불가능한 계승의 권위와 권위의 계승: 권위 논의와 17, 18세기 영문학의 자기모순

Abstract

This paper aims to discuss the disturbing patterns of the subversion of authority in the Seventeenth-and the Eighteenth-century British literature. As the heated discussion about the origin of authority―whether it originates from the God above, thus originates from the right of succession or whether it comes from the contract between the sovereign and the people―characterizes the socio-political climate of this period, the literature of this period can be understood to participate actively in the advocation or the rebuttal of one theory about the authority. Yet, this paper demonstrates that the literary works of this period continually subverts the theory of authority they try to advocate. In the discussion of Absalom and Achitophel, this paper discusses how the authority of succession is established by Dryden's skillful appropriation of the authority of the Bible and his masterful imputation of the absolutism to his opponents. Yet, this paper demonstrates, this poem reveals inadvertently the authority based on succession untenable, as this work discloses the advocation of the authority of succession dependent inextricably on the authority based on contract. On the other hand, the works such as The Way of the World and Robinson Crusoe undermine the authority of contract even when they try to vindicate the settlement of the Glorious Revolution and the authority of contract. Congreve's The Way of the World, this paper contends, argues for the new authority of contract based on mutual trust, as Mirabel, the gentleman of new kind, succeeds in securing the Wishfort estate through gaining the trust of Millamant, Lady Wishfort and Mrs Fainall, defeating Fainall who believes in the old order of things such as the absolute domination of husband over wife and thus stands for the authority of succession. Yet, The Way of the World also reveals the desire for the authority of succession, as Mirabel tries to dominate Millamant using his hereditary status as man and wishes the male heir to the Wishfort estate. Robinson Crusoe can be said to be free from the desire of this kind, because there is no desire for the succession of estate. If there is a desire concerning succession, there is only a desire to be freed from it, as Crusoe refuses to succeed to the station of his father, the middle one. Robinson Crusoe is a work abundant of the authority of contract based on mutual trust, as Crusoe establishes his authority over Friday, the Portuguese, and the English Captain and sailors through acquiring their agreement to his authority. Yet, the seemingly firm authority of contract is undercut at the same time, because it is found that Crusoe's authority of new kind would have been impossible without the legacy from the past―that is, the vital salvage from the shipwreck―and without the help of Friday with whom he establishes the traditional father-son relationship characterized by father's absolute authority and son's passive obedience. This paper discusses the eventual outcome of this self-contradiction in the debate about authority. This paper interprets the final triumph of the "Night Primaeval" in the Book IV of The Dunciad as the logical outcome of the dissolution of authority regardless of its origin. The normal succession of authority―that is, from Settle to Eusden, from Eusden to Cibber―is suddenly negated by the mother's (the goddess Dullness's) retrieval of throne from her son Cibber and then the 'night primaeval's reclaim of throne from her daughter, the goddess Dullness and finally "Universal Darkness buries All." Where there is no authority, Pope seems to assert, the only possible outcome is the restoration of the original darkness.