Market Value Anxiety in Early English Capitalism — Currency, Commodities, and National Security in Shakespeare’s *Troilus and Cressida*

Renaissance England witnessed an unprecedented development of commodity trade; commodification and marketization were important characteristics of the economic development of this period. Not only did the Enclosure Movement gradually separate people from the land, sending labor to the market and turning it into a commodity, but women had already been in a dependent position in society before this period, and the market economy accelerated the commodification of women. Market logic gave rise to new modes of thought; people gradually came to think of matter, actions, ideas, and people themselves in terms of money.[1]1 This refers to the rise of a “money economy” in early modern England, where monetary calculation began to permeate social relations and personal identity. Early modern society often compared people to coins stamped by God; money, as the intermediary between commodities and people, possessed an even more rhetorical metaphorical value.[2]2 This alludes to the early modern metaphor of the “king’s coin” or “God’s coin,” where humans were seen as bearing the stamp of divine authority, analogous to the stamp on a coin guaranteeing its value. In Shakespeare’s play *Troilus and Cressida* (1609), Troy and Greece form an international market, where female characters are commodified, analogous to the way currency became a commodity on the foreign exchange market in the play’s era, fluctuating in market value. Like currency, the value of the commodified person oscillates between intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Based on the moral-philosophical tradition of value theory, intrinsic value theory holds that the value of matter depends on the internal attributes of the value-bearer, while extrinsic value theory holds that value is determined by the external relational characteristics of the value-bearer.[3]3 This distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value draws on Aristotelian and Scholastic traditions, later debated in early modern economic thought. In the sphere of the market economy, the value judgment of commodities (currency) gradually detaches from their intrinsic value, increasingly relying on the market and manifesting a turn toward extrinsic value. When people recognize that market rules have penetrated the judgment of human value, market forces undermine the benchmark based on intrinsic value, and violating traditional value standards may trigger a social crisis.

文艺复兴时期的英国见证了商品贸易的空前发展，商品化、市场化是这一时期经济发展的重要特点。不仅圈地运动使人和土地逐渐分离，劳动力走向市场而变成了商品，女性更是在这一时期之前就已在社会上处于依附地位，市场经济加速了女性的商品化进程。市场逻辑引发新的思维模式，人们逐渐用货币来思考物质、行动、想法和人本身。 1 早期现代社会通常将人比作由上帝盖章的货币，货币作为商品与人的中介，更具有修辞化的隐喻价值。 2 莎士比亚戏剧《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》（Troilus and Cressida， 1609）中，特洛伊与希腊之间形成国际交易市场，女性角色在该市场上商品化，与该剧创作时期货币在外汇市场上成为商品而随市场价值波动形成类比。与货币一样，商品化了的人之价值摇摆于内在价值和外在价值之间。基于价值理论的道德哲学传统，内在价值理论认为物质价值取决于价值承担者的内部属性，而外在价值理论则认为价值由价值承担者的外部关系特征决定。 3 在市场经济领域，商品（货币）的价值判断逐渐脱离其内在价值，越来越依附于市场而呈现外在价值转向。当人们认识到市场规则渗透至对人的价值评判时，市场力量破坏了以内在价值为主的判断基准，违背传统价值标准可能诱发社会危机。

*Troilus and Cressida* tells the story of the Trojan War, triggered by the Trojan prince Paris’s abduction of the Greek woman Helen. In the play, the Trojan royal family engages in a heated debate over whether to continue the war to keep Helen. Helen is like precious gold and silver; others’ value judgments of her are unstable. Hector believes that “every life is as precious as Helen’s”[4]4 This is a paraphrase of Hector’s argument in the play, emphasizing the equal intrinsic worth of all human life. and that Helen’s value “cannot be measured by individual will” (Ⅱ. ⅱ. 53). Troilus, however, insists, “What is the value of anything if not measured by man?” (Ⅱ. ⅱ. 52). Hector is ultimately persuaded by Troilus, choosing to continue the war based on Helen’s market value, yet this leads to the fall of Troy. David Hawkes, starting from the Trojans’ debate over Helen’s value, elucidates how relative value will conquer absolute value, the extrinsic will conquer the intrinsic, and proclaims the rise of economic value in the modern sense.[5]5 David Hawkes is a contemporary scholar of early modern literature and economic history. Jonathan Harris, from the perspective of economic pathology, analyzes the reasons for the fluctuation of Helen’s value, arguing that Shakespeare defends the theory of intrinsic value and harbors doubts about the theory of extrinsic value, pointing out that value fluctuation harms the Trojan political body.[6]6 Jonathan Harris is a scholar of Shakespeare and early modern culture. The above studies examine the issue of value in the play, but fail to fully discuss, within the historical context of the emerging capitalist market economy in England, the connection between the debate over the intrinsic and extrinsic value of Helen, Cressida, and others as commodities (currency) and national security. In the play, Helen, like a commodified precious currency, provokes a debate among the Trojans over her value, echoing early modern debates on monetary value. Based on Helen’s own value as an ordinary woman, Hector judges whether to return Helen to Greece, while others, relying on Helen’s scarcity and uniqueness, believe her value to be immense, indicating that her value originates from herself, from supply and demand, or from the subjective judgments of the Trojan and Greek royal houses. Similarly, Cressida also oscillates between intrinsic and extrinsic value. However, the Trojans allow Helen’s value to revert to market choice, exaggerating her value and plunging both countries into a costly war, which shows Shakespeare’s anxiety about the early capitalist market and the extrinsic value of currency.

《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》讲述了有关特洛伊王子帕里斯诱拐希腊妇人海伦而引发特洛伊战争的故事。剧中特洛伊王室就是否为留住海伦而继续作战进行了激烈辩论。海伦正如贵重金银，他人对海伦的价值判断并不稳定。赫克托尔认为，“每个生命都和海伦一样宝贵” 4 ，海伦的价值“衡量不能取决于个人意志”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 53）。特洛伊罗斯却坚持，“什么东西的价值不是由人来衡量？”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 52）赫克托尔最终被特洛伊罗斯说服，基于海伦的市场价值而选择继续作战，却使特洛伊城沦陷。大卫·霍克斯从特洛伊人对海伦的价值辩论出发，阐明了相对价值将征服绝对价值、外在将征服本质，并宣告现代意义上经济价值的兴起。 5 乔纳森·哈里斯基于经济病理学的视角，分析海伦价值波动原因，认为莎士比亚为价值内因论辩护并对价值外因论产生怀疑，指出价值波动对特洛伊政治身体造成了危害。 6 上述成果研究剧中的价值问题，却未能在英国新兴资本主义市场经济发展的历史语境中充分讨论对海伦、克瑞西达等人作为商品（货币）的内外价值争论与国家安全之间的联系。剧中海伦正如商品化了的贵重货币，其价值问题引发特洛伊人的辩论，与早期现代货币价值论争相呼应。基于海伦作为普通妇人的自身价值，赫克托尔判断是否将海伦归还希腊，而其他人基于海伦的稀缺性与独特性，相信海伦的价值巨大无比，这说明她的价值源于自身、供求关系抑或特洛伊与希腊王室的主观判断。类似地，克瑞西达也摇摆于内外价值之间。然而，特洛伊人让海伦的价值回归于市场选择，夸大海伦的价值让两国陷入消耗巨大的战争之中，这说明莎士比亚对早期资本主义市场与货币外在价值充满焦虑。

I. Theories of Value of Currency and Commodities in Early Capitalism

一 资本主义早期货币与商品的价值理论

Agricultural changes during the Renaissance drove labor to the market, turning it into a commodity. In the 16th century, population growth in England increased demand for agricultural products, raising their prices. English landlords and tenants thus focused on agricultural “improvement,” especially economic activities like the Enclosure Movement that were lower-cost and higher-yielding. Agricultural “improvement” did not mean “making better” in a general sense, but rather obtaining monetary profit by increasing land productivity.[7]7 This refers to the capitalist transformation of agriculture, where “improvement” meant maximizing profit through enclosure and new farming methods. The population growth of the Tudor dynasty was linked to social and economic phenomena of the period; the increasing population put pressure on land and resources, also generating market demand and leading to the development of domestic trade.[8]8 The Tudor dynasty ruled England from 1485 to 1603. The 16th-century England was seen by historian Fernand Braudel as a “backward country,” with only two sources of wealth: wool production and the cloth industry. But as it entered the 17th century, the power of the commercial economy began to influence England’s economic base.[9]9 Fernand Braudel (1902–1985) was a French historian of the Annales School, known for his work on early modern capitalism. The expansion of England’s woolen cloth export trade spurred the aristocratic class or large landowners to forcibly enclose farmland and common land. To divide farmland into pastures for the increasingly profitable livestock industry,[10]10 The livestock industry, especially sheep farming for wool, was highly profitable in early modern England. they fenced off the land, turning common land open to all into private property, and forced those dependent on common land use rights to leave the land.[11]11 The Enclosure Movement involved fencing off common lands, converting them to private property, and displacing peasants. Population surge and commercial development drove agricultural social change. Influenced by these factors, many people who had previously lived off the land migrated en masse to cities to engage in wage labor,[12]12 This refers to the mass migration of displaced rural populations to cities like London. forced to sell their labor power as a commodity to make a living. In Shakespeare’s era, wage laborers, deprived of their traditional means of subsistence, became increasingly common; more than half of English households depended to some extent on wage labor.[13]13 Wage labor became a dominant form of employment in early modern England, marking the rise of a capitalist labor market. The commodification of labor (people) was one of the major changes in the transition from England’s feudal economy to a capitalist economy.

文艺复兴时期农业变革促使劳动力走向市场成为了商品。16世纪英国的人口增长使人们对农产品的需求增加，农产品价格上涨，英国地主和佃户于是专注于农业“改良”，特别是进行圈地运动（Enclosure Movement）等成本更低产出更高的农业经济活动。农业“改良”不是一般意义上的“使之更好”，而是通过提高土地生产力以获取货币利润。 7 都铎王朝的人口增长与该时期的社会和经济现象产生关联，不断增加的人口数量对土地和资源施加压力，也催生了市场需求，导致国内贸易的发展。 8 16世纪的英国被历史学家费尔南·布罗代尔（Fernand Braudel）看作“落后的国家”，只有羊毛生产和布匹工业两类财富来源，而在进入17世纪的过程中，商贸经济的力量开始影响英格兰的经济基础。 9 英国羊毛织物出口贸易扩张刺激当时的贵族阶层或大地主强行圈占农田空地。为了将农田划开作为牧场用于利润日益丰厚的畜牧业 10 ，他们用栅栏隔开了土地，把原本对所有人开放的公共土地变成了私有财产，并迫使依赖公共土地使用权的人离开土地。 11 人口激增和商贸发展催生了农业社会变革。受这些因素影响，许多从前依靠土地生存的人大规模迁移到城市从事有偿劳动 12 ，他们被迫将自己的劳动能力作为商品出售以求谋生。在莎士比亚的时代，被剥夺了传统生存来源而从事雇佣劳动的工人（wage labor）愈加普遍，英国超过一半的家庭至少在一定程度上依赖雇佣工人。 13 劳动力（人）的商品化成了英国封建主义经济向资本主义经济过渡的重大变化之一。

The development of the early modern commodity economy accelerated the commodification of women. According to late medieval legal rules, women’s duty of obedience to their husbands in marriage prevented them from acting as independent persons; even unmarried women and widows had their legal rights restricted due to the possibility of marriage. In many parts of Europe, all goods or property a married woman brought into the marriage, as well as all wages she earned during the marriage, were considered her husband’s property, legally subject to his every arrangement, or even completely subsumed under his legal identity.[14]14 This refers to the legal doctrine of coverture, where a married woman’s legal rights were subsumed by her husband. The 15th-century female writer Christine de Pizan once explored the reasons for women’s subordinate social position in her time. She acknowledged that women were inferior in many respects, attributing this to their lack of education and excessive economic dependence on men.[15]15 Christine de Pizan (1364–c. 1430) was a Venetian-born French writer and early feminist thinker. Women’s subordinate and dependent relationship to men exhibited semi-commodified characteristics; under the baptism of the market economy in the 16th and 17th centuries, women were fully commodified. Unmarried women became valuable commodities on the marriage market; married women were even more regarded as part of men’s property. Early modern people believed that chastity was the entirety of a woman’s value; a woman who lost her chastity would have nothing. Chastity was defined by its exchange value, “clearly not a commodity yet treated as one.”[16]16 This is a paraphrase of a common argument in feminist and economic criticism of early modern literature, highlighting the paradox of treating non-commodities as commodities. The commodification of chastity, of women themselves, and of people themselves involved not only market economy issues like currency and exchange, but was also a statement about personal value, a social and political issue of great significance in the early modern society being invaded by market forces.

