William Shakespeare’in Kısasa Kısas’ında Hobbesyen Ceza Felsefesi ve İyileştirme

Öz

‘William Shakespeare'in Kısasa Kısas’ında Hobbesyen Ceza Felsefesi ve İyileştirme’, Kısasa Kısas’ı (Measure for Measure, 1604) İngiliz toplumsal sözleşme teorisyeni Thomas Hobbes'un (1588-1679) özellikle Leviathan (1651) isimli başyapıtından yansıyan ceza felsefesi bağlamında yeniden okuyarak, tiyatro devinin cezalandırmaya ilişkin politik bakışını araştırır. Shakespeare'i ceza felsefesi üreten ve toplumun iyileştirilmesi düşüncesini taşıyan düşünürlerden biri olarak konumlandırarak, Kısasa Kısas’ın belirgin yörüngesini daha görünür hale getirir. Shakespeare, kariyeri boyunca yöneticilerin ilahi hakkını, İngiliz mutlak monarşisini ve otorite kavramını sorgular. Aynı zamanda, rıza, özgürlük, politika ve ceza konusundaki dramatik keşifleriyle modern siyasetin temellerinin anlaşılmasına yardımcı olur. Böylece Shakespeare'in külliyatı bir tür öncül olarak görülebilir: yeni ve verimli siyaset teorilerine adanmış edebi bir söylem… O zaman, onun Thomas Hobbes ile birlikte İngiliz otoritesini nasıl yeniden tasavvur eden devrimci bir siyasi düşünür olduğu anlaşılabilir. Her iki düşünür de politikayı öncelikle doğaya bir yanıt olarak görürdü. Onlar, politikayı toplumu yönetme ve organize etme sanatı olarak betimler —toplumun ihtiyaçlarını önemseme, arzuların tatmini için yer açma ve onu otorite tehdidinden koruma… Bu çalışma, Shakespeare’in başlıca politik uğraşını ve ceza felsefesi alanındaki materyalist politikaya yaptığı yatırımı aydınlatan Kısasa Kısas’ın yeni bir okumasını içerir, ve şiddet içeren cezanın ne Shakespeare ne de Hobbes için yaratıcı bir güç kaynağı oluşturduğunu gösterir. Bu anlamda, burada, Shakespeare’in ve Hobbes’un, şiddet içermeyen ceza fikriyle birlikte toplumun rehabilitasyonu düşüncesi etrafında ortak bir felsefeyi paylaştıkları ileri sürülür. Bu ortak felsefi görüşün en önemli sahne kanıtlarından birinin Kısasa Kısas olduğu önermesi yapılır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cezalandırma
• İyileştirme
• Kısasa Kısas
• Otorite
• Thomas Hobbes
• William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare’s Hobbesian Philosophy of Punishment and Rehabilitation in Measure For Measure

Abstract

‘William Shakespeare’s Hobbesian Philosophy of Punishment and Rehabilitation in Measure for Measure’ explores the giant British dramatist’s political outlook on punishment by predominantly rereading his Measure for Measure (1604) in the context of the philosophy of punishment reflected from English social contract theorist Thomas Hobbes’s (1588-1679) masterpiece named Leviathan (1651). Situating Shakespeare as one of the thinkers who produce the philosophy of punishment and carry the thought of rehabilitation of society, and it makes the distinct trajectory of Measure for Measure more visible. Throughout his career, Shakespeare interrogates the divine right of rulers, absolute English monarchy, and the concept of authority. Simultaneously he helps to lay the groundwork for understanding modern politics through his dramatic explorations of consent, liberty, politics and punishment. Shakespeare’s corpus, thus, can be seen as a kind of a priori: a literary discourse dedicated to new and efficient theories of politics. Then it can be understood how he as a revolutionary political thinker who, along with Thomas Hobbes, reimagined English authority. Both thinkers viewed politics primarily as a response to nature. They depict politics as the art of managing and organising society —caring for its needs, making space for the satisfaction of desires, and protecting it from the threat of authority. This work features a new reading of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure which illuminates the playwright’s major political preoccupations and his investment in materialist politics in the realm of his philosophy of punishment, and it indicates that violent punishment constitutes a source of creative power for neither Shakespeare nor Hobbes. In this, it is claimed here that Shakespeare and Hobbes share a common philosophy around the idea of rehabilitation of society along with the idea of punishment without any violence. It is suggested that one of the most critical stage evidence of this common philosophical view is Measure for Measure.

