye, Northrop, et al, eds. The Harper Handbook to Literature. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Trans. and rev., Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. 2nd and rev. ed. Taiwan: Bookman Books, Ltd., 1990.

Gianakaris, C. J., ed. Peter Shaffer: A Casebook. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1991.
---. Macmillan Modern Dramatists: Peter Shaffer. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1992.
---. “Drama into Film: The Shaffer Situation.” Modern Drama 28 (1985): 83-98.
---. “Shaffer’s Revision in Amadeus.” Theatre Journal 35 (1983): 88-101.
---. “A Playwright Looks at Mozart: Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus.” Comparative Drama 15 (1981): 37-53.

Gillespie, Michael. “Peter Shaffer: ‘To make whatever God there is.’” Claudel Studies 9 (1982):61-70.

Hadas, Moses. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. New York: W‧W‧Norton & Company Inc., 1959.

Hayman, Ronald. British Theatre since 1955: A Reassessment. London: Oxford University Press, 1979.
---. Theatre and Anti-Theatre: New Movements since Beckett. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Hays, Peter L. “Shaffer’s Horses in Equus, the Inverse of Swift’s.” Notes on Contemporary Literature 17 (1987): 10-12.

Hinden, Michael. “Trying to Like Shaffer.” Comparative Drama 19 (1985): 14-29.

Hutchings, William. “Revitalised Ritual and Theatrical Flair: the Plays of Peter Shaffer.” British & Irish Drama since 1960. Ed. James Acheson. New York: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1993.

Innes, Christopher. Modern British Drama 1890-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Jones, Daniel R. “Peter Shaffer’s Continued Quest for God in Amadeus.” Comparative Drama 21 (1987): 145-55.

Kaufmann, Stanley. “Stanley Kaufmann on Theater.” New Republic Dec. 7 (1974): 18 & 33.

Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton: Princeton U. P., 1950.

Kevensky, O. The New British Drama. London: Hamish Hamilton, Inc., 1977.

Kirby, E. T. Total Theatre. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1969.

Klein, Dennis A. “A Note on the Use of Dreams in Peter Shaffer’s Major Plays.” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9 (1989):25-32.
---. “Breaking Masculine Stereotypes: The Theatre of Peter Shaffer.” University of Dayton Review 18 (1986-1987):49-55.
---. Peter Shaffer: Revised Edition. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993.
---. Peter Shaffer. Boston: Twayne, 1979.
---. “Amadeus: The Third Part of Peter Shaffer’s Dramatic Trilogy.” Modern Language Studies 13 (1983): 31-8.

Kojeve, Alexandre. Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. J. H. Nochols, trans. A. Bloom, ed. New York: Basic Books, 1969. pp. 3-30.

Lambert, J. W. “Review of Equus.” Drama 111 (1973-74): 14-6.

Leiter, Brian. “One health, one earth, one sun: Nietzsche’s respect for natural science.” TLS (Times Literary Supplement) 4983 (1998, Oct. 2).

Leont, Yves Marie. “Waking from the Apollonian Dream: Correspondences between The Birth of Tragedy and Gravity’s Rainbow.” Pynchon Notes 22-23 (1988): 35-46.

Leontis, Artemis. Topographies of Hellenism: Mapping the Homeland. Ithaca, New York: Cornel UP, 1995.

Lifton, R. J. The Future of Immortality and Other Essays for a Nuclear Age. New York: BasicBooks, 1987.

Livingstone, R. W. Greek Ideals and Modern Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1935.

Lynch, William F. Christ and Apollo. London: University of Nortre Dame Press, 1975.

Martin, Luther H. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Millett, Fred B. Reading Drama: A Method of Analysis with Selections for Study. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950.

Mustazza, Leonard. “A Jealous god: Ritual and Judgement in Shaffer’s Equus.” Papers on Language and Literature: A Journal for Scholars and Critics of Language and Literature 28 (1992): 174-84.

Nietzsche, Friederich. Walter Kaufmann, ed. & trans. The Birth of Tragedy and The Case of Wagner. New York: Random House, Inc., 1967

.

Otto, Walterus. Dionysus: Myth and Cult. Robert B. Palmer, trans. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1965.

Plunka, Gene A. Peter Shaffer: Roles, Rites, and Rituals in the Theater. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988.

Quigley, Michael. ‘“I Stand in the Dark with a Pick in My Hand. Striking at Heads!”: Excavations of the Grotesque in Peter Shaffer’s Equus.’ Ed. Michael J. Meyer. Amsterdam: Rodopi Ltd., 1995.

Renner, Stanley. “The Lawrentian Power and Logic of Equus.” D. H. Lawrence’s Literary Inheritors. Eds. Keith Cushman and Dennis Jackson. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1991.

Rosefeldt, Paul. “Dissecting the Divinity Mothers, Fathers, and Victims in Equus and Agnes of God.” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 16 (1995): 64-74.

Schacht, Richard, ed. Nietzsche Selections. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.

Shaffer, Peter. The Royal Hunt of the Sun. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1981.
---. Equus. New York: Penguin Books Ltd., 1977.
---. Amadeus. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.
---. "Making the Film Speak," in Film Comment, Vol. 20, No. 5 (1984, Sep.-Oct.): 50, 56-57.

Simon, John. “Hippodrama at the Psychodrome.” Hudson Review 28 (1975): 97-106.

Simpson, Hassell. “A Pair of Desert Saints: Name Symbolism in Peter Shaffer’s Equus.” Names: A Journal of Onomastics 41 (1993):183-93.

Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures. Stefan Collini, intro. London: Cambridge UP, 1996.

Staten, Henry. “The Birth of Tragedy Reconstructed.” Studies in Romanticism 29 (1990): 9-37.

Sullivan, William J. “Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus: The Making and Un-Making of the Fathers.” American Imago: A Psychoanalytic Journal for Culture, Science, and the Arts 45 (1988): 46-60.

Thro, Michael. “Apollo vs. Dionysus: The Only Theme Your Students Will Ever Need in Writing about Literature.” VCCA Journal 10.2 (1996): 11-8.

Trussler, Simon, intro. 20th Century Drama. Great Writers Student Library. 11. London and Basingstock: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1983.

Walls, Doyle W. “Equus: Shaffer, Nietzsche, and the Neuroses of Health.” Modern Drama 27 (1984): 314-23.

White, Richard. “Art and Individual in Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy.” British Journal of Aesthetics 28 (1988): 59-67.

Williams, Raymond. Modern Tragedy. London: Verso Editions, 1979.

Witham, Barry B. “The Anger in Equus.” Modern Drama 22 (1979): 61-6.

Wootton, Carol. “Literary Portraits of Mozart.” Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature 18 (1985): 77-84.

Wright, Daniel L. “Disparaging Freud: The Negative Function of Psychoanalysis in Peter Shaffer’s Equus and John Pielmeier’s Agnes of God.” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 15 (1994): 22-8.