『리어왕』에 나타난 재현 방식의 파라고네와 상호작용

Abstract

In Shakespeare’s plays, Shakespeare often sets up the paragone two mimetic representations-the relationship between a visual and a verbal representation or drama and narrative. Shakespeare’s plays often imply drama’ superiority to narrative as a mode of representation while they expose drama’s reliance upon and affinity with narrative. This article explores the paragone and interplay between visual and verbal modes of representation in King Lear. Through Edmund and Edgar, Shakespeare comes to examine different modes of representation and even suggests that the modes are not as different as they appear to be, especially in presenting his own artistry. In the first of the play, Edmund uses a forged letter so that his father may believe that Edgar tries to assassinate him. Edmund’s forged letter and his false report generate the illusion of a real and enable Edmund to succeed in tricking Gloucester as well as Edgar. Moreover Edmund’s blood with the visual immediacy has an immense effect on persuading Gloucester, which means visual signs in the theatre can be false. In Act 4 Scene 6, Edgar constructs the fake Dover cliff on the bare stage to prevent Gloucester’s suicide, where his deceptive narrative is much more elaborate than Edmund’s visual and verbal false. Though Edgar’s verbal description on the absent Dover cliff is an illusion, it is possible that Gloucester and even audience(or readers) allow themselves to be seduced by the narrative. Blind Gloucester should rely upon Edgar’s vivid narrative and audience should imagine the scene in the mind’ eye. In King Lear, Shakespeare experiences different modes of representation, which does not demonstrate one is better than the other. Shakespeare stubbornly explores the interplay between visual and verbal modes of representation and blurs the distinction between them in his plays and requires his spectators and readers to imagine this extraordinary different modes of verisimilitude.