I. 서론을 대신하여

17세기 영문학에서 가장 혁명적인 순간은 의심할 여지없이 잉글랜드 내전(1641~1651)으로 시작한다. 이 전쟁의 참상으로 약 18만에서 20만명이 사망했으며, 이는 심각한 인구 구성의 변화를 초래하여 계층 간 이동을 촉진하는 구조적 변화를 야기했다(Tucker 118). 또한, 혈연으로 맺어진 가족이나 지인 간의 관계에 따른 정치보다, 종교적 이념이나 정치적 입장의 차이에 따라 정치 세력이 나뉘었고, 토마스 홉스(Thomas Hobbes)나 제임스 해링턴(James Harrington)으로 대표되는 사회계약론의 출현 등은 주권의 기원과 확립에 대한 활발한 논의를 촉진했다. 이러한논의는 전쟁 이후 다양한 실험과 모색을 거치며, 오늘날 영국의 양당제도, 국가와 종교의 분리, 입헌군주제와 같은 근대적인 제도의 기초가 되었다. 

최근 17세기 영문학자들은 잉글랜드 내전의 다양한 분야에서의 지속적 영향을 인정하면서도, 출판과 담론적 차원에서 나타난 변화와 그근대적 의미를 천착하고 있다. 제이슨 피시(Jason Peacey)나 조드 레이몬드(Joad Raymond)는 이 시기 정치적 현안을 비판적으로 다루는 팸플릿문학의 폭발적 발전에 주목하면서, 이러한 새로운 문화 현상을 18세기 커피하우스로 대표되는 공공영역(public sphere)의 발달과 비교한다(Print and Public Politics, 6-14; News, Newspaper, and Society, 128). 한편, 필리스 맥(Phyllis Mack)과 같은 학자는 당시 주변부에 머물던 여성들이 예언이나집단 청원 등을 통해 부권주의적 인물과 제도에 맞선 사례를 조명하고, 여기서 나타난 여성적 글쓰기의 특성을 탐색한다(119-24). 또한 데일 랜덜(Dale Randall), 수잔 와이즈먼(Susan Wiseman)과 같은 학자들은 잉글랜드 내전 기간 전통적인 연극 관람이 불가능해진 상황에서 플레이 릿(Playlet)이라는 새로운 팸플릿 형태가 생겨나거나, 실험적이며 은밀한 방식으로 연극 공연이 이루어지는 사례들을 논한다. 그리고 이런 새로운문화 현상이 어떻게 왕정복고 이후 연극의 발전에 기여하는지 논한다. 

위에서 말한 일군의 학자들이 새롭게 발굴한 문학적, 문화적 현상들은 분명 이 시기를 새롭게 조명하고 평가하는 발판을 마련하였다. 필자는 이 시기 새로운 문화적 현상, 읽기 경험, 그리고 첨예한 논쟁들이 내전 이후 영국 사회가 근대화 과정에서 발생된 점에 주목하여 근대적 의식과 감수성에 미친 영향을 추적하고자 한다. 다시 말해 18세기 소설이나 19세기 낭만주의 시에서 흔히 언급되는 근대적 의식과 감수성, 즉 기존 전통에 대한 도전, 면밀한 내적 자아의 성찰, 저널리즘적 글쓰기와 매체의 적극적인 활용, 새로운 스타일과 형식의 추구 등이 이미 잉글랜드내전이 가져온 출판 및 담론의 변화에서부터 일정 정도 감지되는지를 탐구하며 나름의 해석을 가하고자 한다. 물론 이와 같은 통시적인 역사서술을 시도할 때 흔히 빠지게 되는 목적론적 기술(teleological narrative)의 오류를 최대한 피하고자 한다. 이를 위해 앞으로 논의할 담론적 현상이나 사건들이 근대적 의식의 초보적인 형태나 준비단계의 사례로 단순히 환원되지 않는 독특한 요소가 존재함도 함께 살펴볼 것이다. 결국조야한 목적론적 사고를 피하고 역사론적 현상의 지속적 영향을 동시에 서술하고자 하는 노력으로 인해, 논의가 다소 혼란스럽고 복잡하게보일 위험이 있다. 그럼에도 이와 같은 섬세한 이해가 (후에 잠시 언급될) 밀턴을 비롯한 당시 문학 텍스트의 맥락을 정확히 이해하는 데 기여할 수 있기에, 이 같은 접근을 견지하려 한다. 

끝으로 본 논문에서는 베버 저작의 연구 방식과 본 연구의 유사성을 설명하면서 본 논문의 복합적, 다각적 접근이 객관적 시각을 견지하고있음을 증명하고자 한다. 베버의 연구 내용은 이미 널리 알려져 있어 그것의 소개가 진부해 보일 수 있지만, 흔한 목적론적 서술—예를 들어 칼맑스의 경제적 패러다임에 따른 서술—을 극복한 좋은 예가 되므로, 본고의 복잡한 서술 방식을 정당화하는 근거가 될 것이다. 

이 논의가 다소 장황할 것을 고려하여, 전체적인 글의 구조를 다시 한번 설명하고자 한다. 먼저 잉글랜드 내전의 전개 양상을 개괄적으로소개한 후, 이 시기 뉴스북으로 대변되는 출판문화의 발전이 근대적 의식 형성과 어떻게 연결되는지 살펴볼 것이다. 이후 기도와 예배 방식을둘러싼 논쟁과 다양한 실험을 검토하면서, 이 과정에서 드러나는 종교적 열정과 새로운 형식 추구라는 이중성을 분석할 것이다. 마지막으로, 밀턴과 베버의 저작을 통해 이 이중성의 의미를 보다 명확히 전달하는 것으로 논의를 마무리하고자 한다. 

II. 잉글랜드 내전 – 종교적 갈등의 심화

잉글랜드 내전^[2]의 원인은 계층 간 경제적 갈등^[3], 찰스 1세의 잘못된 정책 판단 등 여러 가지로 생각해 볼 수 있다. 하지만 여기서는 찰스 1세(King Charles I)의 즉위 후 더욱 첨예해진 종교 갈등의 관점에서 잉글랜드 내전의 맥락을 살펴보려고 한다. 비록 경제적 이해관계, 찰스 1세의 성격과 편견^[4] 등, 잉글랜드 내전의 구체적 전개 과정을 특정한 방향으로 이끄는 많은 요소들이 고려될 수 있겠지만, 가장 근본적인 관점에서 잉글랜드 내전을 살펴보면, 다양한 종교, 정치 집단의 요구가 국가적 차원에서 조정되지 못하고 악화되었다는 점이 그 근본적인원인이라 할 수 있다. 또한 앞으로 전개할 내용의 관점에서 종교적 맥락에 대한 깊은 이해가 매우 중요한데, 이는 종교적 갈등과 그것의 전개양상이 궁극적으로는 영국, 넓게는 서구 근대성의 확립에—비록 복잡한 양상을 통해서이지만—크게 기여했음을 보여주는 것이 본고의 주된기획이기 때문이다. 

익히 알려진 것처럼 영국은 다른 개신교 국가와 달리 그 태생부터 매우 불완전한 모습을 보였다. 헨리 8세(Henry VIII)에 의해 영국은 종교개혁을 단행하고 개신교의 발판을 마련하지만, 이는 헨리 8세의 종교심이 남달라서라기보다는 그의 개인적인 욕망과 왕위를 이어받을 세자가 필요했기 때문이었다. 헨리 8세 이후에도 영국은 왕좌에 누가 앉느냐에 따라 개혁의 폭과 방향이 예측할 수 없을 정도로 급변하곤 했다. 소위 블러디 메리(Bloody Mary)로 알려진 메리 여왕은 영국을 다시금 가톨릭 국가로 되돌리려 했으며, 뒤이어 즉위한 엘리자베스 여왕은 정반대로 개신교적 개혁에 힘을 보탰다. 한편, 스코틀랜드의 왕이자 영국의 왕으로 군림했던 제임스 왕은 자신의 왕권의 이해관계에 따라 행동을 달리하여, 때로는 가톨릭을 탄압하고 때로는 청교도의 개혁 요구를 묵살하기도 하였다. 

