主權槪念을 中心으로 한 Richard II와 Hamlet 硏究

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Throughout his career, Shakespeare maintains amid the obvious variety of his work a consistent approach to the world he imitates. He tends to structure his imitations in terms of a pair of polar opposites which is rather between two complexes of related elements than simply between two single ideals. Always the dramatic structure sets up the opposed elements as equally valid, so that the choice that the play forces the audience to make becomes impossible.
This thesis aims to look for the ultimate reconciliation between two opposed elements existed in the world of Shakespeare on the basis of the ideas of kingship, through Richard II and Hamlet. The conflict between the divine kingship stemmed from mediaeval idea of world order and the Realpolitik from Machiavelli's utilitarian view of politics is resolved into the conception of ideal order in these plays. It is the idea of the king as a twinned entity called "the King's two Bodies" for Shakespeare to convey the mystery of human being and to explore the human condition in this world through kingship. During Tudor reigns, the traditional idea of kingship had become such legal fiction as that the twinned conception of kingship was the official belief that the king could do no wrong because the suprapersonal perfection of the Body politic wiped away the imperfections of the Body natural, the individual ruler. But the reason for Shakespeare's preoccupation with the King's two Bodies is not that he believes the king really has two different functions unified, but that it stresses the tense middle ground bound to exist between the two functions and marks this middle position as the "reality" of kingship. This awareness is identical with the tragic one about reality of man with double nature in the dual world existed as representation and will. The former is presented in the world of Richard II and the latter in Hamlet.
In Richard II, the plot simply shows us Richard's progressive replacement by Bolingbroke and emphasizes the necessity of the political qualities for the successful exercise of kingship : but the action as a whole brings to the surface more complex problems than simply political revolution. The method of this discovery is an emphasis on the gulf between Body politic and Body natural, man and king, which takes place in Richard's consciousness. The Body politic is only a name, no longer linked essentially to the mortal body of Richard. He, by the end, has had to accept a completely different metaphysic of kingship, in which God is replaced with physical power. The spiritual balance in this history play is conveyed to us through its moral theme that is alike to the general purpose of Shakespeare's histories emboding the Elizabethan ideas of order and degree, the Tudor myth of the polity as beehive and history as the working out of a providence that sanctions kings as divine agents and condemns regicide and disorder. By creating the moral uneasiness of Bolingbroke about his usurpation and at the same time emphasizing the development of kingship in Richard's consciousness, Shakespeare shows us the divine kingship symbolizing the harmony of idea and power as this work's moral theme.
The conflict between the opposed ideas of kingship which has ended in regicide is not so much that one is right; the other wrong; they are totally different in terms of morality, legality, and monarchy. Another to say, regicide means cutting off from tradition and religion. Richard II dramatized the birth of these differences. The world of Hamlet preceded by regicide is governed by actuality. And its tragic irony is originated from Hamlet's clairvoyance to the dualism of the world as reality and appearance, based on human's dual nature. Hamlet's problem, in its crudest form, is simply one of the avenger :he must carry out the injunction of the ghost and kill the king. But the injunction to revenge becomes so inextricably bound up with the character of the world in which the action must be taken - its mysteriousness, its baffling appearances - that he cannot come to direct action. Furthermore, the act required of him, though retributive justice, is one that necessarily involves the doer in the general guilt involving regicide. He had never meant to dirty himself with these things, but from the moment of the ghost's challenge to act, this dirtying was inevitable. It is the condition of living at all in such a world. Hamlet has not only to accept the mystery of man's condition between the angels and the brutes, and not only to act in a perplexing and soiling world. He has also to act within human limits.
In the realm of kingship, Hamlet's delay can be explained by the historical instruction which the personal revenge is prohibited by Lord. After all experiencing internal conflicts and perplexity in action without consciousness, Hamlet became to accept the mortality of human and its condition in this world by the power of reason.
In conclusion, Shakespeare's history and tragedy together teach us the idea that reality lies in the individual consciousness; the profound effects of the individual human susceptibility to suffering become the final test that all ideas and ideals of human grandeur must pass. In this sense, divine kingship symbolizes both the awareness that the world is governed by God'd will, and the directions of human mind to the ideal, that is, to the order.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 目次
• I. 序論 = 2
• II. Shakespeare의 作品世界 = 10
• 1. 王權과 秩序 = 10
• 2. Shakespeare 史劇의 特徵 = 19
• 3. Shakespeare 悲劇의 特徵 = 25
• III. Richard II = 30
• 1. 王權槪念에 대한 傳統과 現實의 對立構造 = 30
• 2. 王의 二身一元論과 悲劇的 覺醒 = 41
• 3. 史劇의 敎訓 = 48
• IV. Hamlet = 54
• 1. 現象과 實體의 二元世界 = 54
• 2. 王權槪念을 통해 照明해 본 復讐의 遲延 = 67
• 3. Hamlet의 悲劇的 發展 過程 = 72
• V. 結論 = 77
• Bibliography = 82
• Abstract = 85