역사극에 나타난 정치적 모호성: 「리처드 2세」
Political Ambiguity in Richard II
1
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Tillyard had great influence on criticism of Richard II. He explained the play with Elizabethan political doctrine which regards a nation as a part of divine order. This kind of criticism, however, was challenged by other critics because it oversimplified the play’s complexity and its meanings. Richard II is a history play with abundant political ambiguity because of which its meaning cannot be simplified. This paper focused on political notions of divine right of kings, justification of deposition, and Essex rebellion with historical background which could be clues in our understanding about ambiguous political moments permeated in the play. The political and religious doctrine of divine right of kings is already unstable from the beginning of the play. It can not protect the legitimate king from usurpation any more, and law seems more effective to be a king. Even the religious leader who supports this divine right is aware of realpolitk. Richard’s moral faults and political inability suggested to justify his deposition are ambiguous because they are rather applied to the usurper Bolingbroke and his rebellion party. During the Queen Elizabeth rein, Richard was often compared to Elizabeth in many political aspects, especially, of her wrong doings, and it made the story of Richard II politically sensitive to the government. Thus, the fact that Richard II was played by request of Essex supporters on the previous day of the rebellion was not meaningless. However, their rebellion failed, and it seemed they ignored the ambiguous meaning of this play and see only what they wanted to see in it, that is a successful usurpation. Shakespeare does not take politics as God's will. For him, it is a process of cause and effect of human actions. It is very clear in the two parts of Henry IV in which rebellions against usurper Bolingbroke continue restlessly until his death. Richard II is a tragedy of ambition and Shakespeare shows his shrewd understanding on human nature very cleary with political ambiguity in this play.
Abstract
Tillyard had great influence on criticism of Richard II. He explained the play with Elizabethan political doctrine which regards a nation as a part of divine order. This kind of criticism, however, was challenged by other critics because it oversimplified the play’s complexity and its meanings. Richard II is a history play with abundant political ambiguity because of which its meaning cannot be simplified. This paper focused on political notions of divine right of kings, justification of deposition, and Essex rebellion with historical background which could be clues in our understanding about ambiguous political moments permeated in the play. The political and religious doctrine of divine right of kings is already unstable from the beginning of the play. It can not protect the legitimate king from usurpation any more, and law seems more effective to be a king. Even the religious leader who supports this divine right is aware of realpolitk. Richard’s moral faults and political inability suggested to justify his deposition are ambiguous because they are rather applied to the usurper Bolingbroke and his rebellion party. During the Queen Elizabeth rein, Richard was often compared to Elizabeth in many political aspects, especially, of her wrong doings, and it made the story of Richard II politically sensitive to the government. Thus, the fact that Richard II was played by request of Essex supporters on the previous day of the rebellion was not meaningless. However, their rebellion failed, and it seemed they ignored the ambiguous meaning of this play and see only what they wanted to see in it, that is a successful usurpation. Shakespeare does not take politics as God's will. For him, it is a process of cause and effect of human actions. It is very clear in the two parts of Henry IV in which rebellions against usurper Bolingbroke continue restlessly until his death. Richard II is a tragedy of ambition and Shakespeare shows his shrewd understanding on human nature very cleary with political ambiguity in this play.
참고문헌 (23)
- Albright, Evelyn May, "Shakespeare’s Richard II and the Essex Conspiracy", MLA, 42(3), pp.686~720 (1927)
- Battenhouse, Roy, "Tudor Doctrine and the Tragedy of Richard II", Rice University Studies, 60, pp.31~53 (1974)
- Berger Jr., Harry, "Ars Moriendi in Progress, of John of Gaunt and the Practice of Strategic Dying, In Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Richard II" (1999), G. K. Hall
- Brownlow, F. W, "Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Richard II" (1999), G. K. Hall
- Campbell,Lily B, "Shakespeare’s Histories" (1978), Huntington Library Publication
- Crofton,Ian, "The Kings and Queens of England" (2006), Quercus
- Farrell, Kirby, "Play, Death, and History in Richard II, In Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Richard II" (1999), G. K. Hall
- Griffin, R. Morgan, "The critical history of R2, In Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Richard II" (1999), G. K. Hall
- Halverson, John, "The lamentable comedy of Richard II, In Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Richard II" (1999), G.K.Hall
- Holderness, Graham, "Shakespeare’s History: Richard II, In William Shakespeare Richard II" (1998), Columbia UP
- Leggat,Alexander, "Shakespeare’s political drama" (1988), Routledge
- Maurois, Andre, "A History of England" (1937), Jonathan Cape
- McFarlane,K.B, "Lancastrian Kings & Lollard Knights" (1972), Clarendon
- Nicoll, Allardyce, "Holinshed's Chronicle" (1969), J.M.Dent & Sons
- Norbrook, David, "A Liberal Tongue: Language and Rebellion in Richard II, In Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Richard II" (1999), G.K.Hall
- Norwich,John Julius, "Shakespeare’s Kings" (2001), Touchstone
- Rabkin, Norman, "Shakespeare and the Common Understanding, In William Shakespeare Richard II" (1998), Columbia UP
- Saccio,Peter, "Shakespeare’s English Kings" (2000), Oxford UP
- Sanders,Wilbur, "The Dramatist and Received Idea" (1968), Cambridge UP
- Schoenbaum, S, "R2 and the realities of power, In Shakespeare and Politics" (2004), Cambridge UP
- Seelig, Sharon Cadman, "Loyal fathers and Treacherous sons: Familial Politics in Richard II, In Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Richard II" (1999), G.K.Hall
- Shakespeare, William, "King Richard II, In The Arden Shakespeare" (1961), Methuen
- Tillyard, E. M, W, "Shakespeare’s history plays" (1962), Collier Books