왕권신수설에 기반 한 통치를 펼친 제임스 왕의 종교적인 태도에는 실리적인 고려도 일부 포함되어 있었다. 당시 유럽 전역은 신교와 구교 간의 갈등으로 무수한 사람이 죽고 다치는 비극을 겪고 있었는데, 제임스 왕은 중도노선을 택함으로써 영국을 전쟁의 화마로부터 지켜낸측면이 있다.^[5] 그러나 제임스 왕이 서거하고 그의 아들 찰스가 왕위에 오른 후 상황은 점점 악화되기 시작했다. 찰스는 당시 대다수 개신교들이 신봉하던 칼뱅주의보다는 아르미니우스주의(Arminianism)에 더 호의적이었다. 아르미니우스주의는 설교나 성경의 말씀 보다는 성사(sacrament)나 의식(ceremony)을 강조한다는 점에서 청교도의 관점에서는 이단에 가까웠다(Herman 199). 당시 캔터베리 대주교였던 윌리엄로드(William Laud)는 이러한 찰스의 신앙적 기호에 부합되는 새로운 (반)개혁을 추진했다. 그는 칼뱅주의가 다수를 점하는 스코틀랜드의 교회(kirk)에게도 압력을 행사해 새롭게 개정된 “로드식 예배(Laudian liturgy)”(Solt 119)를 따를 것을 권하였다. 새로운 예배에 대한 국왕 포고(royal proclamation)가 마침내 1637년 7월 23일, 에든버러에 위치한 성 자일스 대성당(St. Giles cathedral)에 처음으로 공표되었고, 이는 곧 극렬한 항의와 반대집회를 불러일으켜 스코틀랜드 교회와 찰스 왕의 대립은 걷잡을 수 없는 형국으로 전개되었다(Solt 119-200). 이 둘의 긴장은 결국은 1차 주교 전쟁(the 1^st Bishops’ War)으로 격화되었고, 이 전쟁에서 내부적으로나 외부적으로도 많은 지지를 이끌지 못한 찰스는 결국 제대로 된 전투도 해보지 못하고 5주 만에  버윅 평화협정(the Peace of Berwick)을 맺으면서 상황이 일단락되었다. 다급해진 찰스는 국면을 전환시키기 위해 의회(Parliament)의 재정적인 도움이 절실히 필요했고, 이로 인해 의회 없이 영국을 지배하던 개인통치(Personal Rule)는끝나게 되었으며, 마침내 단기의회(Short Parliament)가 열리게 된다. 하지만 찰스의 기대와 달리 의회는 찰스가 원하는 재정적인 지원의 논의에 앞서, 그동안 의회 없이 독단적으로 정치를 해 온 찰스의 국정운영과 국교회가 노정시킨 여러 문제들의 시정을 촉구하기 시작한다. 이를심히 불쾌하게 생각한 찰스는 급기야 의회를 해산시키고, 의회의 지원 없이 다시 2차 주교 전쟁(the 2^nd Bishops’ War)을 치른다. 2차 주교 전쟁에서도 스코틀랜드 군대에 대패한 찰스는 정전협정 과정에서 막대한 배상금을 스코틀랜드에 지불해야 하는 처지에 빠지게 된다. 더욱 불리해진 상황에서 찰스는 어쩔 수 없이 도움을 요청하고자 다시 의회를 소집하게 되었는데, 존 핌(John Pym)으로 대표되는 개혁적인 하원의원들은 주교들의 권한 축소, 왕의 임명권에 대한 의회 비토권 행사 등이 포함된 무려 200개의 시정사항을 골자로 한 대항의서(Grand Remonstrance) 법안을 제시함으로써, 국왕과 의회의 골은 더욱 깊어지게 된다.

한편 영국 내부의 혼란한 시기를 틈타 아일랜드 가톨릭들은 찰스 왕의 이름을 도용하여 군대를 일으키고 아일랜드에 군림했던 신교도세력을 축출하려는 반란을 꾀한다(김중락 5). 1641년 10월, 얼스터(Ulster)에서 시작된 아일랜드 반란(Irish Rebellion)은 순식간에 아일랜드전역에 퍼졌고, 11월 영국 의회가 이를 접했을 때는 사실과 소문이 뒤섞여 아일랜드는 신교도들을 마구 학살하는 지옥과 같은 곳으로 각인된다.^[6] 아일랜드의 진압에 대한 급박한 논의가 영국 의회에서 진행되는 동안, “의회 위원회”에서 “영국 내부의 주교와 몇몇 추밀원 의원들”(privy councillors)이 아일랜드 반란군과 밀통하고 있다는 정황이 보고되고, 가톨릭 세력에 우호적인 찰스 왕에게 군사 지휘권을 맡기는 것에대한 깊은 우려가 표명되기 시작한다(Scott 147-48). 결국 의회는 전례 없는 ‘민병대조례’(Militia Ordinance, March 1642)를 포고하고, 그 이유를 다음과 같이 설명한다.

… 최근 하원에 대한 가장 위험하고 무모한 음모에 대해, 우리는 그것이 교황신봉자들의 폭력적 의도에서 비롯된 결과라고 생각할만한 정당한 이유를 가지고 있다. . . . 그리고 새롭게 발견된 사실들로 인해 우리는 그들이 영국 왕국에서도 비슷한 반란과 폭동을 획책할 뿐 아니라 외부의 군대를 통해 이를 지원할 것이라고 두려워하지 않을 수 없다. 

… late a most dangerous and desperate design upon the House of Commons, which we have just cause to believe to be an effect of the bloody counsels of Papists . . . and by reason of many discoveries we cannot but fear they will proceed not only to stir up the like rebellion and insurrections in this kingdom of England, but also to back them with forces from abroad. (qtd. in Scott 147-48)

의회의 대담한 일련의 조치는 여기서 그치지 않고 심지어 찰스의 부인 헨리에타 마리아(Henrietta Maria)에 대한 탄핵을 계획하고 있다는소문까지 돌게 된다. 더 이상 의회의 과격한 행동을 묵과할 수 없었던 찰스는 결국 왕비에 대한 탄핵을 주도한 것으로 추정되는 하원의원 5인을 체포하고자 “일군의 병사들과 함께” “웨스트민스터(Westminster)를 찾았고” 이들을 체포하려 하였으나, 이런 계획을 미리 알고 있던 급진파 의원들이 주동자를 미리 피신시킴으로써 찰스의 체포 시도는 무위로 끝난다(White 54-55). 이런 일이 있고 나서 6일 후 자신의 “가족의 안전에 대해 위협을 느낀” 찰스는 “여왕을 안전하게 프랑스로 피신”시키는 한편, 본인은 런던을 떠나 햄튼궁(Hampton Court)으로, 나중에는 요크(York)로 거처를 옮기며 의회와 일전을 준비하게 된다(Womack 32). 왕은 북부와 서부 지역을, 의회는 남부와 동쪽 지역을 연고지로 군사를모은 뒤, 마침내 에섹스 백작(Earl of Essex)이 지휘하는 의회파 군사와 찰스 1세와 루퍼트 왕자(Prince Rupert)가 이끄는 왕당파 군사가 에지힐(Edgehill) 전투에서 맞붙으면서 잉글랜드 내전의 본격적인 시작을 알린다(Lemon 865). 

앞에서 간략하게 본 잉글랜드 내전의 배경에서 보듯 내전은 외부적으로는 영국, 스코틀랜드, 그리고 아일랜드 각각의 종교적 색채와 정치적 이해에 따른 충돌 속에서 진행되었고, 내부적으로는 왕과 그를 따르는 왕당파, 그리고 이에 맞서는 의회파의 충돌이 매우 폭력적으로표현되는 과정이었다. 이런 폭력적인 과정을 증폭시키고 촉매 역할을 한 것이 이 당시 홍수처럼 범람하던 팸플릿 문학이었다. 우리는 팸플릿문학의 특징을 통해 그것이 구텐베르크의 인쇄술 혁명 이후 활자 문화(print culture)가 보여주던 폭발력을 어떤 식으로 새로운 국면으로 이끌었는지 살펴볼 것이다. 이를 통해 우리는 근대적 의식에 매우 친화적인 독서체험의 구조화를 목격할 것이며, 이 새로운 독서체험의 구조적인변화에 있어 종교 개혁적 성향을 띤 의회주의자들(Parliamentarians)과 이를 동조한 인쇄업자들이 어떤 식으로 적극적으로 가담했는지를 살펴보게 될 것이다. 