Keywords

• Punishment
• Rehabilitation
• Measure for Measure
• Authority
• Thomas Hobbes

Kaynakça

1. Arendt, H. (1965). On Revolution. New York: Viking.
2. Arendt, H. (1972). On Violence. H. Arendt içinde, In Crises of the Republic (s. 103-184). New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
3. Arendt, H. (1987). Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Books.
4. Arnhart, L. (2004). Platon’dan Rawls’a Siyasi Düşüncenin Tarihi. (A. K. Bayram, Çev.) Ankara: Adres.
5. Bawcutt, N. W. (1984). He who the sword of heaven will bear: The Duke versus Angelo in ‘Measure for Measure'. Shakespeare Survey 37, 89-97.
6. Bertram, B. (2013). Measure for Measure and the Discourse of Husbandry. Modern Philology, 110(4), 459-488.
7. Brown, C. E. (1996). Duke Vincentio of “Measure for Measure” and King James of England: The poorest princes in Christendom. Clio: A Journal of Literature, History and the History of Philosophy, 26, 51–79.
8. Cadman, D. (2018). Constant in any Undertaking’: Writing the Lipsian State in Measure for Measure. K. Halsey, & A. Vine (Dü) içinde, Shakespeare and Authority (s. 195-212). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

9. Cevizci, A. (2007). Felsefe. İstanbul: Sentez.
10. Cormack, B. (2007). A Power to Do Justice: Jurisdiction, English Literature, and the Rise of Common Law, 1509-1625. Chicago: University of Chicago.
11. Dollimore, J. (1985). Transgression and Surveillance in Measure for Measure, in Political Shakespeare: New Essays. J. Dollimore, & A. Sinfield (Dü) içinde, Cultural Materialism (s. 72-87). Manchester: Manchester University.
12. Durkheim, E. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society. (W. D. Halls, Çev.) New York: The Free Press. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (A. Sheridan, Çev.) New York: Vintage Books.
13. Foucault, M. (2003). “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976. (D. Macey, Çev.) New York: Picador.
14. Frazer, E. (2020). Shakespeare and the Political Way. Oxford: Oxford University.
15. Geckle, G. L. (1971). Shakespeare's Isabella. Shakespeare Quarterly, 22(12), 163-168.
16. Ristroph, A.G. (2004). Politics By Other Means: Punishment, Violence, and the Sources of Political Authority (Unpublished PhD Dissertation).Harvard University.
17. Gil, D. J. (2013). Shakespeare’s Anti-Politics: Sovereign Power and the Life of the Flesh. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Greenblatt, S. (1988). Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California.
19. Hadfield, A. (2004). Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics. London: Thomson Learning.
20. Hadfield, A. (2005). Shakespeare and Republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Halsey, K., & Vine, A. (2018). D. a. Dressed in a Little Brief Authority’: Authority Before, K. Halsey, & A. Vine (Dü.) içinde, Shakespeare and Authority (s. 1-27). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Hart, H. L. (2008 (Original work published 1968)). Punishment and Responsibility (2 b.). Oxford: Oxford University.
23. Herrup, C. B. (1985). Law and morality in seventeenth-century England. Past & Present, 106, 102-123.
24. Hobbes, T. (1949). De Cive. S. P. Lamprecht (Dü.). içinde New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
25. Hobbes, T. (1997). Leviathan. (R. Tuck, Dü.) Cambridge: Cambridge University.
26. Hudson, W. (1972). F. Hargrave (Dü.) içinde, A Treatise of the Court of Star Chamber, in Collectanea Juridica (Cilt 2, s. 1-239). London.
27. Hüning, D. (2007). Hobbes on the Right to Punish. P. Springborg (Dü.) içinde, The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan (s. 217- 240). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
