셰익스피어와 영국의 법적 통치 전통:로마 사극과 그 역사적 문맥

Abstract

Hyosik HwangThe English Parliament saw its remarkable development in the age of Shakespeare. It is without question that the parliamentary context must have been considered in the interpretations of Shakespeare's histories, whether English or Roman, the primary social function of which was to give comments on the contemporary politics. Unfortunately, however, this parliamentary context has often been neglected in the studies of the histories in spite of its political significance. Initiated with this sense of problem, I have kept my eye on the reciprocal relationship between the development of Parliament and Shakespeare's histories under the theme of the rule of law tradition. Especially, in the two Roman history plays now under our consideration, the rule of the law tradition is much more obviously represented than in the previous English history plays. In Julius Caesar Brutus resists the tyranny of Caesar as a leading proponent of republicanism, the origin of which goes back to the ancient Roman constitution. Interestingly, the efforts of Brutus' side is paralleled by the contemporary parliamentarians' endeavor to limit king's power in the name of law. Shakespeare dramatizes the conflicts between republicanism and monarchism in this play. He is not, however, just indifferent to both of them. Rather, he seems to have a sympathy with republicanism. Coriolanus, on the other hand, provides us with a good example of an absolutist as a political misfit. Coriolanus is regarded as subversive in the Roman society just as James I in England proved to be so. Rewriting the ancient Roman history in the context of the contemporary politics Shakespeare denies absolutism and gives endorsement to the rule of law tradition. It is historically significant that Shakespeare's Roman plays rehearse the constitutional monarchy the English people would have in the later half of the seventeenth century.