III. 잉글랜드 내전과 저널리즘

잉글랜드 내전이 시작하기 전 특정 사건을 알리는 뉴스의 유통은 매우 엄격하게 관리되었다. 예를 들어, “인쇄출판업자(Company of Stationers)에 의해 주도된 1637년 칙령”은 인쇄출판업자들의 독점적인 지위를 강화하고, “출판물의 생산, 유포, 그리고 내용에 제한을 둠으로써 정부의 정치적 요구에 부응”하는 역할을 담당하고 있었다(Achinstein 56). 또한 이 칙령으로 인해 “법적으로 용인되었던 신문이나 국내 뉴스의 출판”은 불법이 되었기 때문에, 비판은 제한적이며 간접적인 방식의 비판, 즉 문학 작품이나 “고전의 번역이나 성경의 해석” 등을 통해이루어지고 있었다(Achinstein 56, 57). 뉴스에 대한 스튜어트 왕조의 보수적인 입장은 이웃 나라 프랑스와 매우 대조적이었는데, 프랑스는이미 1613년에 공식적인 비정기 간행물인 󰡔르 메르쿠르 프랑셰󰡕(Le Mercure Fraçais)가 출판되었고, “정치적인 도구로써 출판”의 가능성을간파한 프랑스 재상 리슐리외(Richelieu)의 비호 아래 르노도(Théophraste Renaudot)가 매주 발행하는 󰡔라 가제트󰡕(La Gazette)는 거의 독점적인 지위를 누리며 “정치, 군사에 관한 소식뿐 아니라 문화적 행사, 과학, 의학에 관한 소식까지” 널리 대중에게 유포하며 정부의 정책을 옹호하는 “선전기구”의 역할을 하고 있었다(Raymond 10-11). 

이런 프랑스의 적극적인 출판문화에 감화를 받은 사무엘 하틀리브(Samuel Hartlib)와 다수의 영국 출판업자들은 “공식적인 뉴스북”의 출판 허락을 요청하였다. 그러나 찰스 왕은 앞에서 언급한 1632년 칙령 등을 통해 출판에 대한 강경한 입장을 천명함으로써 외국 뉴스를 부정기적으로 제공하던 코란토(Corantos)의 출판 및 유통마저도 금지했다. 이러한 일련의 조치에서 볼 수 있듯, 찰스 왕은 활자화된 뉴스의 “난잡한(promiscuous) 유통에 대해 매우 염려했으며,” 뉴스는 “일반인들을 위한 것이 아니”라고 보았다. 또한, 그는 외국 뉴스를 소개하는 코란토는“대중적인 생각과 담화에는 어울리지 않는” 것으로 간주했다(Raymond 10). 하지만 이러한 뉴스의 강력한 통제는 잉글랜드 내전 전후로 더이상 불가능해진다. “1641년 7월 성실청(Star Chamber)이 폐지”되고 “국회가 출판의 통제를 맡기” 시작하면서, 검열의 체계는 일시에 무너졌다(Achinstein 57). 이후 정부는 1643년 특별 위원회를 두고 1637년 칙령과 유사한 형식의 검열을 시도했으나, 출판 규모가 전례 없이 증가하는 상황에서 통제가 효과적이지 않았고 결국 “정부가 이를 통제하는 능력을 상실”하면서 국가 주도의 검열체계는 사실상 붕괴상태에 이르렀다(Achinstein 57). 

흥미롭게도 이 시기 찰스 왕과 대립했던 의회는 사상을 통제하고 특정 정보의 유출 방지를 위해 검열을 활용하기보다는, 오히려 의회에서 일어난 사건이나 자신들의 생각을 적극적으로 알리기 위해 출판 기술을 활용하는데 더 많은 관심을 보였다. 일례로 앞서 본 대항의서(Grand Remonstrance)의 경우, 대항의서에 명시된 “정치적 종교적 쟁점들”이 왕의 관심을 이끌어내지 못하자, 의회는 이를 출판하고 배포함으로써 대중의 지지를 얻고자 했다(Peacey 37). 정치적으로 민감한 현안을 의회가 직접 출판·배포한 것은 매우 이례적인 일이었기 때문에, 장기의회(Long parliament)의 의원 중 한 명인 에드워드 데링 경(Sir Edward Daring)조차 대항의서라는 말을 들었을 때 “충직한 신하로서 폐하에게 (자신의 모습을 비출 수 있는) 거울을 비춰드리려는 의도라 생각했지, 대중을 향해 이의를 제기하거나 일반 사람들에게 상황을 설명하며, 왕을 마치 제 삼자인 것처럼 논할 것이라고는 상상도 못했다”(Peacey, Politician 37 재인용) 라고 말할 정도였다. 

의회의 적극적인 출판 활용은 의회 내부 문서를 대중이 접근할 수 있도록 용인한 점에서도 두드러진다. 비록 1620년대 제임스 1세 말기에 엘리자베스 여왕의 의회 연설이나 당시 의원의 일부 연설이 간혹 출판되기는 했지만, 하원의 내부 서류가 출판을 통해 공개된 적은 전혀없었던 것이 기존의 관행이었다. 그러나 전쟁이 고조되던 1642년 12월 19일, 의원들은 위원회 명령(committee order)을 출판할 것을 결정했으며, 이러한 조치는 곧바로 “표준 절차”(standard procedure)가 되었다(Cogswell 314). 이와 비슷한 맥락에서, 의회는 이전에는 철저히 보호되었던 정부 주요 인사인 버킹엄 공작(Duke of Buckingham)에 대한 “탄핵 사항들”(impeachment accusations)을  처음으로 대중에 공개하기 위해 출판을 용인하였다(Cogswell 314). 출판물을 통해 대중의 여론을 적극적으로 조성하려는 의회의 전향적인 태도는 결국 의회 내 토의 내용, 발의된 안건, 투표 과정 등을 담은 새로운 형태의 출판물, 즉 뉴스북(newsbook)의 제작과 유통을 허용하고 지원하는 방향으로 이어졌다. 이러한움직임의 결과로, 의회는 1643년 8월에 “의회의 공식적인” 뉴스북으로 간주되는 󰡔머큐리어스 브리태니커스󰡕 (Mercurius Britannicus)를 발행하게 되었다(Raymond 150).

조드 레이먼드(Joad Raymond)는 이 중에서 험프리 블런든(Humphrey Blunden)이 편집자로 활약한 󰡔지난 의회의 진행 사항에 대한 진실된 일간 기록󰡕 (A True Diurnall of the Last Weeks Passages in Parliament)이라는 제목의 뉴스북이 진정한 의미에서 영국의 최초 정기간행물에해당한다고 주장한다. 이전의 간행물들은 주마다 발행되었다 하더라도, 매주 발행된 간행물과 간행물 사이의 연속성을 암시하는 “연속된 페이지 번호(consecutive pagination)”, “호 번호(issue numbers)” 등이 사용되지 않았다. 

이전의 뉴스북들은 암묵적으로만 연재물의 성격을 지녔다. 연재라는 개념은 코란토 독자에게 익숙한 것이었지만, 뉴스북은 이런관행을 즉각적으로 이어받지는 않았다. 그 이유는 뉴스북이 페이지를 표기하지 않는 필사본 연재물로부터 연유했기 때문이다. [페이지] 숫자 넣기는 정기간행물의 개념을 공고히 하는 인쇄상의 혁신이었다. 아마도 블런든은 숫자 넣기를 통해 독자들이 다음 호를쉽게 알아보고 구매를 유도할 수 있을 것으로 예상했을지 모른다. 

Previous newsbooks had only implicitly been serials. The concept of seriality was familiar to readers of corantos, but newsbooks did not continue this practice immediately because they descended from an unnumbered manuscript serial. Numbering was a typographical innovation which solidified the concept of the periodical. Perhaps Blunden envisaged that it would encourage his readers to identify and purchase the next issue. (The Invention, 22-23)

물론 뉴스북이 기여한 “인쇄상의 혁신”은 단순히 페이지 번호를 넣는 데만 그치지 않는다. 국회의 일정이나 토의를 활자로 옮기는 과정에서, 뉴스북 편집자는 자신의 주장과는 달리 발생한 사실을 있는 그대로 기술하기보다는 이를 보다 극적으로 보이도록 만드는 여러 장치를 사용했음을 주목할 필요가 있다. 

당시 국회의 의사과정을 기록한 또 하나의 뉴스북인 󰡔완벽한 일간지󰡕(Perfect Diurnall)의 다음과 같은 구절은 이를 잘 보여준다. 

