論文摘要
本文主旨在探討莎劇安東尼與佩脫拉克中佩脫拉克的主體效應. 主體效應是主體在建造過程中所運用免受環境宰制的力量. 如此一來, 主體可控制與各種環境間的互動, 而非一味被動屈服環境的宰制. 佩脫拉克的無窮變化闡釋了此主體效應. 她的無窮變化逃脫時間的痕跡, 並讓男人無法捕捉定位.
本論文共五章, 第一章序論旨在闡述佩脫拉克的主體效應與性別都和她的無窮變化密不可分. 第二章探討佩脫拉克在劇中所運用的主體效應, 並以珍佛列斯克的多重主體理論與奧維德的變形觀點佐證. 第三章從男童演員以不同的姿態扮演佩脫拉克出發, 進而探討佩脫拉克所展現的萬種風情, 並討論她的性別定位, 以芭特樂的性別理論為輔. 第四章闡述佩脫拉克的無窮變化所展現的不同風貌的扮裝, 並扮裝理論為輔. 第五章總結重點並強調佩脫拉克的主體效應與性別顛覆所有分界.

Abstract
This thesis is aimed at demonstrating Cleopatra’s elusive subjectivity effects in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Cleopatra’s infinite variety permanently capacitates her to generate multiple becomings iridescently and synthesize different contextualities fluidly. Correspondent with her dynamic subjectivity effects, Cleopatra’s gender is perpetually in fluid construction and evades fixity. Her gender is constituted by various performativity and is thus open to new signification and contextualization. In addition, her multifarious masquerades alternate between femininity and masculinity because she may put on female masquerade to conceal her compulsory rivalry with men and appropriate their masculinity after she obtains their dotage.
In Chapter one, I present my main argument that Cleopatra’s infinite variety generates elusive subjectivity effects which permeate throughout this play. Her fluid and multiple subjectivity effects can be seen in her performativity and masquerade, which fully demonstrate her elusive gender. Therefore fluidity and multiplicity form the interrelation between her subjectivity and gender. Through the investigation of her gender and subjectivity, I demonstrate that Cleopatra is forever the woman who dominates Antony’s desire and keeps exerting her elusiveness.
In Chapter Two, I introduce Jane Flax’s theory of elusive subject(s) and analyze the two determinants of elusive subjectivity effects: multiplicity and fluidity. I use the conception of metamorphosis from Ovid to expound the sense of fluidity in the constitution of subjectivity. Then I examine Cleopatra’s subjectivity effects from Flax’s theory of elusive subject(s). Cleopatra’s multiple and fluid subjectivity effects collide rigid categorization, subsume amplitude, beget fecundity and replicate Isis’ multitudinousness. In addition, through the interaction with her evasive subjectivity effects, Antony reconstructs his fluid identity. Toward the end of this chapter, I point out that Cleopatra’s infinite variety enables her to assume multiple roles and synthesize varied contextualities so that she may control her situation. By committing suicide, in the final scene, Cleopatra foils Octavius’ scheme of reducing her to the trophy of war. Death thus becomes an “elsewhere” where she can regenerate her elusive subjectivity effects.
In Chapter Three, I look into Cleopatra’s elusive gender identity by using Judith Butler’s theory of performativity. At the heart of Butler’s theory is the view that there is no gender ontology but only an endless play of acts and gestures, that is, performativity. Through various gestures, the boy actor who plays the part of Cleopatra elicits a gender parody, subverts gender norms and reveals the insubstantial ground of gender identity. Further I demonstrate that Cleopatra’s performativity disrupts the presumably ontological status of gender. Compared with Cleopatra’s gender, Antony’s gender identity is prescribed by the unitary and rigid Roman system. Only through dissolution of his fixed gendered self can Antony re-constitute his gender identity and vibrate with that of Cleopatra.
In Chapter Four I argue that Cleopatra’s capacity to generate multifarious masquerades demonstrates her elusive subjectivity effects. Riviere’s proposition of masquerade facilitates an understanding of how a woman exerts her female mask to seek safety and conceal her compulsory rivalry with men. However Cleopatra’s masquerades go beyond that. When she is reforming and reshaping multiple masquerades, she is also exerting her subjectivity effects--she secures her throne through coquetry, appropriates masculinity and generates a lack in Roman male desire. Moreover, her masquerades alternate between femininity and masculinity, revealing both as constructs. Therefore not only her performativity but masquerade disrupt the presumably ontological status of gender, bespeaking again the elusiveness of gender.
