지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2012.12
- 수록면
- 735 - 758 (24page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Tillyard had great influence on criticism of Richard II. He explained the play with Elizabethan political doctrine which regards a nation as a part of divine order. This kind of criticism, however, was challenged by other critics because it oversimplified the play’s complexity and its meanings. Richard II is a history play with abundant political ambiguity because of which its meaning cannot be simplified. This paper focused on political notions of divine right of kings, justification of deposition, and Essex rebellion with historical background which could be clues in our understanding about ambiguous political moments permeated in the play.
The political and religious doctrine of divine right of kings is already unstable from the beginning of the play. It can not protect the legitimate king from usurpation any more, and law seems more effective to be a king. Even the religious leader who supports this divine right is aware of realpolitk. Richard’s moral faults and political inability suggested to justify his deposition are ambiguous because they are rather applied to the usurper Bolingbroke and his rebellion party. During the Queen Elizabeth rein, Richard was often compared to Elizabeth in many political aspects, especially, of her wrong doings, and it made the story of Richard II politically sensitive to the government. Thus, the fact that Richard II was played by request of Essex supporters on the previous day of the rebellion was not meaningless. However, their rebellion failed, and it seemed they ignored the ambiguous meaning of this play and see only what they wanted to see in it, that is a successful usurpation.
Shakespeare does not take politics as God’s will. For him, it is a process of cause and effect of human actions. It is very clear in the two parts of Henry IV in which rebellions against usurper Bolingbroke continue restlessly until his death. Richard II is a tragedy of ambition and Shakespeare shows his shrewd understanding on human nature very cleary with political ambiguity in this play.
The political and religious doctrine of divine right of kings is already unstable from the beginning of the play. It can not protect the legitimate king from usurpation any more, and law seems more effective to be a king. Even the religious leader who supports this divine right is aware of realpolitk. Richard’s moral faults and political inability suggested to justify his deposition are ambiguous because they are rather applied to the usurper Bolingbroke and his rebellion party. During the Queen Elizabeth rein, Richard was often compared to Elizabeth in many political aspects, especially, of her wrong doings, and it made the story of Richard II politically sensitive to the government. Thus, the fact that Richard II was played by request of Essex supporters on the previous day of the rebellion was not meaningless. However, their rebellion failed, and it seemed they ignored the ambiguous meaning of this play and see only what they wanted to see in it, that is a successful usurpation.
Shakespeare does not take politics as God’s will. For him, it is a process of cause and effect of human actions. It is very clear in the two parts of Henry IV in which rebellions against usurper Bolingbroke continue restlessly until his death. Richard II is a tragedy of ambition and Shakespeare shows his shrewd understanding on human nature very cleary with political ambiguity in this play.
목차
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-840-000511363