이날 홀론드 백작은 양원의 최근 상소에 대한 답으로 폐하의 교서를 전달했다. 이는 다음 몇 가지 요점으로 이루어져 있다, 즉. 

I.

헐 타운은 왕에게 양도되어야 할 것이라는 점.

II.

의회가 주장하는 민병에 관한 유일한 권리와 이해는 전적으로 기각되어야 한다는 점. 

III.

해상에 있는 모든 선박들은 폐하의 손에 양도되어야 한다는 점.

IIII.

의회는 폐하께서 적절하다고 생각하는 다른 곳에서 휴회 중이어야 한다는 점. 

 _____________________________________

이에 관해 충분한 논의 끝에, 양원은 다음을 의결했다.

I.

폐하의 군대가 해산하기 이전에 헐 타운을 양도하는 것은 왕국의 안전에 좋지 못하다는 점.

II.

민병대의 경우, (폐하의 이전 희망에 따라) 법안으로 처리하는 것이 제일 적절하다고 의회는 생각하고 있다는 점. 

III.

선박의 경우, 폐하와 왕국을 위해서 지금 맡겨진 것보다 더 확실한 손에 맡겨질 수는 없다는 것이 의회의 생각이라는 점. 

IIII.

마지막으로, 의회는 왕국에서 가장 빼어난 곳에 있으며, 이곳에서 폐하는 가장 평화롭고 안전하게 체류할 수 있어야 하기에, 이에양원은 에섹스 백작으로 하여금 폐하와 왕국의 보존을 위해 군사를 모으는 것을 진행할 것을 명령하였다는 점. 

This day, the Earl of HOLLOND brought a Message from His Majesty, in Answer to the late Petition of both Houses; consisting of fower points, Viz.

I.

That the Towne of Hull should be surrendred vnto Him

II.

That the sole claime and interest in the Militia, by the Parliament; should be utterly disclaimed.

III.

That all the Shipps now at Sea, should be Delivered up, into His Majesties Hands,

IIII. 

That the Parliament should be adjourned to

some other place, where His Majesty should thinke

fit. 

_____________________________________

And after mature deliberation hereof, both Houses Voted.

I.

That it was not for the Kingdomes safety, to

deliver up the Towne of Hull, until such time as his Majesties Forces were disbanded.

II. 

That for the Militia, they held it most fitting (according to his Majesties former desires) to settle it by Bill.

III.

For the Shipping, they thought it could not be put into more surer hands then now it is both for the defence of his Majesty and Kingdome. 

IIII. 

Fourthly that the Parliament was in the most Eminent Place of the Kingdome, and where his Majestie might abide in most peace and safetie, and there upon both Houses ordered that the Earle of Essex should forth with raise forces for the defence of his Majestie and Kingdome.

(Perfect Diurnall, 7-8)

여기서 의회와 찰스의 충돌과 긴장은 활자의 배치와 편집 기술 등으로 인해 훨씬 강력하게 표출된다. 왕이 실제로 의회에 머물지 않고 그의 교서(message)만이 읽히는 상황에서도, 그의 물리적 부재보다는 그의 교서의 핵심 내용을 단순화하여 제시하고, 이에 대한 의회의 반응역시 대칭 구조로 배치함으로써 의회와 왕의 충돌은 활자 지면에서 보다 극적인 형태로 대비되어 표현된다. 󰡔완벽한 일간지󰡕(Perfect Diurnall)의 편집자인 사무엘 펙(Samuel Pecke)은 매우 교묘한 편집의 기술을 통해 왕과 의회의 물리적 거리 자체가 존재하지 않는 것처럼 보이게 할 뿐 아니라, 왕의 요구 사항에 대해 의회 내부에서 이루어졌을지 모를 지루한 토의 과정을 과감하게 생략함으로써, 이 둘의 대결이 갖는 시간적 차이(Temporal Gap) 역시 존재하지 않는 것 같은 착각을 불러일으킨다.

신문 자체가 의인화되는 아래의 예 역시 활자 매체가 오히려 활자 밖의 세상을 있는 그대로 반영하기 보다는 적극적으로 개입하고, 그 갈등의 성격과 방향을 새롭게 이끌어 간다는 점에서 흥미롭다. 아래 예에서, 의회의 입장을 공식적으로 대변하는 󰡔머큐리우스 브리태니커스󰡕(Mercurius Britannicus)가 왕당파의 기관지 역할을 하는 󰡔머큐리우스 올리쿠스󰡕(Mercurius Aulicus)를 마치 한 개인인 것처럼 의인화하여, 그 신문의 남루해진 모습을 풍자와 유머러스한 언어로 희화화한다. 

올리쿠스는 이제, 내가 오래 전 예언한 대로, 슬프게도 홀로 한 장의 남루한 모습, 야윈 네 장의 페이지로 쪼그라들었다. 당신은 그의 발상에 따라 한 해 어디 즈음에 있는지, 그의 잎들이 떨어져 나가는 것에 따라 그의 주변 사람들이 어떻게 되어가고 있는지를 알수 있다. 당신은 올리쿠스를 통해 마치 버킹엄 공작 부인의 옷장과 마찬가지로, 옥스퍼드에서 그들의 상태가 어떤지를 측정할 수있고, 그들의 성공의 정도를 가늠해볼 수 있다. 사실인지 아닌지는 모르겠지만, 그들 주변의 여러 카운티가 올리쿠스를 비난하는상소를 올렸다는 소문이 있다. 낱장이 아닌 두 장으로 이루어진 것에 대해서 상소를 올렸다는 소문이. . . . 

Aulicus is now, as I prophesied long agoe, decayed into the sad singularity of one sheete, into the poverty of foure leane pages, you may see what time of yeare it is with his Invention, and how the world goes with him when his leafes fall off; and you may calculate their successe, and take measure of their condition at Oxford by him, as well as if you were in the Dutchesse of Buckinghams Closet. There is a report, I know not how true it is, that divers Counties about them have petitioned against Aulicus, against the plurality of two sheets . . . (162)

여기서 브리태니커스는 옥스퍼드에서 왕당파가 겪고 있는 재정적인 압박과 왕당파의 사기를 북돋을 기사가 없는 불리한 상황 등을 올리쿠스의 남루한 모습에 빗대어 매우 신랄하고 해학적으로 비웃고 있다. 물론 이런 해학과 풍자는 반드시 뉴스북과 같은 신문 매체에서만 발견되는 언어나 기법은 아니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 이전의 글들이 대개 현실과는 동떨어진 허구적인 시공간에서 이루어진 이야기를 다루며, 독자의 흥미를 끌기 위해 다양한 기법을 사용했다면, 뉴스북은 바로 지금 발생하는 특정 사건이나 상황과 관련하여 이야기를 구성하고 전달한다는 점에서 커다란 차이가 있다. 방금 전 인용한 글은 1645년 1월 29일 전후에 발행된 뉴스인데, 당시 전세는 이미 의회 쪽으로 기운 상태였으며 윌리엄 로드는 런던에서 처형되었고 스코틀랜드와 영국 의회 간의 군사적, 외교적 협력이 긴밀히 이루어지면서 찰스에게 “억스브리지평화협정”(Treaty of Uxbridge) 체결을 압박하는 상황이었다. 즉 실제 사건과 함께 병치되는 저널리즘의 특성상 뉴스북의 글쓰기는 현재 우리가 경험하는 순간들의 사건에 큰 영향을 받으며, 이를 언어라는 층위에서 사건의 전개를 가속화하거나 지연시키거나, 혹은 새로운 국면으로전개시키는 힘을 발휘하기도 한다. 