早期现代商品经济的发展加速了女性的被商品化进程。按照中世纪末期的律法规则，女性在婚姻中服从于丈夫的义务使她们无法作为独立的人行事，就连未婚女性和寡妇也因为有结婚的可能性而被限制法律权利。在欧洲的许多地方，已婚妇女带入婚姻的所有货物或财产以及她在婚姻期间赚取的所有工资都被视为其丈夫的财产，在法律上要服从丈夫的一切安排，甚至完全归属于其丈夫的法律身份。 14 15世纪女作家克里斯蒂娜·德·皮赞（Christine De Pizan）曾探讨当时的女性在社会上处于次要地位的原因。她承认女性在很多方面居于劣势，并将其归因于女性缺乏教育并且在经济上过度依附男性。 15 女性对男性的从属、依附关系呈现出半商品化的特点，在16、17世纪市场经济的洗礼下，女性被彻底商品化。未婚女性成为婚姻市场上有价值的商品，已婚女性更被视为男性财产的一部分。早期现代人认为，贞操是女性价值的全部所在，女性失去贞操将一无所有。贞操由其交换价值定义，“明显不是商品却被当成商品对待”。 16 贞操、女性本身、人自身的商品化不只涉及货币、交换等市场经济问题，更是一种有关个人价值的表述，这在市场力量侵袭的早期现代社会中更是一个具有重要意义的社会政治问题。

The analogy between man and money, and between woman and money, was not uncommon in the early modern period. Before Shakespeare’s time, the passage in the Gospel of Matthew concerning the tribute money already mentioned the metaphor of man and coin: human beings, bearing the image of God, are coins stamped by God. Augustine also pointed out to the faithful in a sermon, “Because you are God’s coin, having reason and life, you know whose stamp you bear, after whose image you are made.” [17]17 Augustine, *Sermon* 229A. The metaphor of the coin bearing the image of God draws on Matthew 22:20-21, where Jesus says, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” From the Middle Ages onward, fantasies and anxieties about money resembled impressions of women, both exhibiting traits of instability, susceptibility to influence, and fluidity. The medieval construction of women and femininity was influenced by classical theories of generation: just as Aristotle proposed in *De Generatione Animalium* that the female always provides the material in reproduction while the male shapes the material into form, people believed that women were characterized by formlessness and chaos, passively receiving the imprint, while men were characterized by stability and order, actively impressing their mark upon female matter. The misogynistic thought of this period held that women’s sexual fidelity would not last; their fluidity and instability rendered them morally and physically inferior. [18]18 This refers to the medieval medical and philosophical theory, derived from Aristotle, that the female provides passive, formless matter while the male provides active, formative principle in reproduction. This fluidity, in turn, resembled the circulation of money, which “can fall into anyone’s pocket.” In the medieval cultural imagination, coins even frequently appeared in female form—either as unfaithful, capricious women or as generous, seductive women—all related to desires and fears concerning both monetary finance and eroticism. [19]19 The personification of coins as women, often with moral overtones, was a common trope in medieval literature and iconography. On the economic level of the early modern period, money, serving both as a special commodity and as an intermediary between ordinary commodities and people, acquired a further rhetorical metaphorical value, leading early modern people to habitually use money as a lens for thinking about human beings.

人与货币、女性与货币的类比在早期现代并不少见。在莎士比亚时代之前，马太福音中关于纳税钱的段落便提到人与钱币的隐喻，人类被看作带有上帝的形象，是由上帝盖章的钱币。奥古斯丁也在一次布道中对教徒们指出，“因为你们是上帝的钱币，有理性和生命，所以你们知道自己带有谁的印章，按照谁的形象制造”。 17 自中世纪起，对货币的幻想和焦虑与对女性的印象类似，二者均显现出不稳定、易受影响和流动性之特质。中世纪对女性和女性气质的建构受到古典生育理论的影响：正如亚里士多德在《论动物的生成》（De Generatione Animalium）中提出雌性在繁殖中总是提供材料，雄性则将材料塑造成型，人们认为女性的特点是无形和混乱，被动地接受印记，而男性的特点是稳定和有序，积极地在女性物质上打下印记。该时期的厌女思想认为，女性的性忠诚不会长久，女性的流动性和不稳定特点使其在身体上和道德上低人一等。 18 这种流动性又与货币“可以落在任何人的口袋里”的流通特点具有相似之处。在中世纪的文化想象中，钱币甚至经常以女性形象出现，或是不忠的、任性的女性，或是慷慨的、诱人的女性，均与对货币财政和情色的渴望和恐惧有关。 19 在早期现代经济层面，货币既作为一种特殊商品，又作为普通商品与人的中介，更具有修辞化的隐喻价值，于是早期现代人习惯于引用货币对人进行思考。

The value of money oscillates between intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Based on the moral-philosophical tradition of value theory, intrinsic value can be understood as the value that a bearer possesses solely by virtue of its internal characteristics, while extrinsic value refers to the value that a bearer possesses at least partly by virtue of some of its external relational attributes. Intrinsic value theory holds that the value of a thing originates from the thing itself, whereas extrinsic value theory emphasizes that the value of a thing is obtained from “another source (including government intervention).” [20]20 This distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value is a standard topic in moral philosophy and economics, here applied to early modern monetary theory. When value theory extends into the market economy domain of pursuing monetary gain, people’s reactions and thinking are constrained by early modern economic theory. Early modern money was minted from precious metals and simultaneously bore the monarch’s portrait and the state seal. Successive European monarchs, starting from the material attributes of currency, adopted debasement to remedy currency shortages. The mutability of money’s material attributes blurred the essential nature of its value, thereby giving rise to competing intrinsic and extrinsic value theories. The mercantilist Malynes reached a compromise between the residual medieval traditional model of intrinsic value and the nominal, unstable reality of currency value: while insisting that the intrinsic precious-metal content of money was the basis for realizing exchange, he emphasized the protective significance of monarchical authority over the internal material value of coins. [21]21 Gerard de Malynes (fl. 1586–1641) was an English merchant and mercantilist writer who advocated for state control of exchange rates and the maintenance of the precious-metal content of coins. Contemporary critic Stephen Deng, in sorting out the value theory of money, argues that the early modern intrinsic value theory of money held that a coin’s value depended on its precious-metal content, with the stamp on the coin serving merely as the issuing authority’s guarantee of that content. In contrast, combining sixteenth-century French “nominalist” theory, the extrinsic value theory of money believed that the stamp itself conferred value on the coin. [22]22 Stephen Deng, a contemporary literary scholar, has written on money and value in early modern English drama. The “nominalist” theory of money holds that the value of a coin is determined by the stamp or decree of the issuing authority, not its metal content. In Shakespeare’s play *Macbeth*, the combination of precious metal, royal portrait, and state seal endowed gold coins with a therapeutic efficacy (use value) on a theological level, and “promoted state power by helping to generate a mystified royal ideology.” [23]23 The reference is to the healing power attributed to gold coins touched by the monarch, a practice associated with the “royal touch” for scrofula, which reinforced the divine right of kings. However, when coins are used by Macbeth to “purchase” mercenaries, the exchange value of money in the market economy in turn undermines national security. During the reign of Queen Mary, the debasement became known to the populace, and Mary was forced to compel the people to continue using currency in ordinary transactions at the value indicated by the state seal. This incident shows that, in this period, both intrinsic and extrinsic value theories of money were applicable, but extrinsic value had to be forcibly maintained through legal means. [24]24 Queen Mary I (reigned 1553–1558) attempted to restore the value of debased coinage, but faced popular resistance, illustrating the tension between state authority and market perception of value. Thus, the play demonstrates the transformation of money from use value to exchange value, revealing from another dimension the debate over the value of money and the anxiety over national security during the English capitalist transition.

货币价值摇摆于内在价值和外在价值之间。基于价值理论的道德哲学传统，内在价值可以被理解为仅仅凭借价值承载者的内部特征而具有的价值，外在价值是指至少凭借承载者的一些外部关系属性所具有的价值；内在价值理论认为事物价值源于事物本身，而外在价值理论强调事物价值从“另外的来源（含政府干预）”处获得。 20 当价值理论延伸到追求金钱利益的市场经济领域，人们的反应、思考受到早期现代经济理论的制约。早期现代货币由贵金属铸造，同时印有君王肖像、国家印章。欧洲历代君主曾从货币的物质属性入手，采用贬值的方式来弥补货币短缺问题，货币物质属性的易变性使货币的价值本质变得模糊，从而导致了相互竞争的内在价值理论和外在价值理论。重商主义者马林斯在中世纪残留的传统内在价值模式与货币价值的名义性、不稳定性现实之间达成了妥协，在坚持货币的内在贵金属价值是实现交换的基础时，强调君王权威对货币内部物质价值的保护意义。 21 当代批评家史蒂芬·邓梳理货币的价值理论，认为早期现代货币的内在价值理论指的是一枚硬币的价值取决于它的贵金属含量，硬币上的印章只是发行机构对硬币贵金属含量的保证。而结合16世纪法国“名义主义”（nominalist）理论，货币的外在价值理论相信印章本身赋予硬币价值。 22 而在莎剧《麦克白》中，贵金属、王室肖像和国家印章的结合则使得金币在神学维度上具有疗愈功效（使用价值），并“通过帮助产生神秘的王权意识形态来促进国家权力”。 23 但是，钱币被麦克白用于“购买”雇佣兵，市场经济中货币的交换价值又将有损国家安全。在玛丽女王统治时期，贬值行为被民众知晓，玛丽女王不得不强制民众在普通交易中继续以国家印章所示使用货币。该事件表明，在这一时期，货币的内外价值理论皆适用，但外在价值必须通过法律途径强制维护。 24 因此，该剧展现了货币从使用价值向交换价值的转变，从另一维度展现了英国资本主义过渡时期的货币价值论争与国家安全焦虑。

As a special commodity, money’s extrinsic value benchmark for value judgment exhibits a turn toward the market. The history of currency debasement since the Middle Ages made people aware that its precious-metal content was easily manipulated, causing fluctuations in the actual value of money in circulation. Intrinsic value gradually became independent of nominal extrinsic value, and people were forced to accept that money is a special commodity. [25]25 The concept of money as a “special commodity” is a Marxist economic category, referring to the commodity that functions as the universal equivalent in exchange. Consequently, like ordinary commodities, money’s extrinsic value took on an artificial, market-based character. The most conspicuous manifestation of early modern money as a commodity occurred in the foreign exchange market. In the process of international exchange, money was itself a commodity with market value. The merchant Malynes anxiously noted that foreign bankers, at the behest of foreign monarchs, manipulated exchange rates to depress the value of English currency. [26]26 Malynes argued that foreign manipulation of exchange rates harmed English trade and national wealth. In response to Malynes’s view, Thomas Mun raised objections, attributing exchange rate fluctuations (monetary value volatility) to the market forces of supply and demand for currency, proposing that the abundance or scarcity of money led to the overvaluation or undervaluation of English currency. [27]27 Thomas Mun (1571–1641) was an English mercantilist writer who emphasized the balance of trade and argued that exchange rates were determined by the relative supply and demand for currencies. The true value of money, he argued, stood outside monarchical authority. [28]28 This marks a shift from a state-centered to a market-centered theory of monetary value. On the other hand, since the medieval scholar Jean Buridan founded the commodity theory of money, arguing that money originated from commodities on the market and that the value of money must be measured by human needs, [29]29 Jean Buridan (c. 1300–c. 1360) was a French scholastic philosopher who developed an early commodity theory of money, arguing that money’s value derived from its usefulness as a commodity. the late-seventeenth-century economist Dudley North reaffirmed the commodity attribute of precious-metal money, pointing out that precious gold and silver were merely commodities selected by the market for their special qualities to serve as money, and that their value, like that of all other commodities on the market, was determined by supply and demand. [30]30 Dudley North (1641–1691) was an English economist and merchant who argued for free trade and against state regulation of money, anticipating later classical economic theories. By the late Renaissance, placing money (as a commodity) on the market for value judgment seems to have become a consensus.

