『코리올레이너스』와 『코리올란』: 개작 연구의 목표에 대한 한 고찰

Abstract

Studies of adaptation are now one of the most thriving and productive fields in current Shakespearean research. Though they vary in their interests and areas of research, they have one thing in common; they repudiate the validity of ‘fidelity to the original’ as the criterion to use in analyzing adaptations, on the grounds that it presupposes the original’s superiority, and claim that adaptations themselves are assumed to be not “windows” but “painting” worth studying in itself. Some scholars, however, not only refuse to admit hierarchy of the original and the adaptation but also show a tendency to deny making any kind of ‘value judgement’, arguing that adaptation studies are “not about making value judgement but about analysing process, ideology, and methodology.” But I believe that as long as adaptation studies are a study of literature, we need to ask and explain why some adaptations are moving while others are not. Therefore, making value judgement is essential in adaptation studies. This paper aims to rethink the question of what should be the goals of adaptation studies by looking at Bertolt Brecht’s Coriolan, which is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Coriolanus has been the target of ideological appropriation and adaptation, which seems to occur more often for this play than for any other Shakespeare plays, with the exception of The Tempest. Coriolan is an example of this adaptation, in which Brecht rewrites the text in favor of the plebeians and their tribunes, thereby showing that heroes are not indispensible and it is not heroes but people who defend and lead Rome. Even though Brecht’s Coriolan has the urgency of the times and was a tremendous success in his times, it lost its efficacy; it is seldom performed on the stage in our times while its original (Shakespeare’s Coriolanus) is being constantly rewritten and appropriated. This paper examines what makes Brecht’s Coriolan relevant to his times but not to our times unlike Shakespeare’s, which would give us an opportunity to reconsider the scope and goals of adaptation study.