17세기 역사 전문가이며 비평가인 존 소머빌(John Sommerville)의 말에 따르면, 이와 같은 정기간행물의 출현은 현실을 있는 그대로 (객관적으로) 보여주기보다는 자신들의 입지에 따라 독자들에게 “아첨, 충격, 걱정, 공포, 당혹, 책망 등의 다양한” 욕망을 투여할 수 있도록 부추기는 역할을 수행한다(8). 그리고 이런 극적이며 일견 선정적이기까지 한 서사(narratives)는 뉴스북이라는 값싼 매체를 통해 이전 시대 카니발 축제나 궁정연극과 같이 어떤 특정한 사회 공간에서나 가능했던 극적 체험을 일상의 경험으로 확장시킨다. 또한 이런 새로운 매체를 통한서사의 전달 방식은 이전과 달리 일회적이며 비연속적이지 않고 어제, 하루, 내일과 같은 일상적인 시간의 리듬에 따라 연속적으로 제시되기때문에, 서사의 결말은 언제나 미래의 새로운 사건들에 열려있게 된다(Sommerville 292-93). 다시 말해, 이전에는 제도나 사회가 지정한 경계속에서 극적인 경험들이 허용되고 소비되었다면, 뉴스의 출현은 비(非)일상과 일상의 경계를 허물고, 극적 서사의 경험을 일상적 시간의 단위들에 따라 연속적으로 매일매일 제공함으로써 이전과는 매우 다른 독서체험을 제공한다. 특히 뉴스북을 통한 이런 독서경험은 그 서사의끝이 늘 미래에 열려 있다는 점에서 인식경험의 불확실성을 전제하거나 이를 강화하는 방향으로 진행되는데, 이는 근대적 의식의 열린 구조, 불확실성과 매우 닮아있다고 할 수 있다.  

IV. 󰡔공동기도서󰡕와 우상파괴

앞에서 우리는 당시 저널리즘의 출현이 어떻게 근대적 의식과 읽기 체험을 구조화시켰는지를 살펴보았다. 우리는 이런 읽기 체험의 변화가 단지 정기간행물의 출현에서만 발견되는 것이 아니라, 당시 종교개혁의 열정을 가진 종파나 그에 일정 정도 동조하는 의회주의자들의일련의 다양한 문화운동에서 동일하게 목격될 수 있었다는 점에 초점을 맞춰 논의를 전개하고자 한다. 논의가 지나치게 방만해지는 것을 막기 위해 여기서는 간략하게 새로운 신교도 종파에 의해 전개된 󰡔공동기도서󰡕(Book of Common Prayer)에 대한 심각한 도전과 일련의 변화를추적함으로써, 기도나 예배 형태를 둘러싼 새로운 종교적 움직임이 어떤 식으로 근대적 의식 확대에 기여하였는지를 살펴보겠다.

급진적 신교도의 관점에서 보면, 기존 기도의 형식은 미신적이며 형식과 전통에 맹목적으로 사로잡혀 있어 진정한 성령(holy spirit)의 체험을 담아낼 수 있는 그릇이 아니었다. 일례로 잉글랜드 내전 당시 한때 급진주의적 신교도, 흔히 랜터파(Ranters)의 대표적 인물로 꼽혔던 로렌스 클라크슨(Lawrence Clarkson)은 본인의 영적 자서전인 󰡔되찾은 읽어버린 양󰡕(The Lost Sheep Found, 1660)에서 어린 시절 그가 겪었던시련의 에피소드를 통해, 󰡔공동기도서󰡕에 대한 반감을 가감 없이 드러낸다. 클라크슨이 “15살” 되던 해, 본인의 믿음이 점점 강해져 “예수를가장 진실되고 힘있게 전달하는” “순수한 목사”의 말씀을 찾기 시작했지만, 로드식 예배를 강요하는 부모와 자신의 교구목사 때문에 아래와같이 힘든 시련의 시기를 겪었음을 술회한다(174).

그 때 목사들은 난간이 쳐져 있는 성찬대에서 성체를 얻지 않고서는 성체를 받을 수 없다는 명령을 내렸고, 나는 그럴 수 없었기에,올바른 방식으로 성채를 줄만한 성직자를 찾았다. 얼마 지나지 않아 내가 교구를 떠난 것을 알아차린 우리 마을의 목사인 스타비씨는 아버지에게 당신의 자녀들이 이단으로 빠질 위험, . . . 모든 선량한 교인들의 명예를 더럽히는 것 이외에도 당신과 당신의 자식들에게 닥쳐올 걱정거리를 주지시켰다. 아버지는 이에 무척이나 격분하셨지만 사람에 앞서 신의 말씀에 복종하는 것이 양심이라 생각했던 나에게는 [이런 것들은] 아무 소용이 없었다. 그러나 아버지의 돌봄 속에 있었던 나이기에, 아버지는 나에게 엄한 눈길을 보내셨고, 나에게 󰡔공동기도서󰡕에 있는 기도를 읽을 것을 강요하시곤 하였다. 

Then the ministers had an order, that none should receive the sacrament, but such as would take it at the railed alter kneeling, which I could not do, and therefore went to such ministers in the country that give it fitting. Now a while after Mr. Starby the minister of our town, taking notice of leaving our parish, informed our father the danger of his children going into heresy . . .  and the trouble that would ensue upon our father and his children, beside the disgrace of all good church-men, which did much incense our father, but all to no purpose, for I thought it conscience to obey God before man; however I being under my father’s tuition, he cast a strict eye over me, and would force me to read over the prayer in the Book of Common prayer. (174)

아버지와 교구목사가 강요하는 󰡔공동기도서󰡕에 대한 클라크슨의 반감이 보여주듯, 이 당시 진정한 믿음을 찾아 헤매던 개인들은 정신이깃들지 않은 맹목적인 형식과 절차에 따른 기도를 또 하나의 “우상숭배” 라 생각하였다. 가령 이 당시 급격한 세력을 확장하고 있던 퀘이커 교도들은 기존의 것과 근본적으로 다른 예배방식을 추구했다. 퀘이커 교도들은 시커교도(the Seekers)의 침묵예배의 방식을 차용하고 계시록 8장1절을 근거로 이런 방식을 옹호하였다. 즉 전통적인 예배를 배척하고 “침묵의 예배의식”(liturgy of silence)을 채택하였다(Dandelion 37). 이 의식속에서 침묵은 “신의 재림의 순간에 이끌며, 침묵을 통해 신을 만날 수 있고 그의 말씀을 들을 수 있다고” 그들은 생각하였다(Dandelion 37-38). 하나님의 영이 내린 자들은 이 침묵의 예배 동안 성령의 입이 되어 하나님의 뜻을 전하는 설교나 기도를 행하고, 다시 침묵이 이어지는 식으로예배의식은 진행되었다. 이처럼 성령이 자신의 마음속에 임하는 순간에 초점을 맞춘 초기 퀘이커의 이런 예배의식은 외적인 형식과 절차에치중한 기존의 예배와 기도와는 매우 결이 다른 방식으로 진행되었다고 할 수 있다(Dandelion 39). 

당연하게도 잉글랜드 내전이라는 예사롭지 않은 시기에 󰡔공동기도서󰡕의 권위에 대한 도전은 비단 몇몇 과격한 종교분파나 그의 내부에서만 공유되는 것에 그치지 않았다. 개신교의 믿음과 성령에 따른 국가체계를 도모하고자 했던 의회와 그들과 정신적으로 연대했던 출판가들 역시 우상숭배라는 이름으로 기존 기도서의 권위를 무너뜨리려 하였다. 이 시기 의회의 지원 하에 󰡔공동기도서󰡕에 대한 비판적인 책자들역시 우후죽순으로 생겨났는데, 예를 들어 익명으로 출판된 1643년 󰡔잉글랜드 예전의 검증󰡕(A Triall of the English Lyturgie), 1644년 출판된 󰡔공동기도서를 반대하는 59개의 불복󰡕(LIX Exceptioons against the Book of Common Prayer)이 그런 예들이다(Ginn 19). 두 책 모두 “󰡔공동기도서󰡕는회복불능의 상태에 이르러 폐기되어”야 함을 주장하고 있으며, “기도서”는 “비설교적인 사역”(non-preaching ministry)을 형식화함으로써 하나님의 말씀을 전하는 본연의 역할을 수행하지 못하고 있음을 강조한다(Ginn 19). 이런 종래 기도와 예배에 대한 비판과 보다 실험적이며 개혁적인정신에 입각한 기도와 예배에 대한 논의가 출판을 통해 뜨거워지는 가운데서, 마침내 의회는 1645년 1월 3일 󰡔공동기도서󰡕의 사용을 금지하고, 󰡔예배모범지󰡕(The Directory for the Publique Worship of God)의 사용을 권고하는 조치를 단행한다(Ginn 12). 의회가 주도한 󰡔예배모범지󰡕의사용은 기존의 형식과 절차를 또 다른 형식과 절차로 대체하기 위한 것이 아니라 “미리 작성된 내용의 기도서”(prescribed contents of the Payer of book, Ginn 73)를 용도에 따라 기계적, 무반성적으로 적용하는 것을 반대하기 위한 것이었다. 즉 예배와 기도의 원칙을 설명하고, 성경에 근거하지 않은 비기독교적인 요소를 배제함으로써 참된 신앙의 근원을 강화하고자 하는데 그 목적이 있었다(Cressy 219-20). 

