『리처드 2세』: 신수적(神授的) 왕권의 해체와 세속화된 권력의 불안
Richard II: Deconstruction of Divine Kingship and Anxieties of Secularized Royal Power
1
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This essay argues for interconnections between the ideological fault-lines of divine kingship and the characterological inconsistencies of two protagonists in Richard II by adopting Foucauldian theory of power as its critical methodology. Foucauldian theory, which attempts to demonstrate how authority is variously inscribed, subverted, and recuperated through discourse, gives us a useful tool to account for precarious identities because it regards selfhood not as a unified essence beyond historical circumstances but as a social entity enmeshed in the grid of omnipotent power. Richard II is couched in nostalgia for the medieval discourse of divine kingship threatened by the disruptive forces of modernity. The struggle between Richard and Bolingbroke is not merely a clash of opposing personalities, but it represents conflict between the medieval belief of divine order and the modern politics of secularized power. Richard embodies medieval royalty grounded in divine kingship and expressed in ceremonial ritual. In contrast, Bolingbroke takes on modern power based on popular support and attained by meritocratic performance. However, what seems to be a simple binary opposition between them in the earlier parts of the play undergoes a complex remodulation in the later parts. Unifiable identity slips away from each protagonist. Bolingbroke repositions himself as a tight-lipped Machiavellian as he approaches the throne, and Richard reformulates himself into a soul-searching sentimentalist as he loses royal power. This inconsistency of their character exposed along the line of power relations can be interpreted not simply as the flaws of the playwright’s characterization but as an endorsement of poststructuralist theory that every subject is interpellated and subjugated by a complex network of social, political, ideological power which extends beyond the reach of an individual’s capacity.
Abstract
This essay argues for interconnections between the ideological fault-lines of divine kingship and the characterological inconsistencies of two protagonists in Richard II by adopting Foucauldian theory of power as its critical methodology. Foucauldian theory, which attempts to demonstrate how authority is variously inscribed, subverted, and recuperated through discourse, gives us a useful tool to account for precarious identities because it regards selfhood not as a unified essence beyond historical circumstances but as a social entity enmeshed in the grid of omnipotent power. Richard II is couched in nostalgia for the medieval discourse of divine kingship threatened by the disruptive forces of modernity. The struggle between Richard and Bolingbroke is not merely a clash of opposing personalities, but it represents conflict between the medieval belief of divine order and the modern politics of secularized power. Richard embodies medieval royalty grounded in divine kingship and expressed in ceremonial ritual. In contrast, Bolingbroke takes on modern power based on popular support and attained by meritocratic performance. However, what seems to be a simple binary opposition between them in the earlier parts of the play undergoes a complex remodulation in the later parts. Unifiable identity slips away from each protagonist. Bolingbroke repositions himself as a tight-lipped Machiavellian as he approaches the throne, and Richard reformulates himself into a soul-searching sentimentalist as he loses royal power. This inconsistency of their character exposed along the line of power relations can be interpreted not simply as the flaws of the playwright’s characterization but as an endorsement of poststructuralist theory that every subject is interpellated and subjugated by a complex network of social, political, ideological power which extends beyond the reach of an individual’s capacity.
참고문헌 (33)
- 김세라, "역사극에 나타난 정치적 모호성: 「리처드 2세」", Shakespeare Review, 48(4), pp.735~758 (2012), 한국셰익스피어학회
- 도인환, "정신분석적 관점에서 본 『리처드 2세』의 비극적 양상", 영미어문학, 57, pp.165~191 (1999)
- 한정이, "리처드 2세의 정체성", Shakespeare Review, 46(4), pp.865~887 (2010), 한국셰익스피어학회
- 홍옥숙, "리처드와 볼링브룩의 자리 바꾸기: 『리처드 2세』", Shakespeare Review, 45(4), pp.555~576 (2009), 한국셰익스피어학회
- Barroll, Leeds, "A New History for Shakespeare and His Time", Shakespeare Quarterly, 39, pp.441~464 (1988)
- Beauchamp, Gorman Lynn, "The Abuse of Greatness: Theme and Structure in Shakespeare’s Lancastrian Tetralogy. Diss. U of Michigan, 1972" (1984), UMI
- Berger, Harry, Jr, "Shakespearean Criticism: Yearbook 1989 Vol. 13", pp.172~182 (1991), Gale
- Bergeron, David M, "Richard II and Carnival Politics", Shakespeare Quarterly, 42(1), pp.33~43 (1991)
- Bullough, Geoffrey, "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare. Vol. 3" (1975), Routledge
- Clegg, Cyndia Susan, "‘By the choise and inuitation of al the realme’: Richard II and the Elizabethan Press Censorship", Shakespeare Quarterly, 48, pp.432~448 (1997)
- Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, "Shakespearean Criticism: Excerpts from the Criticism of Shakespeare’s Plays and Poetry Vol. 6", pp.255~258 (1987), Gale
- Dawson, Anthony, "Richard II", pp.1~128 (2011), Oxford UP
- Dean, Leonard F, "Richard II: The State and the Image of the Theater", PMLA, 67(2), pp.211~218 (1952)
- Dowden, Edward, "Shakespeare: A Critical Study of His Mind and Art" (1881), Harper and Brothers
- Ellis-Fermor, Una, "Shakespeare’s Drama", pp.98~116 (1980), Methuen
- Elton, W. R, "The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies", pp.17~34 (1986), Cambridge UP
- Foucault, Michel, "Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison" (1977), Vintage Books
- French, A. L, "Who Deposed Richard the Second?", Essays in Criticism, 17(4), pp.411~433 (1967)
- Frye, Northrop, "Northrop Frye on Shakespeare" (1986), Yale UP
- Hammer, Paul E. J, "Shakespeare’s Richard II, the Play of 7 February 1601, and the Essex Rising", Shakespeare Quarterly, 59, pp.1~35 (2008)
- Kantorowicz, Ernst H, "The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology" (1957), Princeton UP
- Leggatt, Alexander, "Shakespeare’s Political Drama: The History Plays and the Roman Plays" (1988), Routledge
- Mack, Maynard, Jr, "Killing the King: Three Studies in Shakespeare’s Tragic Structure" (1973), Yale UP
- Maus, Katharine Eisaman, "The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition" (1997), Norton
- Pater, Walter, "Appreciations: With an Essay on Style", pp.192~212 (1895), Macmillan
- Potter, Lois, "The Antic Disposition of Richard II", Shakespeare Survey, 27, pp.33~41 (1974)
- Rabkin, Norman, "Shakespeare and the Common Understanding" (1967), Macmillan
- Saccio, Peter, "Shakespeare’s English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama" (1977), Oxford UP
- Sanders, Wilbur, "The Dramatist and the Received Idea: Studies in the Plays of Marlowe and Shakespeare" (1968), Cambridge UP
- Smallwood, R. L, "The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies", pp.143~162 (1986), Cambridge UP
- Snider, Denton J, "Shakespearean Criticism: Excerpts from the Criticism of Shakespeare’s Plays and Poetry Vol. 6", pp.272~276 (1987), Gale
- Tillyard, E. M. W, "Shakespeare’s History Plays. 1944" (1964), Barnes
- Wilson, John Dover, "Shakespearean Criticism: Excerpts from the Criticism of Shakespeare’s Plays and Poetry Vol. 6", pp.289~291 (1987), Gale