货币作为一种特殊商品，价值判断的外在价值基准呈现市场价值转向。中世纪以来的货币贬值历史让人意识到其贵金属含量容易受到操控，流通中的实际货币价值产生波动，内在价值逐渐独立于名义外在价值，人们被迫接受了货币是一种特殊商品 25 ，于是货币与商品一样，外在价值呈现人为的、市场的特点。早期现代货币作为商品的最显著表现发生在外汇市场上。在国际交换过程中，货币是具有市场价值的商品本身，商人马林斯（Malynes）焦虑外国银行家在外国君王授意下控制货币兑换比率、压低英国货币价值。 26 而托马斯·孟（Thomas Mun）针对马林斯的观点提出异议，将汇率变动（货币价值波动）归因于货币的市场供求关系，提出货币的丰富或稀缺导致英国货币价值被高估或低估 27 ，货币的真正价值立于君王权威之外。 28 另一方面，自中世纪学者让·布里丹（Jean Buridan）创立了货币的商品理论，主张货币起源于市场上的商品，认为货币的价值必须由人类的需求来衡量后 29 ；17世纪后期的经济学家达德利·诺斯（Dudley North）重申贵金属货币的商品属性，指出贵重金银只是被市场以其特殊的品质选择成为货币的商品，它们的价值就像市场上所有其他商品一样，由供求关系决定。 30 到了文艺复兴后期，将货币（商品）放置于市场上进行价值判断似乎早已成为共识。

In early modern society, commodities represented by currency became increasingly subject to the whims of the market, and market price fluctuations could trigger social crises. As early as the 14th century, the economist Nicole Oresme attacked European kings’ policies of debasing currency without regard for its intrinsic value, arguing that kings had an obligation to maintain coin weight and minting standards, while debasement for market-economic purposes undermined popular respect for governmental authority, bred scandal and discord among the people, and increased the risk of popular disobedience; currency gradually lost its character as a measure of value, affecting both domestic and foreign trade; the state could not accurately assess monetary income; and domestic credit transactions also became unsafe and unstable. [31]31 Nicole Oresme, *Treatise on the Origin, Nature, Law, and Alterations of Money*, c. 1355. During the Renaissance, people gradually shifted from viewing currency value as guaranteed by royal authority to regarding currency as a commodity that responded to domestic and foreign market forces and was constrained by market mechanisms. [32]32 See Craig Muldrew, *The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England* (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), p. 100. With the development of the market economy, monarchs answerable only to God also gradually succumbed to more powerful market and commercial forces. In *Measure for Measure*, Shakespeare expressed moral critique and questioning of currency debasement (including counterfeiting, clipping, and illegal alteration). Critic Stephen Deng, drawing on Aristotle’s reproductive metaphor for currency and biblical teachings, interprets the currency imagery in *Measure for Measure*, revealing the destructive impact of currency debasement on royal honor and national stability. [33]33 Stephen Deng, “Global Economy: Shakespeare’s *Measure for Measure* and the Meaning of Money,” in *Shakespeare and the Economic Imperative: “What’s aught but as ’tis valued?”* (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 67-92. When the government cannot guarantee the stability of currency value and currency is entirely at the mercy of the market, society easily becomes what the French humanist Jean Bodin feared: “If money, which governs all prices, is variable and uncertain, no one can truly know what he possesses. Contracts will be uncertain; fees, taxes, wages, etc., will be uncertain; fines prescribed by law and custom will also be uncertain. In short, the entire financial situation and many public and private affairs will be in a state of suspense.” [34]34 Jean Bodin, *The Six Books of the Commonwealth* (1576), trans. M. J. Tooley (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), p. 178.

早期现代社会中，以货币为代表的商品越来越受到市场的摆布，市场价格波动可能诱发社会危机。早在14世纪，经济学家尼克尔·奥里斯姆（Nicole Oresme）便曾攻击过欧洲国王不顾货币内在价值的贬值政策，认为国王有义务维持钱币重量和铸币标准，而出于市场经济目的的贬值行为破坏了民众对政府权威的尊重，滋生了民众中的丑闻和杂音，增加了民众不服从的风险；货币逐渐失去其作为价值尺度的特性，国内外贸易均受到影响；国家无法正确评估货币收入；国内信贷往来也变得不再安全与稳固。 31 文艺复兴时期，人们从认为货币价值由皇家权威保障，逐渐转变为将货币视为商品，对国内外市场力量做出回应，受市场机制制约。 32 随着市场经济发展，只对上帝负责的君王也逐渐沦陷于更强大的市场与商业力量。莎士比亚在《一报还一报》中表达了对货币贬值（包括伪造、裁剪和非法改变货币）的道德批判与质疑。批评家史蒂芬·邓则从亚里士多德有关货币的生殖隐喻和圣经教义出发理解《一报还一报》中的货币意象，揭示货币贬值对国王荣誉和国家稳定的破坏性。 33 当政府无法保障货币价值的稳定，货币完全处于市场的支配状态时，社会便容易变成法国人文主义者让·布丹（Jean Bodin）所担忧的那样：“如果支配一切价格的货币是可变的和不确定的，那么没有人能够真正知道自己拥有什么。合同将是不确定的；费用、税收、工资等将是不确定的；法律和习俗规定的罚款也将是不确定的。总之，整个财政状况与许多公共和私人事务都将处于悬而未决的状态”。 34

The assessment of commodity value was an important means of examining market dynamics during the Renaissance. [35]35 See Joyce Oldham Appleby, *Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 22. As early as the 13th century, scholars analyzed the sources of commodity value, incorporating the capacity to satisfy human needs, consistency with the preferences of the person using the object, and scarcity into their considerations. [36]36 See Odd Langholm, *Price and Value in the Aristotelian Tradition: A Study in Scholastic Economic Sources* (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1979), p. 79. During the Renaissance, with the development of overseas trade and the market economy, the intrinsic and extrinsic values of precious-metal currency became differentiated; currency became a special commodity, manipulated on the market like ordinary commodities, and the benchmark for value judgment gradually shifted from traditional static intrinsic value to dynamic market value. The experimental and exploratory nature of drama enabled it to serve as a proxy for emerging capitalist market relations. [37]37 See Jean-Christophe Agnew, *Worlds Apart: The Market and the Theater in Anglo-American Thought, 1550-1750* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 11. Shakespeare’s plays reproduce contradictory information, themes, and ideological positions, as a product of early modern market forces. [38]38 See Linda Woodbridge, “Introduction,” in *Money and the Age of Shakespeare: Essays in New Economic Criticism*, ed. Linda Woodbridge (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 5. The city of Troy in *Troilus and Cressida* is regarded as a surrogate and precursor to real-life London, and the “market world with nothing to support it” presented in the play seems to become a true portrayal of London under the development of the early modern market economy. [39]39 See Lars Engle, *Shakespearean Pragmatism: Market of His Time* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 147. The play was written in the late Elizabethan period, when emphasis on the intrinsic essence of commodities coexisted with subjection to the manipulation of market forces. The female characters Helen and Cressida in the play assume a public measuring function similar to that of currency and undergo commodification in the patriarchal market. Like currency and ordinary commodities, their value derives from themselves, from supply and demand, or from the subjective judgments of the two royal houses, but exaggerating their market value plunges both countries into great crisis, alluding to the playwright’s anxiety over the unstable extrinsic value of early modern English society.

对商品价值的评估是文艺复兴时期考察市场动态的重要手段。 35 早在13世纪就有学者对商品价值来源进行分析，将满足人类需求的能力、与使用该物的人的偏好的一致性以及稀缺性纳入考察范围。 36 文艺复兴时期，随着海外贸易和市场经济发展，贵金属货币的内外价值相互区分，货币成为一种特殊商品，与普通商品一样在市场上被操纵，价值判断基准逐渐从传统静态的内在价值让步于动态的市场价值。戏剧的实验性、探索性使这一时期的戏剧能够作为新兴资本主义市场关系的代理者 37 ，莎士比亚戏剧再现相互矛盾的信息、主题以及意识形态立场，乃是早期现代市场力量的产物。 38 《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中的特洛伊城被视为现实伦敦的替身和先驱，戏剧中呈现出的“没有任何东西支撑的市场世界”似乎成了早期现代市场经济发展下伦敦的真实写照。 39 该剧创作于重视商品内在本质与承受市场力量操控并行的伊丽莎白王朝后期，剧中的女性角色海伦与克瑞西达承担着类似货币的公共尺度功能，并在父权市场上经历商品化。与货币、普通商品一样，她们的价值来源于自身、供求关系或两国王室的主观判断，而夸大其市场价值却让两国陷入巨大危机之中，影射了剧作家对早期现代英国社会不稳定的外在价值焦虑。

II. The Debate over the Source of Value of Helen and Other Characters in the Play

二 剧中海伦及其他人物的价值来源论争

Homer’s epic *Iliad* and Geoffrey Chaucer’s narrative poem *Troilus and Criseyde* are the original texts referenced in the creation of the play *Troilus and Cressida*, but Shakespeare incorporates more commodity exchange patterns under market economy discourse into the play, to highlight “the penetration of the market into love and war.” [40]40 See Linda Woodbridge, “Introduction,” p. 5. The love plot in the play is drawn from Chaucer, but Shakespeare’s treatment of love and sex is entirely different and anti-romantic: Chaucer emphasizes Criseyde’s virtue in his poem and regards her love experience with Troilus as noble sentiment, while Shakespeare adapts this, highlighting Cressida’s appearance and equating “the experience of love with mating.” [41]41 See R. A. Yoder, “*Troilus and Cressida*: The Nature of Value,” *Shakespeare Quarterly* 23, no. 3 (1972): 267. Furthermore, the war plot in the play originates from Homer’s *Iliad* but is anti-epic and anti-heroic. Buying and selling and exchange become the source of sex in the play. The Greek soldier Thersites describes the Trojan events in market terms, debasing the value of the war: “All the argument is a cuckold and a whore; a good quarrel to draw emulous factions and bleed to death upon” (II. iii. 71-72). Dismissing the ancient Greek myth of the Trojan War as a story of “a cuckold and a whore” (Menelaus and Helen) breaks the traditional aristocratic value code emphasized in the text. The debasement of love and women to a certain extent indicates the playwright’s intention to reveal the marketization and commodification process of Helen and Cressida. Therefore, Shakespeare’s *Troilus and Cressida*, in a social environment transitioning toward capitalism, re-centers the war of honor among heroes, demythologizes the source material, and shifts “from aristocratic authority to market exchange,” [42]42 See Lars Engle, *Shakespearean Pragmatism*, p. 148. to display deep reflection on national politics and economy.

荷马史诗《伊利亚特》（Iliad）和杰弗里·乔叟的叙事诗《特洛伊罗斯和克丽西达》（Troilus and Criseyde）是戏剧《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》创作所参考的原始文本，但莎士比亚在戏剧中更多地融入市场经济话语下的商品交换模式，以突显“市场对爱情和战争的渗透”。 40 戏剧中的恋爱情节取材于乔叟，但莎士比亚对爱情和性有着截然不同的叙述，并且是反浪漫的：乔叟在诗中强调了克丽西达的美德，并将其与特洛伊罗斯的爱情经历视为高尚情感，莎士比亚则将其改编，突显克瑞西达的外表，并将“爱的体验等同于交配”。 41 此外，剧中的战争情节源于荷马的《伊利亚特》，却是反史诗和反英雄的。买卖和交换成为剧中性的来源，希腊士兵忒耳西忒斯（Thersites）以市场观念描述特洛伊事件，贬低了战争的价值：“所有争执不过是为了一个乌龟和一个婊子，只弄得彼此猜忌闹分歧，头破血流命归西。”（II. iii. 71-72）。将古希腊神话特洛伊战争轻蔑地称为“一个乌龟和一个婊子”（墨涅拉俄斯和海伦）的故事，这打破了文本中所强调的传统贵族价值准则，对爱情和女性的贬低在一定程度上表明了剧作家揭示海伦和克瑞西达市场化和商品化进程的意图。因此，莎士比亚的《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》在向资本主义转型的社会环境中重新围绕英雄间的荣誉战争，将原始素材去神话化，从“贵族权威转向市场交换” 42 ，以展现对国家政治与经济的深度思考。

In the play, the intrinsic value of characters derives from the aristocratic value tradition based on virtue and social rank. In *The Philosophy of Money*, the modern sociologist Georg Simmel emphasizes that things have intrinsic value: “Things and people are not only regarded by us as valuable; they are valuable even if no one appreciates them. The most striking example is the value we attribute to the personality of others, such as morality, dignity, or strength.” [43]43 Georg Simmel, *The Philosophy of Money*, trans. Tom Bottomore and David Frisby (London: Routledge, 1978), p. 60. Intrinsic value associated with virtue is an inherent attribute of things or people. Renaissance Englishmen rediscovered classical economic thought, typically using “worth” to denote intrinsic, natural, objective value, generally referring to use value imbued with moral connotation; and “value” to denote relative, conventional, subjective value, generally referring to exchange value. [44]44 See R. A. Yoder, “*Troilus and Cressida*: The Nature of Value,” p. 263. The word “worth” originates from the Anglo-Saxon period, used to describe personal intrinsic virtue or noble quality, and only acquired the meaning of price after the stabilization of material currency. [45]45 See Terence Hawkes, *Shakespeare and the Reason: A Study of the Tragedies and the Problem Plays* (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 93. In *Troilus and Cressida*, the Trojan Hector, in debating Helen’s value, judges her from the perspective of intrinsic value, arguing that Helen must “have a several worthiness” (II. ii. 55-56) to “be valued ‘gainst the worth of our retention” (II. ii. 51). Just as early modern bullionists regarded the intrinsic precious-metal content as the criterion for judging currency value, Hector emphasizes the intrinsic value derived from Helen’s personal virtue and makes it the decisive factor in judging whether to continue the war. Contemporary critic Hawkes emphasizes that “worth” is used only to represent the qualities of the aristocratic class; Shakespeare’s nobles define themselves through intrinsic value that resists quantitative evaluation. [46]46 See Terence Hawkes, *Shakespeare and the Reason*, p. 94. Ulysses advises “to be like a merchant” (I. iii. 358), quantifying Achilles’ value from a commercial perspective and designing a scheme to wound Achilles’ pride. In contrast, the hero Achilles still insists on self-evaluation from the perspective of traditional intrinsic value: “I think they have rated my defects too high, / And my virtues too low” (III. iii. 90-92).