󰡔예배모범지󰡕는 서문(Preface)에서 󰡔공동기도서󰡕의 비판적인 입장을 잘 표현하고 있다. 여기서 저자들은 󰡔공동기도서󰡕가 “쓸모없고부담스러운 의식들”(unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies)로 “신실한 목사들과 사람들의 양심”(the consciences of many godly ministers and people)을 동요케 하며, 성찬(the Lord’ Table)과 같은 의식의 올바른 참여를 저해하며, 목사의 설교(preaching)를 무시하는 풍조를 초래하기까지 한다고말한다(Cressy 219). 특히 󰡔예배모범지󰡕는 󰡔공동기도서󰡕가 “우상”(idol)으로 전락했음을 비판하는데, 후자가 다른 대안적 기도와 예배의 형태를 불허하고 미리 정해진 말을 맹목적으로 신봉하기를 강요함으로써 “구원의 지혜와 참된 경건”(saving knowledge and true piety)을 억압하기 때문이다(Cressy 220).^[7]

물론 의회의 이런 움직임에도 불구하고 대다수의 국민들과 성직자들은 이미 오랜 기간 익숙해진 󰡔공동기도서󰡕를 버리기보다는 계속 사용하였으며, 전통적인 기도서 사용을 옹호하는 저작들도 꾸준히 출판되었다는 점은 잘 알려진 사실이다(Ginn 35-39). 그럼에도 불구하고 위와같은 문화적, 출판사적 움직임이 가지는 역사적 의미는 앞서 언급한 뉴스 형식의 간행물의 등장과 함께 살펴볼 때, 근대적인 의식의 특성을 공유하고 있다는 점에서 주목할 만하다. 다시 말해 전통을 맹목적으로 따르기보다는 이를 우상숭배적인 태도로 비판하고, 새로운 것, 실험적인것을 적극적으로 수용하고자 하였다는 점에서 근대적 의식이 지닌 역동적이며 유연한 사고를 보여준다.

혹자는 󰡔공동기도서󰡕와 이를 둘러싼 논쟁은 매우 국지적인 문화 현상이기에, 이를 근대적 의식과 결부시키는 것은 그 의미를 지나치게과장하는 것이라 비판할 수도 있겠다. 하지만 “참된 경건”(true piety)의 이름으로 기존의 권위에 맞서는 이러한 담론형태는 단지 국지적인 현상에 그치지 않으며, 밀턴의 문학 작품 등에서도 동일하게 나타난다. 물론 밀턴의 글쓰기 작업이 동시대적 관심과 이해의 연대 속에서 이루어졌음에 불구하고, 밀턴이 추구하는 근대성, 이성적 활동이 현대적 관점과는 분명 차이가 있다는 점에 주목할 필요가 있다. 지면상 밀턴 저작이보여주는 독특한 비문학적이며 종교적인 관심에 근거한 글쓰기의 성격을 자세히 다룰 수는 없지만 밀턴의 대표적인 저서 󰡔아레오파지티카󰡕(Areopagitica)에 대한 현대 독자의 해석이 갖는 문제점을 살펴보는 것만으로도 왜 지금껏 살펴본 비문학적 담론의 실천이 국지적이거나 예외적인 경우가 아닌지 알 수 있다. 

현대 독자들은 󰡔아레오파지티카󰡕를 밀턴의 자유주의적 사고를 대표적으로 보여주는 작품으로 이해하는 경향이 있다. 우리는 이 책에서밀턴이 진리의 추구, 인간 개개인의 이성적 능력의 활용을 강조하고 있다고 믿으며, 이런 점에서 그의 사상이 계몽주의적 사고와 크게 다르지않을 것이라고 평가한다. 이런 평가에 부응하듯 실제로 밀턴은 이 작품에서 미덕을 의인화하며 도전을 겪어보지 못한 채 “도망치듯 수도원에홀로 틀어박혀있는 미덕”(a fugitive and cloister‘d virtue)을 결코 칭찬할 수 없다고 말한다(1006). 또한, 진리라는 “불멸의 월계관”(immortal garland)은 반드시 경쟁 속에서 “먼지를 뒤집어쓰고 열기”(not without dust and heat)를 견뎌야만 쟁취할 수 있다고 주장한다(1006). 밀턴의 이런 수사는 얼핏 보기에 자유주의적 기조의 사상과 흡사하며, 객관적, 과학적인 진리 추구를 강변하는 것처럼 보인다. 그러나 여기서 밀턴이 말하는 진리는신의 섭리에 따른 영적인 진리의 현현을 의미한다는 점에서 유의할 필요가 있다. 아래 인용에서 보듯, 밀턴에게 진리는 애초부터 완벽한 형태를 띠고 있었지만, 타락으로 인해 조각조각 나뉘어지는 비극적인 운명을 겪게 되었다. 그리고 이로 인해 우리 인간은 (원죄로 인해) 어쩔 수 없이 파편화된 진리를 분투와 노력을 통해 온전히 회복해야 하는 숙명에 놓이게 된 것이다. 

진리는 실제로 그녀의 신성한 주인과 함께 한번 세상에 내려왔으며, 보는 이로 하여금 가장 찬란한 완전한 형상을 이루었다. 그러나그가 승천하고, 그의 사도들이 영면에 이르자, 이내 사악한 기만자들이 나타나, 이집트의 티폰과 그의 공모자들이 선한 오시리스에게 행했던 것처럼, 진리의 처녀를 붙잡아 그 아름다운 형상을 천 갈래로 잘라내어 사방의 바람에 흩어버렸다. 그때부터 지금까지, 자신을 드러내기를 꺼리던, 상심에 찬 진리의 친구들은 이시스가 오시리스의 찢긴 몸을 찾아다니며 세심하게 찾아 나선 것과 비슷하게, 발견할 수 있는 대로 팔다리를 하나씩 모으기 위해 이리저리 떠돌고 있었다. 

Truth indeed came once into the world with her divine Master, and was a perfect shape most glorious to look on: but when he ascended, and his Apostles after him were laid asleep, then strait arose a wicked race of deceivers, who as that story goes of the Egyptian Typhon with his conspirators, how they dealt with the good Osiris, took the virgin Truth, hewed her lovely form into a thousand pieces, and scatter’d them to the four winds. From that time ever since, the sad friends of Truth, such as durst appear, imitating the careful search that Isis made for the mangl’d body of Osiris, went up and down gathering up limb by limb still as they could find them. (1017-18)

이처럼, 밀턴에게 참된 진리를 위한 언론과 사상의 자유는 조각난 진리들을 “아름답고 사랑스러운 불멸의 형상”으로 다시 이어붙이는 작업과 같은 것이다. 이는 전혀 존재하지 않던 것을 만들거나 구축하는 것이 아니라, (원죄로 인해 소원해진) 신의 말씀에 최대한 다가가기 위한해석학적 방편일 뿐이다(Vaughan x). 다시 말해 필립 도널리(Phillip Donnelly)의 지적처럼, 그에게 이성은 홉스와 같은 유물론자가 말하는 “계산가능한 이성”(calculative reason)으로 축소될 수 있는 것이 아니다(11). 오히려 이성은 인간의 “양심”(conscience)에 내재된 것으로, “인간의 선함을실현할 수 있도록” 해주는 것이다(13). 따라서, 이성의 중요성과 추구를 강조했다는 점에서 밀턴은 일견 (세속적 수준에서의) 자유주의 사상가의 선구자로 볼 수 있겠지만, 그의 저작을 면밀히 살펴보면 그에게 이성이란 하나님의 인간에 대한 호의와 선한 의도의 징표이며, 하나님의 역사와 절대 무관할 수 없는 것이다. 이는 소위 근대적 형태의 “이성을 환원적으로 바라보는 시각”(a reductive view of reason, 78)과는 거리가 먼 개념이라 할 수 있다. 

