『리어왕』 비평의 쟁점: 낙관적 시각과 비관적 시각 (Critical Controversies of King Lear: Optimistic or Pessimistic?)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국셰익스피어학회
· 수록지 정보 : Shakespeare Review / 46권 / 4호 / 731 ~ 754페이지
· 저자명 : 김종환

초록

The most controversial issue in King Lear criticism is the meaning of Cordelia's and Lear's deaths and their relation to the play. The optimistic group of critics, such as Edward Dowden, A. C. Bradley, Wilson Knight, J. Dover Wilson, R. W. Chambers, G. L. Bickersteth, Kenneth Muir, and Irving Ribner, has regarded the deaths of Cordelia and Lear as evidence of Shakespeare's Christian view. They interpret King Lear as a play reflecting the will of Providence in the matter of human salvation and containing a message of hope and faith in King Lear's awareness of divine love, embodied in the figure of Cordelia, arguing that the ending demonstrates an optimistic vision of life. A. C. Bradley, whose view is representative of optimistic interpretations of the play, argued that Lear dies of joys, believing Cordelia is alive, drawing attention to the last two lines of Lear: “Do you see this? Look on her! Look, her lips./ Look there, look there” (5.3.311-12). According to Bradley, who regards the play as “The Redemption of King Lear,” Lear is saved through the suffering he experienced and Cordelia's love and sacrifice.
However, the pessimistic group of critics, such as A. C. Swinburne, George Orwell, Barbara Everett, William Elton, Helen Gardner, A. L. French, and Jan Kott, has argued that the ending demonstrates a pessimistic vision of life inherent in the play. They cannot find any possibility of human salvation in the ending or any message of hope and divine will. They criticize optimistic or Christian views of the ending of the play. They believe Lear dies not in the ecstasy of love but in despair and suffering. They regard the play as a representation of a dark vision of life devoid of Providence or divine will, drawing attention to the last dialogue of Lear: “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,/ And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more,/ Never, never, never, never, never” (5.3.307-09). Jan Kott, who takes an extreme position against optimistic interpretations of the play, argues that Lear’s death is meaningless, because he does not recognize any reality even at the end of the play. He regards the play as an absurdist denial of any values and human salvation, emphasizing the absurdity in the actions of characters, especially revealed in the dialogue of Gloucester: “As flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods; They kill us for their sport” (4.1.36-37). This paper discusses pessimistic or non-Christian interpretations as well as optimistic or Christian interpretations of the play and tries to find out which is more reliable in interpreting the ending of King Lear.

영어초록

The most controversial issue in King Lear criticism is the meaning of Cordelia's and Lear's deaths and their relation to the play. The optimistic group of critics, such as Edward Dowden, A. C. Bradley, Wilson Knight, J. Dover Wilson, R. W. Chambers, G. L. Bickersteth, Kenneth Muir, and Irving Ribner, has regarded the deaths of Cordelia and Lear as evidence of Shakespeare's Christian view. They interpret King Lear as a play reflecting the will of Providence in the matter of human salvation and containing a message of hope and faith in King Lear's awareness of divine love, embodied in the figure of Cordelia, arguing that the ending demonstrates an optimistic vision of life. A. C. Bradley, whose view is representative of optimistic interpretations of the play, argued that Lear dies of joys, believing Cordelia is alive, drawing attention to the last two lines of Lear: “Do you see this? Look on her! Look, her lips./ Look there, look there” (5.3.311-12). According to Bradley, who regards the play as “The Redemption of King Lear,” Lear is saved through the suffering he experienced and Cordelia's love and sacrifice.
However, the pessimistic group of critics, such as A. C. Swinburne, George Orwell, Barbara Everett, William Elton, Helen Gardner, A. L. French, and Jan Kott, has argued that the ending demonstrates a pessimistic vision of life inherent in the play. They cannot find any possibility of human salvation in the ending or any message of hope and divine will. They criticize optimistic or Christian views of the ending of the play. They believe Lear dies not in the ecstasy of love but in despair and suffering. They regard the play as a representation of a dark vision of life devoid of Providence or divine will, drawing attention to the last dialogue of Lear: “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,/ And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more,/ Never, never, never, never, never” (5.3.307-09). Jan Kott, who takes an extreme position against optimistic interpretations of the play, argues that Lear’s death is meaningless, because he does not recognize any reality even at the end of the play. He regards the play as an absurdist denial of any values and human salvation, emphasizing the absurdity in the actions of characters, especially revealed in the dialogue of Gloucester: “As flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods; They kill us for their sport” (4.1.36-37). This paper discusses pessimistic or non-Christian interpretations as well as optimistic or Christian interpretations of the play and tries to find out which is more reliable in interpreting the ending of King Lear.

참고자료

· 없음