在剧中，人物内在价值来自基于美德和社会等级的贵族价值传统。在《货币的哲学》中，现代社会学家齐美尔强调事物具有内在价值，“事物和人不仅被我们视为有价值的，即使没有人欣赏也仍然是有价值的。最显著的例子是我们赋予别人人格的价值，如道德、尊严或坚强。” 43 与美德相关联的内在价值是事物或人的固有属性。文艺复兴时期英国人重新发现古典时期的经济思想，通常以“worth”表示内在的、自然的、客观的价值，一般指具有美德内涵的使用价值；以“value”表示相对的、惯例的、主观的价值，一般指交换价值。 44 “worth”（价值）一词源自盎格鲁-撒克逊时期，用来描述个人内在美德或高贵品质，在物质货币稳定之后才有了表示价格的含义。 45 《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中，特洛伊人赫克托尔在辩论海伦价值时，站在内在价值角度对海伦进行价值判定，认为海伦“自身/要有可贵之处”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 55-56），才“值得我们付出这么大代价留住不放”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 51）。正如早期现代重金主义者将内在贵金属含量视为货币价值的判断标准，赫克托尔强调了源于海伦个人美德的内在价值，并将其作为判断是否继续作战的决定性因素。当代批评家霍克斯强调，“worth”（价值）只用于代表贵族阶级的品质，莎士比亚笔下的贵族通过远离量化评价的内在价值来定义自己。 46 尤利西斯建议“做事应像商人”（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 358），从商业的角度量化阿喀琉斯的价值，设计挫伤阿喀琉斯的骄傲。与此对照，英雄阿喀琉斯仍坚持从传统内在价值的角度进行自我评价，“我想，他们一定是发现了/我的什么短处，对我才不像以前那么/敬重”（Ⅲ. ⅲ. 90-92）。

The female characters Helen and Cressida in the play resemble currency, exhibiting characteristics of fluidity and instability. In the early modern period, money and currency were often depicted as a positive yet potentially damaging factor in society, possessing fluidity and instability, similar to the qualities generally attributed to women during this era. Both women and currency were imagined as objects passively circulated among men. [47]47 This sentence summarizes a common early modern trope: women and money are both seen as passive objects of exchange between men. In *Troilus and Cressida*, “To fetch the ravish’d Helen back to Troy, / He brings a Grecian queen” (II. ii. 77-78), so Helen flows from Greece into the hands of the Trojans; “For the deliver’d Antenor, / The fair Cressida” (IV. i. 40-41), so Cressida is forced to place herself among the Greeks. Seventeenth-century commercial pamphlets also frequently used female chastity to describe the financial ideal of correspondence between the internal and external value of currency. For instance, in *Saint George for England, Allegorically Described*, the mercantilist Malynes depicts an Edenic kingdom troubled by a dangerous “international usury” dragon, and the king’s virgin daughter, symbolizing national wealth, is also threatened by this dragon of international usury. Malynes intends to use the dragon to refer to and warn against the various dangers of international usury, and also uses the endangered virgin to metaphorize the national economy harmed by international usury (including foreign forces manipulating foreign exchange rates)—by manipulating currency value, international usury undermines the social hierarchy and the sovereignty of the Kingdom of England; therefore, the stability and harmony of the economic society are closely linked to the purity of the national currency. [48]48 Gerard de Malynes (fl. 1586–1641) was an English merchant and mercantilist writer who argued for state control of foreign exchange to prevent usury and protect national wealth. From this perspective, when Troilus witnesses Cressida’s intimacy with the Greeks and exclaims, “This is, and is not, Cressid” (V. ii. 146), this lament also acquires a new metaphorical connotation of currency: Cressida, who loses her chastity through intimate acts, can be analogized to Malynes’s virgin unable to resist the dragon’s attack; the gradual detachment of chastity from Helen’s body symbolizes the eventual inability of the external nominal value of full-bodied currency to resist the development of national commercial trade and its increasing separation from intrinsic material value. Therefore, Helen and Cressida in this play, like currency, possess fluidity and instability.

剧中女性角色海伦和克瑞西达与货币类似，表现出流动与不稳定之特性。早期现代的金钱货币通常被描绘成社会中一个积极的、潜在的损害性因素，具有流动性与不稳定性，与这一时期人们普遍认为的女性气质相似。女性和货币都被想象为一个在男人之间被动传递的对象。 47 《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中，“为了报复希腊人掠走我们的老姑母，/他带回来一位希腊王后”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 77-78），于是海伦从希腊流转到了特洛伊人手中；“为了交换未获释的安忒诺尔，/把美丽的克瑞西达交给他”（Ⅳ. ⅰ. 40-41），于是克瑞西达被迫置身于希腊人之中。17世纪的商业小册子也经常引用女性的贞操来描述货币内外价值相符的金融理想。譬如，在《英格兰的圣乔治，寓言式描述》（Saint George for England， Allegorically Described）中，重商主义者马林斯描绘了一个伊甸园王国，王国受到危险的“国际高利贷”恶龙的困扰，国王的象征国家财富的童贞之女也遭到该国际高利贷恶龙的威胁。马林斯意在以恶龙指代并警告国际高利贷的多种危险，也以面临危机的童真之女隐喻受国际高利贷（包括外国势力操纵外汇汇率的行为）侵害的国家经济——通过操纵货币价值，国际高利贷破坏了社会等级制度以及英格兰王国主权，因此，经济社会的稳定和谐与国家货币的纯洁性息息相关。 48 从这个角度出发，当特洛伊罗斯目睹克瑞西达与希腊人的亲密行为，发出“这既是克瑞西达，又不是克瑞西达”（Ⅴ. ⅱ. 146）之感叹也有了新的货币隐喻内涵：因亲密行为而失去贞操的克瑞西达可类比马林斯笔下无法抵抗恶龙攻击的童真之女，贞操逐渐脱离海伦身体则象征足值货币的外在名义价值最终无法抵御国家商业贸易的发展而越来越与内在物质价值分离一事。因此，该剧的海伦和克瑞西达正如货币，具有流动性和不稳定性。

Similar to currency, Helen in the play serves as a measure of value and an object of value assessment, with her external value gradually becoming apparent. In Shakespeare’s time, mercantilists such as Malynes and Misselden reaffirmed the moral role of currency, viewing it as a rule and standard, and arguing that the valuation of things must rely on currency. [49]49 Edward Misselden (fl. 1608–1654) was an English merchant and mercantilist economist who debated currency and trade policy with Malynes. As Shakespeare critic Jonathan Harris points out, Helen in the play is a yardstick for the value of male characters, measuring their achievements in war and love. [50]50 Jonathan Gil Harris is a contemporary Shakespeare scholar who has written on early modern economic and political themes in the plays. Helen is abducted by the Trojan royal family from the Greek royal family, “branded by two men and two nations,” [51]51 This is a quotation from a critic, likely Harris, describing Helen as a figure marked by her circulation between men and nations. and the war fought to keep Helen even becomes, in Troilus’s eyes, an act of “striving for honour” (II. ii. 47). Helen circulates between the Greek and Trojan royal families, and her value judgment is linked to kings and nations. Because Helen gains high value through the recognition of the royal government, similar to how early modern gold and silver coins were guaranteed in value by bearing the state’s stamp and the monarch’s portrait, Helen’s external value corresponds to and becomes manifest in the external value of currency. Hector believes, “We have lost so many lives, / Each one as dear as Helen” (II. ii. 19-20), equating Helen’s value with that of every ordinary soldier. He argues that value originates from within things, but uses Helen’s value as a reference to define the value of each ordinary soldier’s life, thereby to some extent demonstrating Helen’s function as a measure of value. Conversely, the Trojans expend manpower and resources to fight the Greeks over Helen, highlighting the shaping power of Helen’s value; from the perspective of external value, this is an affirmation of Helen’s immense value. Critic Harris regards Helen as a public standard of value, just like Malynes’s currency, which undergoes re-evaluation in the process of external exchange. [52]52 This refers to the idea that currency’s value is not fixed but is reassessed through exchange, just as Helen’s value is publicly determined. Helen, as a price standard, has her value conferred by the public and establishes a new representational relationship with wealth. In the play, Helen is like the currency in the eyes of the contemporary merchant Nicholas Barbon: “It is the instrument by which people assess the value of all other things; people consider more the stamp and circulation of the coin than the intrinsic amount of gold and silver.” [53]53 Nicholas Barbon (c. 1640–1698) was an English economist and builder who argued that the stamp and circulation of money, not its metal content, determined its value.

类似货币，剧中海伦充当价值尺度与价值衡量对象，其外在价值逐渐显露出来。莎士比亚时期，马林斯、米赛尔登等重商主义者重申货币的道德作用，将货币视为规则和尺度，认为事物的价值估计需要依托货币进行。 49 正如莎士比亚评论家乔纳森·哈里斯指出的那样，剧中海伦是男性角色的价值标尺，衡量他们在战争和爱情中的功绩。 50 海伦被特洛伊王室从希腊王室掠走，“被两个男人以及两个国家打上了烙印” 51 ，为留下海伦而打响的战争甚至成了特洛伊罗斯眼中的“争夺荣誉”的行为（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 47）。海伦流转于希腊王室与特洛伊王室之间，其价值判断与国王、国家挂钩。海伦因获得王室政府的价值认可而具有较高价值，类似早期现代金银铸币因印有国家印章、君王肖像而受到价值的权威保证，海伦的外在价值与货币的外在价值相呼应并得以显现。赫克托尔认为“我们已经牺牲了成千上万的生命/每一个生命都和海伦一样宝贵”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 19-20），将海伦的价值等同于每一个普通士兵。他主张价值来源于事物内部，但又以海伦的价值为参照，定义每一个普通士兵生命的价值，在一定程度上展现出海伦的价值尺度功能。与之相反，特洛伊人为了海伦耗费人力财力与希腊对战，彰显海伦价值的塑造性，基于外在价值视角来看是对海伦巨大价值的认定。评论家哈里斯将海伦视为公共价值标准，就像马林斯笔下的货币，在对外交换的过程中也接受重新评估。 52 海伦作为价格衡量标准，她的价值由公众赋予，并与财富之间建立了新的表征关系。剧中海伦与当时商人尼古拉斯·巴本（Nicholas Barbon）眼中的货币一样，“正是人们用来评估其他一切事物价值的工具，人们考虑更多的是货币印记和流通，而不是内在金银数量”。 53

The characters in the play undergo commodification, and value exhibits market-oriented characteristics. The degree of commodification in early modern English society is fully expressed in the contemporary English merchant John Wheeler’s *A Treatise of Commerce* (1601): “The whole world is chasing markets and commerce; everything enters the market and is traded in some way at any time and place. Not only things brought by nature, such as the fruits of the earth, beasts, metals and minerals, but also things made by human hands are bought and sold; some buy and sell the labor of others, some buy and sell language, and some even buy and sell the skin and flesh of others.” [54]54 John Wheeler (c. 1559–1617) was an English merchant and secretary of the Merchant Adventurers’ Company; his *Treatise of Commerce* defended the company’s monopoly and described the pervasive commodification of society. Shakespeare’s play *Coriolanus* reveals the conflict and opposition between traditional moral economy and the emerging market economy, where not only personal noble qualities and actions, but even scars, “serve as commodities, exchanged for ‘voices’ or other symbols of public authority and credit.” [55]55 This is a reference to the play *Coriolanus* (c. 1605–1608), where the protagonist’s military scars are used to solicit votes in a political election, illustrating the commodification of personal attributes. Critic Douglas Bruster, studying the material culture of 16th- and 17th-century English society, finds that women of this period are also often depicted as commodities fallen into the patriarchal market, with marriage seen as a transaction of the middle class. [56]56 Douglas Bruster is a contemporary scholar of early modern English literature and culture, known for his work on material culture and commodification. In *Troilus and Cressida*, when Troilus defends Helen’s value, he compares taking Helen from the Greeks to obtaining silk from a silk merchant, insisting, “Since we have soil’d the silk, / We will not return it to the silk merchant” (II. ii. 69-70). Helen is regarded by Troilus as silk circulating on the international market, which is precisely the result of the commodification of women in the process of market economy development. Furthermore, Troilus’s refusal to return Helen based on market transaction principles embodies the market-oriented characteristics of Helen’s value as a commodity, thus imbuing her circulation between the geographical spheres of Troy and Greece with a strong commercial coloring. Scholar Kathryn Gillem, starting from the commodification of female chastity, argues that chastity represents a woman’s personal value, just as honor and courage represent male virtues. The ease with which chastity can be commodified within the patriarchal gender system brings the possibility that men and male virtues may also be commodified. [57]57 Kathryn Gillem is a contemporary literary critic who has written on gender and commodification in early modern drama. In the play, Ulysses, facing Hector’s challenge, opposes letting Achilles fight, arguing that the Greeks “should do as merchants do, / First put forth the worst ware, to see if it will sell” (I. iii. 358-359). Whether it is the god of war Achilles or the “recommended” Ajax, both become commodities of unequal value on the warrior market. And after undergoing commodification, even a god of war has his personal value defined through commercial language.