결국 밀턴의 󰡔아레오파지티카󰡕나 󰡔공동기도서󰡕를 중심으로 한 일련의 논쟁은 제도적, 사회적 변화에 대해 긍정적인 자세를 지향하며,모험과 실험을 두려워하지 않는 태도를 보여준다. 그러나 그들의 이러한 과감한 혁신의 기조에는 여전히 종교적인 열정에 깊이 뿌리내리고있다. 이 점에서, 그들의 태도는 오늘날 우리가 근대적 의식 혹은 마음가짐이라고 특징짓는 것들과는 분명 차이가 있음을 뚜렷이 인식할 필요가 있다.

V. 결론을 대신하며

근대성에 대한 정의는 다양한 관점에서 접근할 수 있다. 계몽주의와 이성의 발달, 정치와 종교의 분리, 과학의 발전 등을 근대성의 주요 특징으로 보는 관점에서 본다면, 본 논문이 다루는 근대성은 상대적으로 협소하고 모순적으로 느껴질 수 있다. 그러나 잉글랜드 내전 전후의 새로운 담론을 명확히 이해하기 위해서는, 이들의 참신성을 근대성이라는 관점에서 비교하는 것이 가장 타당한 방법론이라 생각한다. 비록 근대성이 무엇인지에 관해 혹자는 여전히 명확하지 않다고 말할 수 있겠으나, 이 시기의 뉴스북이나 새로운 예배방식에 대한 논쟁 등은 단순히기존 형식과 권위에 대한 도전뿐만 아니라, 그것을 담아내는 형식—즉, 출판의 방식이나 기도의 형식 등—에 대한 고민까지 포함되어 있다는점을 주목해야 할 것이다. 기존 세대가 자신의 행위와 믿음의 근거를 과거의 권위나 전통에 기대었다면, 잉글랜드 내전은 사람들로 하여금 전혀 다른 방식으로 사회적 행동의 도덕적 정당성을 확보하도록 유도하였다. 앞에서 보았듯이 이들은 미래가 가져다줄 새로움에 대한 불안을회피하기보다는 최소한 담론의 수준에서만큼은 이를 수용하고 이해하고자 하였고, 불확실성에 대한 위험을 감수하려는 자세를 견지하였다.그리고 이런 자세들은 자연스럽게 갈등과 논쟁에 대한 전통적인 해결에 대한 회의와 그에 따른 새로운 방식의 추구를 통해 한층 강화되었다.다시 말해, 이들에게 논쟁과 관점이 날카롭게 대립하는 담론의 장은 전장만큼이나 치열했으며, 이 담론의 전장 속에서 이들은 고전과 전통에대한 무조건적인 경배나 복종을 우상숭배로 규정하고 새로운 형식에 맞춰 현실을 경험하고자 하는 열망을 드러냈다.

앞에서 짧게 언급했듯이 잉글랜드 내전의 담론적이며 논쟁적 사건의 참여자들은 자신들의 행위가 자신들이 소중하게 생각하는 영적 체험과는 무관한 세상으로 자신들을 이끄는 촉매역할을 할 것이라고는 전혀 생각하지 못하였다. 바로 이런 점에서 잉글랜드 내전의 담론적 사건들이 근대성과 맺는 관계는 막스 베버의 󰡔프로테스탄티즘의 윤리와 자본주의 정신󰡕에서 나타나는 신교도의 소명의식과 그에 따른 실천과비교할만하다. 베버는 그의 대표작 󰡔프로테스탄티즘의 윤리와 자본주의 정신󰡕에서 존 번연(John Bunyan)의 대표작인 󰡔천로역정󰡕(The Pilgrim’s Progress)을 인용하면서, 비기독교적 세계관에 연유하는 리하르트 바그너의 󰡔니벨룽겐의 반지󰡕와의 대비를 통해, 신교도인들의 자세, 즉 “자기 자신만의 구원”에 몰입하고, “자기 비하”와 “불안”에 점철된 기독교인의 모습을 신교도 특유의 자세로 읽는다(185-89). 

베버는 이 대표적인 저작에서 보여주는 신교도의 금욕주의적인 자세, 예정설이라 불리는 그들의 믿음의 체계 등이 현재 서구의 자본주의의 개화를 매개하는 강력한 촉매 역할을 하였다고 주장한다. 칼뱅에 따르면 신은 자유로운 존재이고, 그렇기 때문에 시간의 규약이나 제약으로부터도 자유롭다. 따라서 인간의 시각에서 펼쳐지는 역사란 신의 관점에서는 애초부터 결정된 것으로 누가 구원을 받고 그렇지 않을지는이미 신에 의해 결정되었다고 주장한다. 

왜냐하면 신은 그리고 오직 신만이 자유롭기 때문에, 즉 그 어떠한 법칙에도 예속되지 않기 때문에 그리고 신의 결단은 신이 그것을우리에게 드러내는 것이 좋다고 인정하는 한에서만 이해될 수 있거나 적어도 알 수 있기 때문이다. 우리는 단지 영원한 진리의 이러한 단편에만 의지할 수 있으며, 그 밖의 모든 것—우리의 개인적 운명이 가진 의미—은 흑암(黑暗)의 신비에 둘러싸여 있기 때문에그것을 천명(闡明)한다는 것은 불가능하고도 불경한 일이다. 예컨대 저주받은 자가 자신의 운명이 부당하다고 탄식한다면 그것은마치 짐승이 인간으로 태어나지 못했음을 불평하는 것과 흡사하다. 왜냐하면 모든 피조물은 메울 수 없는 심연에 의해 신과 분리되어 있으며 신이 그 위엄의 찬미를 위해 다른 결단을 내리지 않는 한 신 앞에서 오직 영원한 죽음만을 받을 자격이 있기 때문이다. 우리가 알고 있는 것은 단지 인간의 일부는 구원받을 것이고 나머지는 저주받을 것이라는 사실뿐이다. (181)

구원은 이미 결정되어 있고 이것의 변경 자체는 개인 심지어 성직자의 권위가 개입되어도 절대 변경될 수 없다는 생각은 중세 가톨릭에서 말하는 구원의 방식과는 매우 대조적이었다. 베버가 주장하듯, “가톨릭교도들은 교회가 베푸는 성례전의 은총을 자신의 부족함을 상쇄하는 수단으로 이용할 수”도 있었고, “사제는 화체의 기적을 행하고 열쇳권을 장악한 주술사”처럼 교도들의 구원에 개입할 수 있었다. 교도들은또한 “회개와 참회로써 사제에 의지할 수 있었으며, 사제는 그들의 죄를 사해주고 그들에게 은총의 희망을 베풀고 구원의 확신을” 심어줄 수도 있었다(베버 200-01). 이런 믿음의 체계에서 구원은 마술처럼 언제든지 가능하였고, 따라서 가톨릭교도들은 일상적 삶에 대해 칼뱅파를비롯한 신교도들이 보이는 편집적인 집착으로부터 자유로울 수 있었다. 이와 대조적으로 신교도들은 자신의 직업에 대해 진지하고 도덕적으로 엄격한 태도를 보였는데, 이들의 눈에서 보면 직업이란  세속적인 (노동) 활동을 통해 어떤 육체적, 물질적인 보상이나 쾌를 얻기 위함이 아니라, 무엇보다 자신이 신의 은총을 받고 구원의 약속을 받았다는 일말의 증거로 삼았기 때문이다. “즉 노동의 결과를 통해 신자들을 축복하는 것은 신 자신이라고” 이들은 생각했고, 이런 의미에서 베버는 개신교의 “종교적 신앙”이 자본주의적 “직업윤리” 사이에 “특정한 선택적 친화력”이 존재하며, 이것이 현대 서구의 자본주의의 개화에 크게 공헌했다고 주장한다(138). 

베버의 저작에서 흥미로운 점은, 신교도들이 자신의 직업에서 보여주는 소명의식이 종교적 이해와 구원에 대한 관심에서 비롯된다는 점이다. 하지만 그들의 동기와는 무관하게, 이러한 직업윤리를 내면화한 세대가 반복될수록 결국 오늘날 냉혹한 이윤 추구를 특징으로 하는 자본주의 사회가 도래할 뿐이었다. 