28. Kirsch, A. (1975). The Integrity of Measure for Measure. Shakespeare Survey, 28, 89-105.
29. Lewis, C. (1983). Dark Deeds Darkly Answered: Duke Vincentio and Judgment In Measure for Measure. Shakespeare Quarterly, 34(3), 271- 289.
30. Machiavelli, N. (1985). The Prince. (H. J. Mansfield, Çev.) Chicago: University of Chicago.
31. Meilaender, C., (2012). Marriage and the Law: Politics and theology in Measure for Measure, Perspectives on Political Science, 41, 195–200.
32. Moore, A. (2016). Shakespeare Between Machiavelli and Hobbes: Dead Body Politics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
33. Norrie, A. (1984). Thomas Hobbes and the philosophy of punishment. Law and Philosophy, 3(2), 299-320.
34. Nuttall, A. D. (2007). Shakespeare the Thinker. London: Yale University.
35. Parvini, N. (2018). Shakespeare’s Moral Compass. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
36. Pearsall, J., & Hanks, P. (1999). The new Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford; New York: Oxford University.
37. Pitkin, H. F. (1972). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California.
38. Reese, M. (1961). The Cease of Majesty. London: Edward Arnold.
39. Schmitt, C. (1996). The Concept of the Political. (G. Schwab, Çev.) Chicago: University of Chicago.
40. Schrock, T. (1991). The Rights to Punish and to Resist Punishment in Hobbes’s Leviathan. Western Political Quarterly, 44(4), 853- 890.
41. Schulman, A. (2014). Rethinking Shakespeare’s Political Philosophy: From Lear to Leviathan. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
42. Scott, M. (1982). Renaissance Drama and a Modern Audience. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
43. Scozzaro, C. (2019). Shakespeare’s Quarterly. Rape’s Hypothetical in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, 70(94), 270-294.
44. Shakespeare, W. (2003). A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
45. Shakespeare, W. (2009). Pericles. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
46. Shakespeare, W. (2021). Kısasa Kısas. (Z. Avcı, Çev.) İstanbul: Can.
47. Shuger, D. K. (2001). Political Theologies in Shakespeare’s England: The Sacred and the State in Measure for Measure. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
48. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
49. Sokol, B. J. (2008). Shakespeare and Tolerance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. St Matthew (n.d.). (Cambridge). Holy Bible, Authorised (King James) version. Cambridge University.
51. Strauss, L. (1952). Persecution and the Art of Writing. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
52. Strauss, L. (1963). The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Chicago: University of Chicago.
53. Sullivan, V. B. (2004). Machiavelli & Hobbes and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University.
54. Tillyard, E. M. (1949). Shakespeare's Problem Plays. Toronto: University of Toronto.
55. Tillyard, E. M. (1962). Shakespeare's History Plays. London: Peregrine.
56. Urgan, M. (2003). İngiliz Edebiyat Tarihi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
57. Verbalworkout (2021). 10 Aralık 2021 tarihinde https://www.verbalworkout.com/t/t1036a.htm adresinden edinilmiştir.
58. Weber, M. (1946). Politics as a Vocation. H. Qerth, & C. Wright Mills (Dü.) içinde, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (s. 77‐128). Oxford: Oxford University.
59. Weimann, R. (1995). Representation and performance: The uses of authority in Shakespeare’s Theatre. I. Kamps (Dü.) içinde, Materialist Shakespeare: A history (s. 198–217). London: Verso.
60. White, R. S. (1996). Natural Law in English Renaissance Literature. New York: Cambridge University.