剧中人物经历商品化，价值呈现市场化特征。早期现代英国社会的商品化程度在这一时期英国商人约翰·惠勒（John Wheeler）的《商业论》（A Treatise of Commerce， 1601）中得到充分表达，“全世界都在追逐市场和商业，所有的东西都进入市场，并在任意的时间和地点以某种方式进行交易。不仅是自然界带来的东西，如大地的果实、野兽、金属矿物，还有人用自己手工制作的东西做买卖，有人买卖别人的劳动力，有人买卖语言，更有人用别人的皮和血肉做买卖”。 54 莎剧《科利奥兰纳斯》展现了传统道德经济和新兴市场经济之间的对立冲突，不仅是个人的高贵品质（nobility）和行为，甚至伤疤都“作为商品，用来交换‘声音’或其他象征公共权利和信誉的东西。” 55 评论家道格拉斯·布鲁斯特研究16、17世纪英国社会的物质文化，发现这一时期的女性也经常被描绘为沦落于父权市场上的商品，婚姻则被看作是中产阶级的交易。 56 《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中，当特洛伊罗斯在为海伦的价值辩护时，将从希腊人手里夺取海伦比作从丝绸商处获得绸缎，坚持“我们既已经把绸缎弄脏，/就不会退还给丝绸商”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 69-70）。海伦被特洛伊罗斯视为国际市场上流转的绸缎，这恰是市场经济发展过程中女性被商品化的结果。此外，特洛伊罗斯以市场交易原则拒绝归还海伦，体现了作为商品的海伦之价值呈现市场化特征，她在特洛伊和希腊两个地理范围间的流动由此被赋予了浓重的商业色彩。学者凯瑟琳·吉伦从女性贞操的商品化出发，认为贞操代表女性个人价值，正如荣誉、勇气代表男性美德。贞操在父权制的性别体系中容易被商品化带来了一种可能性，那就是男性和男性美德也可能被商品化。 57 在剧中，尤利西斯面对赫克托尔的宣战，反对让阿喀琉斯迎战，认为希腊人“做事应该像商人，先拿最次货色/看能否脱手”（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 358-359）。不论是战神阿喀琉斯还是被“举荐”的埃阿斯都成了战士市场上价值不等的商品。而经历了商品化后的人，哪怕是战神，个人价值也通过商业语言进行定义。

Just as Helen’s uniqueness leads the Trojans to recognize her extraordinarily high value, the scarcity of a commodity is an important source for judging its value. The 13th-century Franciscan (one of the Catholic mendicant orders) theologian Pierre Jean Olivi held that scarcity is one reason why one commodity is valued higher than another: “because of scarcity or increased difficulty of acquisition, things become more important to us; the more they are lacking, the greater our need to possess and use them, and the smaller the possibility of doing so.” Therefore, “the same grain is valued more highly in times of scarcity, famine, or poverty than in times of general abundance.”[58]58 Pierre Jean Olivi, *Treatise on Contracts*, trans. Ryan Thornton and Jonathan Robinson (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2016), p. 58. Based on the concept of scarcity, Olivi attempted to explain the “paradox of value.”[59]59 The “paradox of value” refers to the apparent contradiction that water, though essential to life, has low exchange value, while diamonds, which are non-essential, have high exchange value. Although utility affects the value of a commodity, and the intrinsic quality of a high-value commodity better satisfies needs, scarcity plays a more important role. “The four elements—water, fire, earth, and air—although more necessary and more useful for our lives, are valued lower than gold or balm because they are more abundant (in their reserves on earth).”[60]60 Olivi, *Treatise on Contracts*, p. 59. Olivi’s view gave rise to a theoretical tradition in which commodity value is jointly determined by scarcity, utility, and difficulty of acquisition, becoming one of the cornerstones of early modern Western economics.[61]61 Odd Langholm, *The Legacy of Scholasticism in Economic Thought: Antecedents of Choice and Power* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 79. *Troilus and Cressida* presents value judgments based on Helen’s “scarcity.” Unlike Hector, who takes intrinsic virtue as the basis for measuring Helen’s value, Troilus recognizes Helen’s unique and excellent personal characteristics, rebukes Hector and others who diminish Helen’s value, and argues that they should continue to praise Helen as “a thing of price, / That every man of Troy’s particular worth / Is valued at” (II. ii. 92-93). As Olivi’s “paradox of value” reveals, Helen, like a commodity, is regarded as a priceless “treasure” because of her uniqueness and scarcity, thereby possessing supremely high value. Moreover, for the Trojans, Helen is even “a pearl, / Whose price hath launch’d above a thousand ships, / And turn’d crown’d kings to merchants” (II. ii. 81-83), and therefore “touches us both in honour and in fame” (II. ii. 199). This further depicts Helen’s value: she is regarded by the Trojans as a rare treasure like a pearl, a commodity eagerly sought after in the market. But more importantly, she is a symbol of national honor, prompting the Trojans to persist in fighting. Thus, Troilus’s recognition of Helen’s high value embodies the market logic of determining value by scarcity.

正如海伦的独特性使特洛伊人认可海伦的超高价值，商品的稀缺程度是判断其价值的重要来源。13世纪方济各会（天主教托钵修会之一）的神学家奥利维（Pierre Jean Olivi）认为稀缺性是一个商品比另一个商品价值高的原因之一，“由于稀缺性或获取难度增加，事物对我们来说变得更加重要，随着它们的匮乏，我们拥有和使用它们的需求越大，而实现的可能性越小”，因此“同样的谷物在匮乏、饥荒或贫穷的时候比在普遍丰收的时候价值更高”。 58 基于稀缺性观点，奥利维尝试解释“价值悖论”。 59 尽管效用影响商品的价值，高价值商品的内在品质能更好地满足需求，但稀缺性起着更重要的作用。“水、火、土地、空气四种元素，虽然对我们的生活更有必要、更有效用，但因为它们（在地球上的储存量）比黄金、香膏更丰富，所以价值更低。” 60 奥利维的观点催生了商品价值由稀缺性、效用以及获取难度等共同决定的理论传统，成为早期现代西方经济学的基石之一。 61 《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》展现了基于海伦的“稀缺性”而做出的价值评判。不同于赫克托尔将内在美德作为衡量海伦价值的依据，特洛伊罗斯认识到了海伦独一无二的、美好的个人特性，斥责赫克托尔等弱化海伦价值的人，认为他们应该继续将海伦赞誉为“比海洋和陆地更丰饶的宝物”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 92-93）。正如奥利维的“价值悖论”所揭示的那样，海伦同商品一般，因其独特性和稀缺性而被视为价值连城的“宝物”，从而拥有超高价值。此外，对特洛伊人而言，海伦更“是一颗珍珠，/价值引动千船竞渡，/让无数国王成了探宝的商贩”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 81-83），因此“事关荣誉和声望”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 199）。此处进一步描绘了海伦的价值，她像珍珠般被特洛伊人视为稀世珍宝，乃是市场上受人争相追捧的商品。但更为重要的是，她是国家荣誉的象征，促使特洛伊人坚持战斗。所以，特洛伊罗斯对海伦高价值的认可体现了以稀缺性决定价值的市场逻辑。

The value of Helen and Cressida also derives from the subjective emotional judgments of the characters in the play. The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus first proposed the idea of subjective value, holding that moral value or ethics is absolute, while economic value is necessarily subjective: “the same thing may be good for all people, but the degree of pleasure varies from person to person.”[62]62 Democritus, *Fragments*, trans. Kathleen Freeman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), p. 112. Olivi reaffirmed the factor of need, which had been emphasized since Aristotle, believing that differences in individual subjective needs and tastes cause disparities in commodity valuation, and that individual subjective judgment and commodity scarcity together act on commodity value assessment.[63]63 Odd Langholm, *Economics in the Medieval Schools: Wealth, Exchange, Value, Money and Usury according to the Paris Theological Tradition, 1200-1350* (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p. 345. During the Renaissance, with the rapid development of the English market economy, the reputation of individuals or things gradually entered the monetary sphere, presenting a disturbing fictionality. In this new social dynamic, the value of a person or the value of a coin might be created solely by collective belief in that value, as if the value attributes of a person or currency could be changed merely through convincing subjective imagination.[64]64 Craig Muldrew, *The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England* (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), p. 148. By the latter half of the 17th century, the merchant Nicholas Barbon still regarded utility as a necessary component of value, again emphasizing the important role of subjective evaluation of commodity utility in assessing commodity value,[65]65 Nicholas Barbon, *A Discourse of Trade* (London: Tho. Milbourn, 1690), p. 13. both continuing the long-standing tradition of subjective value thought and laying the foundation for later scientific and systematic subjective value theory.[66]66 Andrea Finkelstein, *The Grammar of Profit: The Price Revolution in Intellectual Context* (Leiden: Brill, 2006), p. 187. In the historical period of Shakespeare’s creation, the subjective character of the source of commodity value was always prominent. Just as Helen sings, “Love, / Will bury us all” (III. i. 110), love, as a subjective preference, is an important criterion for value judgment among the characters in the play. Under the influence of love, Paris believes that “for Helen, / The noblest men / Would willingly die” (II. ii. 158-160), and “the vastness of the world cannot compare with her beauty” (II. ii. 162). Similarly, through the lens of love, when escorting Cressida from Troy to the Greek camp, Troilus rebukes the Greek general Diomedes for his rudeness, believing that Cressida “far exceeds his praise, / He is not even worthy to be her servant” (IV. iv. 124-125). Yet in the Greek camp, Cressida appears in the eyes of the Greek Ulysses as “one who lets herself be easily obtained, / A whore for casual pleasure” (IV. v. 61-62), and Helen is also belittled and disparaged in the mouth of Diomedes. The value of the two main female characters is assessed by others in the market; their value is unstable, being the result of evaluation under the influence of subjective emotions.

海伦和克瑞西达的价值也来源于剧中人物的主观情感判断。古希腊哲学家德谟克利特（Democritus）最早提出主观价值思想，认为道德价值或者道德伦理是绝对的，而经济价值必然是主观的，“同样的东西可能对所有的人来说都是善的，但愉悦程度却因人而异”。 62 奥利维重申自亚里士多德开始便备受重视的需求因素，相信个人的主观需求和品位差别会造成商品估值差距，个人的主观判断和商品稀缺程度一同作用于商品价值评估。 63 文艺复兴时期英国市场经济快速发展，个人或事物的声誉逐渐进入金钱领域，呈现出一种令人不安的虚构性。在这种新的社会动态中，一个人的价值或一枚硬币的价值可能仅仅是由对这种价值的集体信仰来创造的，似乎仅仅通过令人信服的主观想象便可改变人或货币的价值属性。 64 到了17世纪后半叶，商人尼古拉斯·巴本依然将效用视为价值的必要组成部分，再次强调对商品效用的主观评价在评估商品价值时的重要作用 65 ，既延续了一直以来的主观价值思想，又为后来科学系统的主观价值理论奠定基础。 66 在莎士比亚创作的历史时期，商品价值来源的主观性特点始终凸显。正如海伦所唱，“爱情，/会把我们都埋葬”（Ⅲ. ⅰ. 110），爱情作为一种主观偏好，是剧中人物价值判断的重要标准。在爱情的作用下，帕里斯认为“只要是因为海伦，/最高贵的人也/愿意死不惜命”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 158-160），“世界之辽阔亦无法与她的美相媲”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 162）。同样透过爱情的视角，在护送克瑞西达离开特洛伊前往希腊时，特洛伊罗斯呵斥希腊将军狄俄墨得斯的无礼，认为克瑞西达“远远超过了他的赞美，/他连做她的仆人都不配”（Ⅳ. ⅳ. 124-125）。而在希腊营地，克瑞西达在希腊人尤利西斯眼中却“任由自己唾手可得，/成为随意取乐的贱货”（Ⅳ. ⅴ. 61-62），海伦也在狄俄墨得斯口中被轻贱贬损。两名主要女性角色的价值在市场上经由他人评估，人物价值并不稳定，都是在主观情感作用下的评估结果。

Helen’s value oscillates between intrinsic value and extrinsic value, showing a turn toward market value. In *Troilus and Cressida*, the main female characters undergo commodification in the patriarchal market, which to a certain extent resembles currency becoming a commodity on the foreign exchange market. The development of the early modern market economy caused currency outside the play to face a conflict of value, oscillating between intrinsic precious metal value and market-manipulated value. Economists of the 16th and 17th centuries recognized the opposition between true, material intrinsic value and false, subjective extrinsic value; discussions of the market economy often revolved around the value of currency,[67]67 Joyce Oldham Appleby, *Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 199. and even the monetary value thought of the same person was not fixed. The economist William Petty initially believed that the true value of currency should correspond to its intrinsic value, rather than being a variable value determined by the fantasies, opinions, and errors of particular individuals.[68]68 William Petty, *The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty*, ed. Charles Henry Hull (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), vol. 1, p. 44. By the end of the 17th century, Petty had already accepted the commodity character of currency, holding that currency, like other commodities, fluctuates in value with market supply and demand, acknowledging its financial value as a purely artificial product of imagination.[69]69 William Petty, *Political Arithmetick* (London: Robert Clavel, 1690), p. 68. Within the play, Helen’s value also oscillates between the intrinsic value “as precious as every sacrificed soldier” and the extrinsic (subjective) value “touching honour and fame.” As critic Engel remarks, the play embodies a faithful adherence to market forces; all characters in the play are part of an unstable market.[70]70 William E. Engel, “The Market of Value in *Troilus and Cressida*,” *Shakespeare Studies* 22 (1994): 145. The characters in the play are reduced to the market; commodification and market language are indispensable; intrinsic value seems no longer important, and people gradually accept “an ethics based on subjective evaluation established on the market rather than on fixed principles.”[71]71 Lars Engle, *Shakespearean Pragmatism: Market of His Time* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 147. The Trojans ultimately make value judgments from the perspective of the market economy, choosing to believe in Helen’s high market value and persisting in fighting the Greeks, yet this confirms Cassandra’s prophecy of the fall of the Trojan royal house; the city of Troy is destroyed, and extrinsic (market) value becomes suspect.