Chapter Five recapitulates previous discussion of each chapter and re-states the main argument of this thesis. The interrelation between Cleopatra’s subjectivity effects and gender is inseparable and both are related to her infinite variety. In other words, her infinite variety perpetually regenerates elusive subjectivity effects, which in turn permeate the whole play.

Bibliography
Adelman, Janet. The Common Liar: An Essay on Antony and Cleopatra. New
Haven: Yale UP, 1973.
---. Suffocating Mothers. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Baker, et al., eds. In Another Country. London: Scarecrow, 1991.
Barroll, J. Leeds. Shakespearean Tragedy. Washington: The Folger Shakespeare
Library, 1984.
Belsey, Catherine. “Cleopatra’s Seduction.” Ed. Hawkes, Terence. Alternative
Shakespeare. London: Routledge, 1996.
Berggren, Paula S. “The Woman’s Part: Female Sexuality as Power in
Shakespeare’s Play.” Caroline, et al., The Woman’s Part 4-17.
Bloom, Harold, ed. Cleopatra. New York: Chelsea House, 1990.
Bock, Gisela and James, Susan, eds. Beyond Equality and Difference: Citizenship,
Feminist Politics and Female Subjectivity. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Bulman, James C., ed. Shakespeare, Theory, and Performance. London:
Routledge, 1996.
Burgin, Victor, et al., eds. Formations of Fantasy. New York: Methuen, 1986.
Bushman, Mary Ann. “Representing Cleopatra.” Baker, In Another Country 36-
49.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge, 1990.
Caroline, et al., eds. The Woman’s Part. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1983.
Charles, Casey. “Gender Trouble in Twelfth Night.” Theater Journal 1997 (49):
121-41.
Charnes, Linda. “What’s Love Got to Do with it? Reading the Liberal Humanist
Romance in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.” Textual Practices
1992 (6):1-17.
Cixous, Helene and Catherine Clement. The Newly Born Woman. Trans. Besty
Wing. Mineapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1986.
Clement, Susan and Donkin, Ellen, eds. Upstaging Big Daddy. Ann Arbor:
U of Michigan P, 1993.
Cook, Carol. “The Fatal Cleopatra.” Garner, et al., Shakespearean Tragedy 242-
67.
Cook, Judith. Women in Shakespeare. London: Harrap, 1980.
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction. New York: Vintage, 1982.
de Lauretis, Teresa. The Practice of Love. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1994.
Dash, Irene G. “Union of Roles.” Bloom, Cleopatra 134-159.
Deutscher, Penelope. Yielding Gender: Feminism, Deconstruction and the History
of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1997.
Drakikis, John, ed. Shakespearean Tragedy. London: Longman, 1992.
Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. London: Macmillan,
1975.
---. “Squeaking Cleopatras.” Bulman, Shakespeare, Theory, and Performance 46-
67.
Evans, Bertrand. Shakespeare’s Tragic Practice. New York: Oxford UP, 1979.
Evans, Gareth Lloyd. The Upstart Crow. London: Chaucer, 1982.
Erickson, Peter. Patriarchal Structure in Shakespeare’s Drama. London:
U of California P, 1985.
Fitz, L.T. “Egyptian Queens and Male Reviewers: Sexist Attitudes in Antony and
Cleopatra Criticism.” Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977): 297-316.
Finucci, Valeria. Desire in the Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994.
Flax, Jane. Disputed Subjects. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Freusd Sigmund. “Analysis Terminable and Interminable”. 1937. The Standard
Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (SE). Trans.
And Ed. James Stachey. Vol.23. London: Hogarth, 1957. 211-53. 24
vols.
---. “Female Sexuality.” 1931. SE. Vol. 21. 221-243.
---. “Femininity.” 1933. SE. Vol. 22. 112-135.
---. “On Narcissism: An Introduction.” 1914. SE. Vol. 14. 67-102.
