인간 본성의 상징으로 본 『안토니와 클레오파트라』
Antony and Cleopatra as a symbolical analogy in human nature
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article aims to interpret Antony and Cleopatra as an analogy of the mental apparatus of human nature. Through seeing this Roman history play as an analogy of human nature according to Freudian theory of psychoanalysis, we can reconsider why it is regarded as one of the most ambiguous plays of Shakespeare. In Freudian theory, id is considered an original instinctual impulse while ego, the pleasure seeker, carries out the id’s intention. Superego is the apparatus whose function is to chide and repress the ego’s intention. According to this theory, Cleopatra, described as a serpent of old Nile, can be compared to id, specifically the sexual impulse, libido. Antony, one of the Roman triumvirates, neglects his responsibility in Rome and pursues pleasure in Egypt, thus becoming a symbol of the ego in human beings. Octavius Caesar, who holds power in Rome, consistently reprimands Antony for his wantonness, thus playing the role of superego. Egypt, over which Cleopatra reigns, can be regarded as a barbarian world and Rome, the domain of Caesar, a world of law and order. Antony leaves Egypt for Rome and Rome for Egypt as the ego must in order to relate to the external reality. This creates a distance between the lovers. In being so distant, their mutual desire for unity also go astray. Ultimately, the desire to complete their love is accomplished only through death. Much like the instinctual id can not be completed by ego as it is controlled and repressed by superego, the love between Antony and Cleopatra fails. In their defeat in the Actium War, Antony and Cleopatra, in being beset by Caesar, exemplified how the needs of ego and id(Antony and Cleopatra) are irreconcilable with those of the superego, Caesar. Through the triumph of Caesar, the superego, and the suggestion of the renewal of the life force of the two lovers, there seems to be a kind of comic hope at the end of drama. Because each character represents a part of human nature, the main characters in this drama necessarily look inconsistent and unrealistic with ambiguous and incompatible personalities. If we see the theme of this drama as not merely Antony’s love for Cleopatra, but their roles as symbols of the parts of human nature, their ambiguity can be understood. Through dramatization of the Plutarch‘s Lives, Shakespeare again shows us truth about human nature.
Abstract
This article aims to interpret Antony and Cleopatra as an analogy of the mental apparatus of human nature. Through seeing this Roman history play as an analogy of human nature according to Freudian theory of psychoanalysis, we can reconsider why it is regarded as one of the most ambiguous plays of Shakespeare. In Freudian theory, id is considered an original instinctual impulse while ego, the pleasure seeker, carries out the id’s intention. Superego is the apparatus whose function is to chide and repress the ego’s intention. According to this theory, Cleopatra, described as a serpent of old Nile, can be compared to id, specifically the sexual impulse, libido. Antony, one of the Roman triumvirates, neglects his responsibility in Rome and pursues pleasure in Egypt, thus becoming a symbol of the ego in human beings. Octavius Caesar, who holds power in Rome, consistently reprimands Antony for his wantonness, thus playing the role of superego. Egypt, over which Cleopatra reigns, can be regarded as a barbarian world and Rome, the domain of Caesar, a world of law and order. Antony leaves Egypt for Rome and Rome for Egypt as the ego must in order to relate to the external reality. This creates a distance between the lovers. In being so distant, their mutual desire for unity also go astray. Ultimately, the desire to complete their love is accomplished only through death. Much like the instinctual id can not be completed by ego as it is controlled and repressed by superego, the love between Antony and Cleopatra fails. In their defeat in the Actium War, Antony and Cleopatra, in being beset by Caesar, exemplified how the needs of ego and id(Antony and Cleopatra) are irreconcilable with those of the superego, Caesar. Through the triumph of Caesar, the superego, and the suggestion of the renewal of the life force of the two lovers, there seems to be a kind of comic hope at the end of drama. Because each character represents a part of human nature, the main characters in this drama necessarily look inconsistent and unrealistic with ambiguous and incompatible personalities. If we see the theme of this drama as not merely Antony’s love for Cleopatra, but their roles as symbols of the parts of human nature, their ambiguity can be understood. Through dramatization of the Plutarch‘s Lives, Shakespeare again shows us truth about human nature.
참고문헌 (26)
- Belsey, Catherine, "Cleopatra’s Seduction, In Alternative Shakespeare", pp.38~62 (1996), Routledge
- Brown, John Russell, "Shakespeare: The Tragedies" (2001), Palgrave
- Dollimore, Jonathan, "Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and His contemporaries" (1984), Harvester
- Dowden, Edward, "Shakespeare: A Critical Study of His Mind and Art" (1967), Routledge
- Fernie, Ewan, "Spiritual Shakespeares" (2005), Routledge
- Freud, Sigmund, "Freud: New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis" (1979), Penguin Books
- Golman, Michael, "Action and Acting in Shakespeare Tragedy" (1985), Princeton UP
- Granville Barker, Harley, "The Construction of Antony and Cleopatra, In Shakespeare’s Tragedies", pp.227~231 (1982), Penguin Books
- Holland, Norman N., "Shakespearean Tragedy and the three ways of psychoanalytic criticism, In Psychoanalysis" (1964), E.P.Dutton & Co., Inc.
- Honigmann, E.A.J., "Shakespeare: Seven Tragedies Revisited" (2002), Palgrave
- Hunter, G.K., "Shakespeare and the Traditions of Tragedy, In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies", pp.123~141 (1992), Cambridge UP
- Kierman, Victor, "Eight Tragedies of Shakespeare: A Marxist Study" (1996), Verso
- Kofman, Sarah, "Freud and Fiction" (1991), Northeastern UP
- McAlindon, T., "Shakespeare’s Tragic Cosmos" (1996), Cambridge UP
- Nye, Robert D., "Three Psychologies", pp.1981, Brooks
- Rackin, Phillis, "Misogyny is Everywhere, In A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare", pp.42~58 (2001), Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
- Rowes, A.L., "Shakespeare’s Characters" (1984), Methuen
- Sandler, Robert, "Northrop Frye on Shakespeare" (1986), Yale UP
- Shakespeare, William, "Antony and Cleopatra" (1948), Crofts
- Smith, Peter J., "Social Shakespeare" (1995), Macmillan
- Wain, John, "The Living World of Shakespeare" (1980), Macmillan
- Williams, Gordon, "Shakespeare: Sex and the Print Revolution" (1996), Athlone
- Wimsatt, W.K., "The Morality of Antony and Cleopatra, In Shakespeare’s Tragedies", pp.237~248
- Wise, Inge, "Psychoanalytic Idea & Shakespeare" (2006), Karnac
- Wooster, Gerald, "Grief, loss, and creativity: whither the Phoenix?, In Psychoanalytic Ideas and Shakespeare", pp.25~41
- Zamir, Tzachi, "Double Vision: Moral Philosophy and Shakespearean Drama" (2007), Princeton UP