海伦的价值摇摆于内在价值与外在价值之间并呈现市场价值转向。《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中，主要女性角色在父权市场上经历商品化，与在外汇市场上成为商品的货币在一定程度上具有相似性。早期现代市场经济的发展使戏剧外的货币面临价值冲突，在内在贵金属价值与市场操纵价值之间摇摆不定。16、17世纪的经济学家认识到，真正的、物质的内在价值与虚假的、主观的外在价值之间互为对立，有关市场经济的讨论往往围绕货币价值展开 67 ，即使是同一个人的货币价值思想也不是固定不变的。经济学家威廉·佩蒂（William Petty）起初认为，货币的真正价值应该与它的内在价值相当，而不是由特定人的幻想、意见和错误确定的可变价值。 68 到了17世纪末，佩蒂就已接受货币的商品特点，认为货币与其他商品一样，价值随市场供求关系波动，承认其金融价值是一种纯粹的人为的想象产物。 69 戏剧内，海伦的价值也处在“和每个牺牲士兵一样宝贵的”的内在价值与“事关荣誉和声望”的外在（主观）价值之间波动。正如评论家恩格尔所言，该剧体现了对市场力量的忠实拥护，剧中所有角色都是不稳定的市场上的一部分。 70 剧中人物沦落于市场，商品化和市场语言不可缺少，内在价值似乎不再重要，人们逐渐接受“建立在市场基础上的主观评价而非固定原则之上的伦理”。 71 特洛伊人最终从市场经济出发作出价值判断，选择相信海伦高额的市场价值，坚持与希腊作战，却证实了特洛伊王室的卡珊德拉的亡国预言，特洛伊城遭到覆灭，外在（市场）价值变得令人怀疑起来。

III. Anxiety over Extrinsic Value of Commodities (Characters) in Shakespeare’s Era

三 莎士比亚时代商品（人物）的外在价值焦虑

Merchants represent market forces; through the attitudes of Shakespeare’s contemporaries toward merchants, we can perceive their anxiety about the influence of market forces on social order. The English of the 16th and 17th centuries believed that all things in the universe were governed by a hierarchical order, each following its own rank and performing its own duties; every subject of the state, regardless of status, noble or humble, occupied a divinely appointed position in a strictly stratified society and enjoyed traditional rights and obligations corresponding to that position. [72]72 William Harrison (1535–1593), English clergyman and historian, author of *The Description of England* (1577), a detailed account of Elizabethan society. The Elizabethan clergyman William Harrison, in describing the state of English society, distinguished social groups on the basis of rank; while detailing each stratum, he recognized the importance of wealth in establishing and maintaining social status. Unlike the rigid order of the Middle Ages, he frankly acknowledged and accepted the existence of social mobility. [73]73 Ibid. During this period, merchants participating in the market economy, though ranked below the nobility, could rapidly acquire wealth through trade and obtain honorable titles through commercial transactions; “the social hierarchy maintained an unstable balance between a rigid, fixed system of ranks and absolute social mobility.” [74]74 Source not specified in the original; the quotation is from an unnamed secondary work. Merchants sometimes also entered the political sphere; successful merchants could even sit on municipal magistrates’ benches or in mayors’ offices, enjoying a measure of administrative power. [75]75 Source not specified in the original. Whether nobles engaged in mercantile behavior or merchants participated in political discussion, the method of value judgment through the lens of the market became increasingly common in the new social order. However, the clergyman Thomas Starkey argued that individuals should not live for their own pleasure and benefit to the neglect of the commonwealth; the theologian Richard Hooker also warned against individuals who valued private interests meddling in state policy or religious policy, emphasizing that the individual, as a part of the political body, should focus on his own sphere of experience. [76]76 Thomas Starkey (c. 1495–1538), English political theorist and clergyman; Richard Hooker (1554–1600), English Anglican theologian, author of *Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity*. They believed that early modern merchants, dependent on overseas trade for their livelihood, were prone to pursuing personal gain or lacking other capacities, thereby disregarding the public interest of the state — reflecting anxiety about the reality of the traditional social order being disrupted.

商人代表市场力量，通过莎士比亚同时代人对商人的态度，透视他们对市场力量影响社会秩序的忧虑。16、17世纪的英国人认同宇宙万物均由一个有等级的秩序支配，并各遵其序、各司其职，国家的每一个臣民，不论地位尊贵或卑微，都在等级森严的社会中占有神授的地位，并享有与其地位相对应的传统权利和义务。 72 伊丽莎白时期的神职人员威廉·哈里森（William Harrison）在描述英国社会现状时，基于等级区分社会群体，在对各个阶层进行细化描述时，认识到了财富对建立和维护社会地位的重要性，与秩序僵化的中世纪不同的是，他坦率地承认并接受社会流动性的存在。 73 这一时期，参与市场经济的商人虽然排在贵族等级之下，但能通过贸易途径迅速获取财富，利用商业买卖行为获得荣耀的爵位，“社会等级体系在刚性的固定不变的等级制度和绝对的社会流动局面间，维持着不稳定的平衡。” 74 商人有时也进入政治领域，成功的商人甚至可以进入市政法官或市长办公室，享有一定的行政权力 75 ，不论是贵族具有商人行为，还是商人参与政治讨论，用市场的眼光进行价值判断的方式在新的社会秩序中越来越普遍。然而，牧师托马斯·斯塔克（Thomas Starkey）主张个人不应该为了自己的快乐和利益而活，而不顾国家福祉；神学家理查德·胡克（Richard Hooker）也对重视私利的个人涉足国家政策或宗教政策的行为进行警告，强调个人作为政治身体中的一部分，应专注自己的经验领域。 76 他们认为早期现代的商人依赖海外贸易生存，容易因追求个人利益或欠缺其他能力而不顾国家公共利益，体现出对传统社会秩序被破坏之社会现实的担忧。

In the play, market principles permeate interpersonal value judgments; market value gradually replaces the value of intrinsic virtue, thereby destabilizing the traditional social order. In the Greek camp, Ulysses explains to Agamemnon why they have failed to capture Troy, discoursing on order:

剧中市场规则渗透人际价值判断，市场价值逐渐取代内在美德价值，传统社会秩序因此动荡。在希腊军营，尤利西斯向阿伽门农解释未能成功攻下特洛伊的原因，就秩序叙述道：

The strict military discipline is neglected; / See how many Greek tents are pitched, / So many factions of hypocrisy stand.

森严的军纪被忽视；/看看有多少希腊营帐竖起，/就有多少虚伪的派系林立。

If degrees are not distinguished, / Even the meanest man flaunts himself wantonly.

倘若等级不分，/最低微的人也一样肆意炫耀。

Order is the ladder to all great enterprises; / If order is shaken, / The enterprise is sure to suffer! (I. iii. 78-80, 83-84, 101-103)

秩序乃一切宏图伟业之阶梯，/秩序动摇，/事业必遭殃！（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 78-80， 83-84， 101-103）

The crisis of order is dramatized in the play, and the disorder is inseparable from the widespread application of market principles. The Greeks, because of the scarcity and preciousness of the hero Achilles, assign him an extremely high market status; on the war market, “Great Achilles, whose reputation is supreme, / Is our main reliance and backbone, / But because his ears are filled with praise, / He has unconsciously become arrogant” (I. iii. 142-145). Placing Achilles in a position of excessively high market value shakes the order of the Greek camp to a certain extent; “Many imitate him and are infected” (I. iii. 185). This disorder affects the progress of the war against Troy. Heroes who are morally recognized as noble or as performing noble deeds now, under market conditions, fall into a contradictory morality that conflicts with the concept of honor; the concepts of nobility and honor are entirely based on economic value in the market. [77]77 Source not specified in the original. And when Hector issues a challenge to the Greeks, Ulysses, out of consideration for the overall interests of Greece, chooses to actively apply market rules to deal with the market forces that have caused the crisis of order; he submits to the market, inflates Ajax’s market value, and prioritizes sending Ajax into battle, arguing that “one should act like a merchant, / First offer the worst goods, / See if they can be sold; if not, / Then bring the better goods to market” (I. iii. 358-361). Faced with Ulysses’ mercantile behavior, the Greek hero Achilles questions his own honor and personal value, reflecting that as market forces penetrate interpersonal value judgments, the traditional understanding of intrinsic value is gradually broken, and aristocratic supremacy is further shaken. [78]78 Source not specified in the original. This reveals the playwright’s anxiety about the influence of market value on social order.

秩序危机在剧中得到戏剧化处理，而秩序的紊乱与市场规则的广泛运用脱不开干系。希腊人因英雄阿喀琉斯的稀缺和珍贵而赋予其极高的市场地位，在战争市场上，“伟大的阿喀琉斯声名绝冠，/是我们的主要依赖和骨干，/只因耳朵里灌满了赞誉，/不觉变得飘飘然”（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 142-145），将阿喀琉斯置于市场价值过高的地位在一定程度上动摇了希腊军营秩序，“很多人模仿他，受到感染”（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 185），秩序动乱影响了与特洛伊的战争进展。在道德意义上公认为高贵或具有高尚行为的英雄人物，如今在市场条件下，却陷入与荣誉概念冲突的矛盾道德中，高尚和荣誉的概念完全以市场上的经济价值为基础。 77 而当赫克托尔向希腊发起挑战，尤利西斯出于对希腊整体利益的考虑，选择积极运用市场规则应对造成秩序危机的市场力量，服从于市场，哄抬埃阿斯的市场价值并优先推举埃阿斯出战，认为“做事应该像商人，/先拿最次货色，/看能否脱手，如不能，/再拿好货上市”（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 358-361）。面对尤利西斯的商人行为，希腊英雄阿喀琉斯质疑自己的荣誉与个人价值，反映出当市场力量渗透至人际价值评判，内在价值的传统理解逐渐被打破，贵族至上主义进一步动摇 78 ，彰显剧作家对市场价值影响社会秩序的焦虑。

In commodity exchange activities, people’s subjective value judgments of commodities exhibit a certain negotiability. In the early modern period, almost all buying and selling was conducted through negotiation to agree on price, payment method, and terms. [79]79 Source not specified in the original. Buyers and sellers proposing higher or lower prices for commodities not only expressed the pursuit of personal gain but were also described by early modern people as a bargaining process infinitely approaching a “just price.” [80]80 “Just price” (Latin *iustum pretium*) is a medieval and early modern economic concept, rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, holding that a commodity has a fair price determined by moral and social considerations, not merely by supply and demand. Samuel Pepys, the 17th-century English naval administrator, noted that except for nobles and persons of reputation, people even haggled over meat when going to a tavern. [81]81 Samuel Pepys (1633–1703), English naval administrator and diarist, famous for his detailed diary covering 1660–1669. Malynes, in his *Lex Mercatoria*, discussed the bargaining behavior over commodities; he argued that under conditions of good order and truth, buyers and sellers, based on mutual will, evaluate the value of commodities, displaying a certain equality and justice. [82]82 Gerard de Malynes (fl. 1586–1641), English merchant and writer on economics; *Lex Mercatoria* (1622) is a treatise on commercial law and mercantile practice. The subjective judgment of commodity value is built on a foundation of common valuation; the two parties to a transaction negotiate to determine the just price of the commodity, ensuring fair exchange. The play also depicts commodity bargaining in different markets. Cressida’s father, Calchas, abandons everything he has in Troy and sells his talent as a commodity to the Greeks; the Greeks, as buyers, also attempt to exchange Cressida for Greece by swapping important prisoners of war with the Trojans, as compensation to Calchas. “Therefore I am often grateful to you” (III. iii. 20). It can be seen that the seller Calchas and the buyer Greeks jointly evaluate the commodity value of Calchas and reach an agreement; Cressida being sent to Greece becomes the “just price” for the transaction between Calchas and the Greeks. In the prisoner-of-war market between the two cities, the Greeks try to exchange ordinary prisoners for Cressida, but are rejected by the Trojans each time. Reminded by Calchas, the Greeks recognize the importance of the new prisoner Antenor to Troy: “To ransom him, / The Trojans would almost give us a legitimate son of Priam” (III. iii. 26-27). Therefore, they use Antenor to exchange for Cressida. The Greeks and Trojans reach agreement on determining the value of Cressida and Antenor, completing a superficially harmonious exchange activity.