Gajowski, Evelyn. The Art of Loving. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1992.
Garner, et al., eds. Shakespearean Tragedy. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1996.
Gohlke, Mdelon. “Shakespeare’s Tragic Paradigm.” Caroline, et al., The Woman’s
Part 150-70.
Gregson, James. Public and Private Man in Shakespeare. London: Croom Helm,
1983.
Hall, Joan Lord. The Dynamics of Role-Playing in Jacobean Drama. New York:
St. Martin’s, 1991.
---. “ ‘To the Very Heart of Loss’: Rival Constructs of ‘Heart’ in Antony and
Cleopatra.” College Literature 18 (1991): 64-74.
Hall, Kim F. Things of Darkness: Economics of Race and Gender in Early Modern
England. London: Cornell UP, 1995.
Harris, Jonathan Gill. “Narcissus in Thy Face: Roman Desire and the Difference It
Fakes in Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly 45 (1994): 408-
25.
Haselkorn, et al., eds. The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print. Amherst: U of
Massachusetts, 1990.
Heath, Stephen. “Joan Riviere and the Masquerade.” Burgin, et al., Formations of
Fantasy 45-61.
Holland, Norman N., ed. Shakespeare’s Personality. n.p.: U of California P, 1989.
Honigmann, E.A.J. Myriad-Minded Shakespeare. London: Macmillan. 1989.
Jankowski, Theodora A. Women in Power in the Early Modern Drama. Urbana:
U of Illinois P, 1992.
Johnson, Dean, et al., eds. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1997.
Kinney, Clare. “The Queen’s Two Bodies and the Divided Emperor.”
Haselkorn, et al., The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print 177-86.
Levine, Laura. Men in Women’s Clothing: Antitheatricality and Effeminization.
New York: Cambridge UP, 1994.
Mahood, M.M. Playing Bit Parts in Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 1992.
McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford
Books of St. Martin’s, nd.
Mills, L J. “Cleopatra’s Tragedy.” Bloom, Cleopatra 91-107.
Neely, Carol Thomas. Broken Nuptials in Shakespeare’s Plays. New Haven:
Yale UP, 1985.
Novy, Marianne. “Shakespeare’s Female Characters as Actors and Audience.”
Caroline, et al., The Woman’s Part 256-70.
Orgel, Stephen. “Nobody’s Perfect: Or Why Did the English Stage Take Boys For
Women?” The South Atlantic Quarterly 1989 (88): 7-28.
Rackin, Phyllis. “Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the
English Renaissance Stage.” PMLA 1987 (102): 29-41.
---. “Shakespeare’s Boy Cleopatra, the Decorum of Nature, and the
Golden World of Poetry.” PMLA 1972 (87): 201-12.
Riviere, Joan. “Womanliness as a Masquerade.” Burgin, et al., Formations of
Fantasy 35-44.
Rossky, William. “Antony and Cleopatra, I.ii.79: Enobarbus’ ‘Mistake’ .”
Shakespeare Quarterly 35 (1984): 324-25.
Ruth, Carolyn, et al., eds. The Woman’s Part. Urbana: U of Illinois P,
1983.
Scott, Michael. Shakespeare and the Modern Dramatist. London: Macmillan,
1989.
Shapiro, Michael. “Boying Her Greatness: Shakespeare’s use of Coterie Drama in
Antony and Cleopatra.” Modern Language Review 1982 (77): 3-15.
Singer, Linda. Erotic Welfare. London: Routledge, 1993.
Still, Judith and Worton, Michael, eds. Texuality and Sexuality. Manchester:
Manchester UP, 1993.
Wells, Charles. The Wide Arch: Roman Values in Shakespeare. New York: St.
Martin’s, 1992.
Wolf, Willaim D. “New Heaven, New Earth: The Escape from Mutability In
Antony and Cleopatra.” Shakespeare Quarterly 33 (1982): 328-35.
Yachin, Paul. “Shakespeare’s Politics of Loyalty: Sovereignty and Subjectivity in
Antony and Cleopatra.” Studies in English Literature 33 (1993): 343-63.
Zimmerman, Susan, ed. Shakespeare’s Tragedies. London, Macmillan, 1998.