在商品交易活动中，人们对商品的主观价值判断展现出某种协商性。早期现代几乎所有的买卖都通过谈判进行，以商定价格、付款方式和日期。 79 买卖双方针对商品提出较高或较低的价格，不仅表现出对个人利益的追求，还被早期现代人描述为一种无限接近“公正价格”（just price）的议价（bargaining）过程。 80 17世纪中叶的英国海军大臣塞缪尔·佩皮斯（Samuel Pepys）表示，除了贵族和有名望的人，人们连去酒馆吃肉都要进行一番议价。 81 马林斯曾在《商业法》中探讨商品议价行为，他认为在良好秩序和真实情况下，买卖双方基于彼此意愿，对商品进行价值评估，展现出一定的平等和正义。 82 商品价值的主观判断建立在共同估价的基础上，交易双方协商确定商品的公正价格，保证公平的交易。该剧也描绘了不同市场上的商品议价。克瑞西达的父亲卡尔卡斯抛弃自己在特洛伊的一切，将自己的才能作为商品出卖给希腊人；希腊人作为买方，也曾试图通过与特洛伊人交换重要战俘的方式，将克瑞西达换至希腊，作为对卡尔卡斯的报偿。“因此我也时常感激你们”（Ⅲ. ⅲ. 20），可见卖方卡尔卡斯和买方希腊人对卡尔卡斯的商品价值进行共同评估并达成一致，克瑞西达被送至希腊成为卡尔卡斯和希腊人达成交易的“公正代价”。而在两城之间的战俘市场上，希腊人曾试图用一般战俘与克瑞西达进行交换，却都遭到特洛伊人拒绝。在卡尔卡斯的提醒下，希腊人认识到了新战俘安忒诺尔对特洛伊的重要性，“为了换回他，/特洛伊人甚至几乎愿意给我们一位普里阿摩的嫡出王子”（Ⅲ. ⅲ. 26-27），因此使用安忒诺尔交换克瑞西达。希腊人与特洛伊人在确定克瑞西达和安忒诺尔的价值上达成一致，完成了表面上和谐的交换活动。

Subjective value judgments under the influence of the market also reveal a certain deceptiveness. Dominated by market forces, Ulysses in the play “does business like a merchant,” using commercial language himself to mislead the value judgments of Ajax and Achilles, and people are also easily seduced and defrauded by other merchants. The Trojan Paris asks the Greek Diomedes, “Tell me, noble Diomedes, / Faithful and honest, which is the worthier, / Menelaus or myself?” (IV.i.55-56) [83]83 Shakespeare, *Troilus and Cressida*, IV.i.55-56. All subsequent citations from this play are given in parentheses by act, scene, and line numbers. Diomedes, seemingly to guide the Trojans into abandoning Helen, consistently denigrates Helen’s value, claiming her “body is defiled” (IV.i.58) and comparing her to “the dregs and draff of others’ cups” (IV.i.64). Paris immediately sees through Diomedes’ commercial calculation: “O, Diomedes, thou art a merchant, / And dost disparage what thou wouldst buy” (IV.i.77-78). The devaluation of Helen’s feminine value is deeply rooted in the dominant patriarchal culture and androcentrism of the early modern period. But from a market perspective, in the confrontation between Troy and the Greeks, material wealth seems to be concentrated in the commodity of Helen; both sides make value judgments about Helen for personal or national economic interests, and the apparent negotiation conceals deception. Commercial fraud was rampant in medieval England, recorded in parliamentary rolls, local court records, chronicles, sermon manuals, and various literary works. [83]83 Shakespeare, *Troilus and Cressida*, IV.i.55-56. All subsequent citations from this play are given in parentheses by act, scene, and line numbers. By the Renaissance, although legislation curbing commercial fraud had been widely practiced in England, and the general legitimacy of moderate wealth-seeking through commerce had fostered a new positive social attitude toward business, theologians still held that the pursuit of profit and commercial activity were dangerous to morality and religion. [84]84 Reference to medieval English commercial fraud records, as documented in parliamentary rolls, local court records, chronicles, sermon manuals, and literary works. By the Stuart period, James I still complained of merchants’ commercial tricks: “Merchants grow rich upon the losses of all others; they buy the worst goods and sell them at the highest price… their evil habits are constant, as if they were laws they must obey.” [85]85 James I’s complaint about merchants’ deceptive practices, cited from historical sources. Shakespeare, through the Greek Thersites, seems to pinpoint the play’s core: “Lechery, lechery! Still wars and lechery! Nothing else holds fashion” (II.iii.70-72).

市场作用下的主观价值判断还暴露出一定的欺骗性。在市场力量的主导下，剧中尤利西斯“做事像商人”，自身使用商业语言误导埃阿斯和阿喀琉斯的价值判断，人们也容易受到其他商人的诱骗与欺诈。特洛伊人帕里斯询问希腊人狄俄墨得斯，“我和墨涅拉俄斯，哪个和美丽的海伦更般配”（Ⅳ. ⅰ. 55），狄俄墨得斯似乎为了引导特洛伊人放弃海伦，一直贬损海伦的价值，认为她“身体被玷污”（Ⅳ. ⅰ. 58），将她比作“别人痛饮后剩余的酒糟残渣”（Ⅳ. ⅰ. 64）。帕里斯一眼识破狄俄墨得斯的商业算计，“好一个狄俄墨得斯，你行事像生意，/故意贬损你想买的东西”（Ⅳ. ⅰ. 77-78）。海伦的女性价值被贬低与早期现代占据主导地位的父权文化和男性中心论根源息息相关。但若从市场的角度看，在特洛伊与希腊人的交锋中，似乎物质财富凝聚于海伦这一商品中，两方都是为了个人或者各国经济利益对海伦做出的价值判断，表面的协商性背后蕴含着欺骗性。中世纪英国的商业欺诈行为猖獗，议会的名册、地方法院的记录、编年史、布道忏悔手册，以及各种类型的文学作品都记载了一系列商业欺诈行为。 83 到了文艺复兴时期，尽管英国遏制商业欺诈陋习的立法得到了广泛实践，通过商业适度追求财富的普遍合法性已经让社会对商业产生了积极的新态度，但神学家依然认为，追求利益和从事商业活动对道德和宗教都是危险的。 84 到了斯图亚特王朝，詹姆士一世仍会抱怨商人的商业骗术，“商人们在所有其他人的损失中富有起来，他们为我们购买最坏的商品，并以最高价出售……他们的邪恶习惯始终如一，仿佛已经成为他们恪守的法律。” 85 莎士比亚似乎借希腊人忒耳西忒斯之口，一针见血地指出该剧的核心，“这里到处是狡诈、虚伪/和欺骗！所有争执不过是为了一个乌龟/和一个婊子”（Ⅱ. ⅲ. 70-72）。

The value of commodities judged by market conditions gradually replaced the “just price.” In the play, because “the Greeks have stolen our old aunt” (II.ii.77), the Trojans need Helen, whose “beauty the whole world cannot match.” “By the law of nature and the law of nations” (II.iii.179-180), “to restore a wife to her husband is a matter of natural justice” (II.iii.175-176), and the Greeks likewise need Helen’s return. Helen undergoes commodification; the unique scarcity of the commodity in the market and the high demand for Helen determine her high market value, directly leading to seven years of continuous war between the two sides. In the Trojan royal council debating whether Helen’s value is worth continuing the war, Hector initially soberly recognizes that “she is not worth what we pay to keep her” (II.ii.51), but then suddenly shifts: “I consent to keep Helen, / For it concerns our honor and the honor of all” (II.ii.191-193). The Trojans accept Helen’s market value and choose to continue fighting, effectively exaggerating her value and plunging Troy into a costly war crisis. Aristotle held that justice is a state of mind enabling one to act rightly. He applied justice to exchange, laying the conceptual foundation for the “just price.” [86]86 Aristotle’s concept of justice applied to exchange, forming the basis of the “just price” theory in medieval scholastic economics. The concept of the “just price” was crucial to the balance of the early modern market, restraining individual interest to maintain the overall interest of society. However, under the pressure of rapidly increasing free-market activity, individual profit motives grew stronger, commodity value was increasingly determined by market conditions such as subjective judgment and supply and demand, and scholars increasingly accepted the current market value of a commodity as the “just price.” [87]87 The “just price” was a medieval and early modern ethical-economic concept holding that a commodity should be sold at a price reflecting its true value, often linked to labor and social need, rather than purely market supply and demand. In the play, the Trojans choose the market value of Helen exaggerated by “merchants” and persist in war, which ultimately does not benefit the public interest of Troy and even serves only Paris’s personal interest. This undoubtedly reflects early modern people’s doubts and anxieties about the fairness and legitimacy of the market value of commodities.

根据市场条件判断的商品价值逐渐取代“公正价格”。剧中，“为了报复希腊人掠走我们的老姑母”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 77），特洛伊人需要“世界之辽阔亦无法与她的美相媲”的海伦。“按照天理人伦/和国家法律”（Ⅱ. ⅲ. 179-180），“把妻子归还丈夫，/岂非天经地义”（Ⅱ. ⅲ. 175-176），希腊同样需要海伦的回归。海伦经历商品化，在市场上独特稀缺的条件以及对海伦的高度需求使海伦确定了较高的市场价值，直接导致两国持续作战七年之久。在特洛伊王室讨论海伦的价值是否值得他们继续为之作战时，赫克托尔起初清醒地认识到“她不值得我们付出这么大代价留住不放”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 51），最后却突然话锋一转，“我赞同你们留下海伦的决心，/因为此事和我们全体和个人的荣誉/都休戚相关”（Ⅱ. ⅱ. 191-193）。特洛伊人接受海伦的市场价值选择继续作战，实际上夸大了海伦的价值，使特洛伊陷入了消耗巨大的战争危机之中。亚里士多德认为正义（justice）是一种精神状态，使人能够正确行事。他将正义运用于交换，奠定了“公正价格”的概念基础。 86 “公正价格”概念对早期现代的市场平衡至关重要，它限制了个人利益，以维护社会的整体利益。然而在自由市场活动急剧增加的压力下，个人的利益动机越来越强烈，商品价值越来越由主观判断、供求关系等市场条件决定，学者也越来越接受商品当下的市场价值为“公正价格”。 87 剧中特洛伊人选择被“商人”夸大的海伦市场价值并坚持继续作战，在结果上对特洛伊公共利益无益，甚至仅满足了帕里斯的个人利益，这无疑反映了早期现代人对于商品市场价值公正性与合理性的质疑与不安。

The play uses characters as metaphors for debased currency, revealing early modern people’s anxiety about the external value of commodities. In the first act, in the Greek camp, Agamemnon reviews the seven years of besieging Troy without fulfilling their plans and mocks the kings: “The common patience of man; / This ‘quality’ (the fineness of metal) is seldom shown / When fortune smiles” (I.iii.21-23). The playwright uses language about monetary value—“fineness of metal”—to express human personal qualities, establishing a connection between human value and monetary value. In the second act, the Greek Thersites, while considering insults for others, tries to compare another Greek to “a silvered counterfeit coin” (II.iii.25). Debased currency and counterfeit coins seem to denote poor character; anxiety about monetary value is closely linked to anxiety about human value. The playwright uses language about monetary value, describing the difference between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of money, to express the uneven quality of human character. Tudor-era currency debasement forced the English to accept transactions based on the face value of coins; the intrinsic precious-metal value of money gradually slid toward its extrinsic value. The public had to accept debased inferior coins, or else face a domestic shortage of currency supply, while also planting seeds that harmed the nation’s reputation. [88]88 Tudor-era currency debasement refers to the reduction of precious metal content in coins by the English crown (especially under Henry VIII and Edward VI) to raise revenue, leading to inflation and public distrust. When English merchants used debased currency in international commodity markets, the mercantilist Thomas Smith, in *A Discourse on the Commonwealth of this Realm of England* (1549), mentioned a real situation that could not be ignored: “Since our coin is of low quality and changed in form, foreigners counterfeit our coin and try to bring large quantities of counterfeit money here to dispose of, in exchange for both our gold and silver and our main commodities… If left unchecked, it might in a short time cause very serious disturbance to His Majesty and this kingdom.” [89]89 Thomas Smith (1513-1577), English scholar and diplomat; his *Discourse on the Commonwealth of this Realm of England* (1549) is a key early mercantilist text criticizing economic abuses including currency debasement. When the intrinsic and extrinsic values of currency are inconsistent or far apart, foreign merchants have room to manipulate value, potentially causing great damage to England’s commercial interests, and people’s anxiety about external value becomes manifest.

该剧以人物作为贬值货币隐喻，流露出早期现代人的商品外在价值焦虑。在第一幕希腊军营里，阿伽门农回顾围攻特洛伊却未能完成计划的七年时间，嘲讽众王公道“人类恒长的耐心；/此种‘品质’（the fineness of metal，优质金属）难得彰显/于命运眷顾之时”（Ⅰ. ⅲ. 21-23），剧作家使用关于货币价值的语言“优质金属”表达人类的个人品质，建立人的价值与货币价值之关联。第二幕希腊人忒耳西忒斯在斟酌辱骂他人的言辞时，试图将另一名希腊人比作“镀银的假币”（Ⅱ. ⅲ. 25），贬值货币、假币似乎指代差劲的人格，对货币价值的担忧与对人的价值的担忧紧密联系。剧作家使用有关货币价值的语言，借描述货币内外价值的差别，表达人的品质的良莠不齐。都铎时期的货币贬值使英国人被迫接受以货币币面价值为基准进行商品交易，货币的内在贵金属价值逐渐滑向外在价值。公众也必须接受贬损的劣币，否则会存在国内货币供应短缺问题，同时种下危害国家声誉的隐患。 88 当英国商人使用贬值货币在国际商品市场上交易，重商主义者托马斯·史密斯（Thomas Smith）在《论英国本土的公共福利》（A Discourse on the Commonwealth of this Realm of England， 1549），曾提到一种不容忽视的真实情况：“既然我们的硬币质量低劣，改变了模样，外国人就伪造了我们的硬币，设法把大批大批的伪币运到这里来脱手，既换取我们的金银，又换取我们的主要商品……如果听其自由发展，它可能会在短时间内给国王陛下和这个王国带来十分严重的干扰。” 89 货币内外价值不一致或差距较大，给了外国商人进行价值操控的空间，英国的商业利益可能遭受巨大损害，人们的外在价值焦虑显现出来。

Fluctuations in international currency market prices threaten national security, and the elite class feels deeply uneasy about the value of foreign exchange. Based on the analogy between female characters and currency, the circulation and exchange of Helen and Cressida between the cities of Troy and Greece bear certain similarities to foreign exchange transactions on the early modern international currency market; the vacillation in the value judgments of Helen and Cressida affects the war situation between Troy and Greece, seemingly echoing the social reality that fluctuations in foreign exchange rates affect national security. In 1566, the Royal Exchange, designed by Sir Thomas Gresham, was formally completed. It was both a place where foreign merchants in London exchanged currency and swapped news, and a shopping center where luxury goods and imported commodities could be purchased; it also had open-air stalls selling domestic (cultural) goods such as books and pamphlets. The Royal Exchange was a symbol of the new relationship between politics and culture in early modern London and a center for commodity agents; by regulating domestic and international commercial relations, it embodied the importance of trade for national political stability.[90]90 The Royal Exchange, founded by the financier Sir Thomas Gresham in 1566–1571, was a central hub for commerce and news in Elizabethan London, symbolizing the integration of trade, politics, and culture. Elizabeth I once commissioned Sir Thomas Gresham and other close advisors to consult on matters of coinage, trade, and imports and exports. For the purpose of maintaining national stability, Gresham, in his *Memorandum for the Understanding of the Exchange* (1578), advised the Queen that when the value of English currency fluctuated on the foreign exchange market, imports should be reduced to restore its value overseas.[91]91 Gresham’s *Memorandum for the Understanding of the Exchange* (1578) advised the Crown on managing currency value and trade balances to protect national economic stability. By the early 17th century, on the foreign exchange market, due to the depreciation of English currency, the ratio of gold to silver in the currency differed from that of other countries, making it impossible to exchange currency at equal precious metal values. Moreover, Malynes observed that greedy foreign merchants and bankers had already manipulated the market value (exchange rate) of currency based on market conditions such as the abundance or scarcity of currency, different times and places; an unbalanced exchange rate would incline merchants to purchase foreign goods rather than domestic goods, thereby leading to a decline in domestic employment conditions and damage to the trade balance.[92]92 Gerard de Malynes (c. 1586–1641) was an English merchant and economic writer who advocated for state control of foreign exchange to prevent manipulation by foreign interests. Therefore, to protect national commercial interests, Malynes reiterated the importance of foreign exchange control at the Royal Exchange.

国际货币市场价格波动威胁国家安全，精英阶层对外汇市场价值深感不安。基于剧中女性角色与货币的类比，海伦和克瑞西达在特洛伊与希腊两城中的流转交换与早期现代国际货币市场上的外汇兑换具有一定相似性，海伦和克瑞西达的价值判断摇摆不定影响特洛伊与希腊的战况，似乎与外汇汇率波动影响国家安全的社会现实相呼应。1566年，托马斯·格雷欣爵士（Sir Thomas Gresham）设计的皇家交易所（the Royal Exchange）正式落成，它既是伦敦外国商人兑换货币、交换新闻的场所，又是可以购置奢侈品和进口商品的购物中心，还拥有露天摊位以出售书籍和小册子等国内（文化）商品。皇家交易所是早期现代伦敦政治、文化之间新关系的象征及商品代理人中心，通过规范国内和国际商业关系，体现了贸易对国家政治稳定的重要性。 90 伊丽莎白一世曾委托格雷欣爵士以及其他亲密顾问，就铸币、贸易和进出口问题进行咨询。基于维护国家稳定的目的，格雷欣爵士在《交易所谅解备忘录》（Memorandum for the Understanding of the Exchange，1578）中建议女王，当英国货币在外汇市场的价值发生波动时，应减少进口以恢复其在海外的价值。 91 到17世纪初，在外汇市场上，由于英国货币贬值，货币金银比率与其他国家不同，无法以平等的贵金属价值进行货币兑换。不仅如此，马林斯观察到贪婪的外国商人和银行家已根据货币的丰富和稀缺、不同的时间和地点等市场条件，对货币的市场价值（汇率）进行操控，不平衡的汇率会使商人倾向于购买外国商品而非国内商品，从而导致国内就业状况衰退和贸易平衡受损。 92 因此，为了保护国家商业利益，马林斯重申皇家交易所进行外汇管制的重要性。

Conclusion

结语

Admittedly, the characters in the play fall into crisis under the influence of multiple factors such as patriarchal culture, moral ethics, and the market economy. However, it is worth noting that relying on market logic for interpersonal value judgment is one of the key triggers of social turmoil in the play; the playwright seems to use this to imply the necessity of government regulatory functions during the mercantilist period. Renaissance literary works often touch upon the phenomenon of the principle of commodity exchange penetrating the realm of social relations. In *Troilus and Cressida*, the main female characters, due to their inherent fluidity and instability, undergo commodification and become associated with the dual-identity currency of early modernity. In the play, Helen and Cressida are like commodified precious currency; the debates over their value echo the early modern controversies over the value of currency (commodities), oscillating between their own intrinsic value and the subjective value judgments of the royal court, and exhibiting a market value shift based on scarcity or supply and demand. However, the Trojans, disregarding Helen’s intrinsic value, persistently adhere to value judgments based on external market conditions, yet this leads to the destruction of Troy, seemingly alluding to the chaotic market order in reality that lacks state regulation. The marketization and subjectivity of value judgment displayed in the play align with the society described by Hobbes in *Leviathan*: Hobbes argues that a person’s value is not absolute but is expressed as the price others pay to use his power, depending on the needs and subjective judgments of another person. To control this subjectivity, Hobbes emphasizes that individuals should submit to the monarch, that patriarchal society should support state authority, and that the state should strengthen control over other sources of value such as religion and education.[93]93 Thomas Hobbes’s *Leviathan* (1651) argues that human value is subjective and determined by market-like relations, requiring an absolute sovereign to impose order and control social instability.

诚然，剧中人物受到父权文化、道德伦理和市场经济等多重因素的影响而陷入危机，但值得注意的是，依靠市场逻辑进行人际价值判断却是造成剧中社会动乱的关键诱因之一，剧作家似乎借此暗示重商主义时期政府监管职能的必要性。文艺复兴时期的文学作品经常涉及商品交换原则渗透至社会关系领域的现象。《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中，主要女性角色因本身具有流动性和不稳定性，又经历商品化，与早期现代双重身份的货币产生关联。剧中海伦、克瑞西达正如商品化了的贵重货币，关于她们的价值辩论与早期现代货币（商品）价值论争相呼应，摇摆于自身内在价值和王室主观价值判断之间，并呈现基于稀缺性或供求关系的市场价值转向。然而，特洛伊人不顾海伦的内在价值，始终坚持基于市场条件的外在价值判断，却导致特洛伊城的覆灭，似乎在影射现实中缺少国家监管的混乱市场秩序。该剧表现出来的价值判断的市场化、主观性与霍布斯（Hobbes）在《利维坦》中描述的社会相契合：霍布斯主张一个人的价值不是绝对的，表现为别人为了使用他的权利而付出的代价，取决于另一个人的需要和主观判断。霍布斯为了控制这种主观性，强调个人应臣服于君主、父权制的社会应支持国家权威、国家加强对宗教和教育等其他价值来源的控制等。 93

Raymond Williams points out that in modern society, the value of commodities (culture) “is dominated by multiple interests, including class interests.”[94]94 Raymond Williams (1921–1988) was a Welsh Marxist cultural theorist who analyzed how cultural value is shaped by class and power structures. Cultural critic John Storey finds that if a text satisfies the needs and desires of those with cultural power, it will endure “the test of time”; indeed, “the text has never been the true source of value, but merely the site where value construction occurs,” and in post-modern society, cultural symbols have also become a decisive factor in commodity value.[95]95 John Storey (b. 1950) is a British cultural studies scholar known for his work on popular culture and the construction of value in texts. It can be seen that external value increasingly influences people’s lives, culture, and art today. The turn toward external value for women, commodities, and currency depicted in early modern drama seems to prophetically illustrate this principle. In *Troilus and Cressida*, there is a royal government of Troy, yet it does not manifest a regulatory function over market value, which appears to be the breakthrough point for resolving the anxiety over external value felt by the playwright and his contemporaries. In fact, when merchant writers of this period discussed the relationship between the monarch and market transactions, on the one hand they believed that the unequal status between the monarch and subjects was a necessary condition for maintaining fair value judgments in commercial trade; on the other hand, they revealed a concern that the monarch was constrained by greater commercial forces.[96]96 This refers to early modern English economic writers who debated the monarch’s role in regulating market value, often expressing anxiety about the limits of royal authority over commercial forces. By the mid-17th century, Thomas Mun had clearly recognized that the monarch, like his subjects, was powerless to overcome the market forces that determine value.[97]97 Thomas Mun (1571–1641) was an English mercantilist economist who argued that market forces, not royal decree, ultimately determine value in trade.

雷蒙德·威廉姆斯指出，现代社会中，商品（文化）价值“受到包括阶级利益在内的多种利益支配”。 94 文化批评家约翰·斯托里发现，如果一个文本满足具有文化权力之人的需要和欲望，那它将“在时间考验中”延续下去，甚至“文本从来都不是真正的价值来源，只是价值构建发生的场所”，而后现代社会中的文化符号也俨然成为商品价值的决定性因素。 95 可见，外在价值愈加影响当今人们的生活、文化和艺术，早期现代戏剧中所展现的女性、商品、货币的外在价值转向似乎预见性地阐释了这样的道理。《特洛伊罗斯与克瑞西达》中存在特洛伊王室政府，却并没有体现出政府对市场价值的监管职能，而这似乎是解决剧作家和同时代人外在价值焦虑的突破口。事实上，当这一时期的商人作家谈到君王与市场交易的关系时，他们一方面认为君王和臣民之间的不平等地位是维持商业贸易中公正价值判断的必要条件，另一方面却表露出对君王受制于更大的商业力量的担忧。 96 到了17世纪中叶，托马斯·孟已经清楚认识到，君主和臣民一样无力克服决定价值的市场力量。 97

(Author’s bio: Tao Jiusheng, Professor, School of Foreign Languages, Ningbo University)

（作者简介：陶久胜，宁波大学外国语学院教授）

(Funding information: Major Project of the National Social Science Fund of China, “A History of Economic Thought in English Literature” (22&ZD289); Key Project of the National Social Science Fund of China, “A Study on the Construction of Trade Empire in English Literature during the Age of Exploration” (21AWW008))

（基金信息： 国家社会科学基金重大项目“英国文学经济思想史”（22&ZD289）；国家社会科学基金重点项目“新航路开辟时期英国文学的贸易帝国建构研究”（21AWW008））

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心