물론, 여기서 필자는 베버의 연구를 도식화하여, ‘신교도들의 직업윤리가 없었다면 현재 우리가 알고 있는 자본주의 사회는 결코 도래하지 못했을 것이다’라고 주장하려는 것은 아니다. 서구가 근대화되기 위해서는 여러 분야에서 다양한 변화들이 필요했고, 베버가 논한 직업에관한 소명의식은 근대화의 물결을 일으킨 다른 결정적 원인들, 예컨대 선거권 개편, 의회정치의 확립, 대중교육의 실시 등에 비해 그 역사적의미가 미미할 수도 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 베버의 저작은 종교적 이해와 그에 따른 실천이 이와 무관한 사회의 도래에 최소한 일부 공헌할 수 있음을 보여주는 대표적 사례로써 중요한 의의를 지닌다.^[8] 그리고 무엇보다 그의 연구는 지금껏 살펴본 잉글랜드 내전의 문화적 현상이 근대성과 관계하는 복잡한 양상을 이해하는 데 많은 시사점을 준다.  

베버에 등장하는 신교도들이 그러하듯, 17세기 잉글랜드 내전에 참여한 집단과 개인들은 종교적 열정으로 가득하였다. 다시 말해 그들이 새로운 글쓰기 형식을 고안하고, 권위에 도전하며, 파격적인 예배방식을 탐색하게 만든 것은 그들의 종교적 열정이었다. 그러나 베버의신교도들의 실천의 결과가 단지 종교적 차원에 머물지 않듯, 이들의 사회적 실천의 결과 역시 매우 파급력이 높았고 혁신적이었다. 그들은새로운 글쓰기를 통해 일상적 시공간에 보다 밀착된 독서경험이 가능함을 보여주었고, 이런 새로운 글쓰기의 가능성은 존 번연(John Bunyan)과 대니엘 디포(Daniel Defoe)와 같은 비국교도 작가에 의해 더욱 발전되어 면밀한 관찰과 도덕적 시선을 특징으로 하는 반성적 주체의 탄생을 예고하였다.^[9]  또한 우상파괴라는 이름이 맹위를 떨치면서 적어도 이 시기 이후 기존 권위는 그것의 존재이유를 전통과 관습으로만 치부할 수는 없게 되었고, 기존의 것, 낡은 것을 뛰어넘으려는 시도는 서서히 긍정적인 가치로 안착되었다. 이 모든 것을 종합해볼 때, 당시 잉글랜드 내전이 가져온 파괴는 단지 물질적 수준에 그치지 않고, 낡은 제도와 형식을 비롯한 전통적 인식론적 틀에 대한 근본적인 파괴로까지 이어졌다고 할 수 있다.^[10]

Works Cited 

김중락. ｢크롬웰 시대 아일랜드 식민의 기초로서의 1642년 모험법(the Act for Adventurers)｣. 󰡔영국연구󰡕 40 (2018): 1-34.

베버, 막스. 󰡔프로테스탄티즘의 윤리와 자본주의 정신󰡕. 김덕영 옮김. 길, 2010.

Achinstein, Sharon. “Texts in Conflict: The Press and the Civil War.” The Cambridge Companion to Writing of the English Revolution, edited by N. H. Keeble, Cambridge UP, 2001, pp. 50-70.

Bagge, Sverre Hakon. “Iconoclasm – A Road to Modernization?” European Review, vol. 21, no. S1, 2022, pp. S54-S58.

Bender, John. Imagining the Penitentiary: Fiction and the Architecture of Mind in Eighteenth-Century England. U of Chicago P, 1987. 

Bulman, William J. Anglican Enlightenment: Orientalism, Religion and Politics in England and Its Empire, 1648-1715. Cambridge UP, 2015. 

Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. Grace Abounding with Other Spiritual Autobiographies, edited by John Stachnieswki, Oxford UP, 1998, pp. 1-94. 

_____. The Pilgrim’s Progress: An Authoritative Text, Contexts, Criticism. Norton, 2009. 

Clarkson, Lawrence. The Lost Sheep Found. Grace Abounding with Other Spiritual Autobiographies, edited by John Stachnieswki, Oxford UP, 1998, pp. 171-90.

Cogswell, Thomas. “Parliament and the Press.” The Oxford History of Popular Print Culture, edited by Joad Raymond, Oxford UP, 2011, pp. 308-19.

Cressy, David, and Lori Anne Ferrell, editors. “Directory for Public Worship, 1645.” Religion & Society in Early Modern England: A Sourcebook. Routledge, 2005, pp. 218-24. 

Dandelion, Pink. The Quakers: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2008.

Defoe, Daniel. Roxana: The Fortunate Mistress, edited by David Blewett, Penguin Books, 1987.

_____. Robinson Crusoe, edited by Michael Shinagel, Norton, 1994. 

Donnelly, Phillip J. Milton’s Scriptural Reasoning: Narrative and Protestant Toleration. Cambridge UP, 2009.

Ginn, Richard J. The Politics of Prayer in Early Modern Britain: Church and State in Seventeenth-century England. Tauris Academic Studies, 2007. 

Herman, Peter C. A Short History of Early Modern England: British Literature in Context. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down. Penguin Books, 1975.

Lemon, Rebecca. “Chronological Outline of Historical Events and Texts in Britain, 1528-1674, with List of Selected Manuscripts.” The Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature, edited by David Loewenstein and Janel Mueller, Cambridge UP, 2003, pp. 834-78.

Mack, Phyllis. Visionary Women: Ecstatic Prophecy in Seventeenth-Century England. U of California P, 1992. 

Mercurius Britanicus, 29 January – 5 February 1644/45, TT E 31(14).

Milton, John. Areopagitica, The Riverside Milton, edited by Roy Flannagan, Houghton Mifflin, 1998, pp. 987-1024. 

Morrill, John. “The Causes and Course of the British Civil Wars.” The Cambridge Companion to Writing of the English Revolution, edited by N. H. Keeble, Cambridge UP, 2001, pp. 13-31.

Pattison, George. “Art in an Age of Reflection.” The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, edited by Alastair Hannay and Gordon Daniel Marino, Cambridge UP, 1997, pp. 76-100. 

Peacey, Jason. News, Newspaper, and Society in Early Modern Britain. Routledge, 1999. 

_____. Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda During the English Civil Wars and Interregnum. Ashgate, 2004.

_____. Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution. Cambridge UP, 2013. 

Perfect Diurnall. 18-25 July 1642, TT E 202(24).

Randall, Dale B.J. Winter Fruit: English Drama, 1642-1660. UP of Kentucky, 1995. 

Raymond, Joad. News, Newspapers, and Society in Early Modern Britain. Routledge, 1999.

_____. The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks 1641-1649. Oxford UP, 2005.

Reeve, L. J. Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule. Cambridge UP, 1989.

Sirota, Brent. The Christian Monitors: The Church of England and the Age of Benevolence, 1680-1730. Yale UP, 2014. 

Scott, Jonathan. England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Instability in European Context. Cambridge UP, 2000.

Solt, Leo F. Church and State in Early Modern England, 1509-1640. Oxford UP, 1990. 

Sommerville, C. John. The News Revolution in England: Cultural Dynamics of Daily Information. Oxford UP, 1996. 

Stone, Lawrence. The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641. Oxford UP, 1967.

Tucker, Spencer C. The Roots and Consequences of Civil Wars and Revolutions. ABC-Clio, 2017.

Vaughan, C. E. Introduction. Areopagitica and Other Prose Works, edited by C. E. Vaughan, Dover Publication, pp. vi-xi.

White, Michelle A. Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars. Ashgate, 2006.

Wiseman, Susan. Drama and Politics in the English Civil War. Cambridge UP, 1998.

Womack, Pamela. An Illustrated Introduction to the Stuarts. Amberley Publishing, 2014.

Ravage, Prayer, and Journalism: 
The Singular Marks of the English Civil Wars

Abstract

Jaemin Choi

This article examines how the cultural reforms and changes during the English Civil Wars contributed to the development of modern consciousness and sensibility. At the same time, it notes that these radical transformations were primarily driven by religious zeal among reformers—an unlikely origin for the eventual secularization and modernization of Western culture. To demonstrate this peculiar dual trajectory of cultural movements, the article details how the explosive growth of newsbooks was initiated by Parliamentarians and their supporters, and how the readers’ experience of this new cultural product transformed their daily perception of the world. To further illustrate cultural changes that contributed to modern consciousness and sensibility, the article also explores how religious practices, particularly prayer and worship, increasingly became central to iconoclastic debates among radical sects during the English Civil Wars. Lastly, to highlight the significance of the findings of this study, it draws parallels with Max Weber’s research on the vocational calling in Protestantism and concludes that the ravages brought about by the English Civil Wars were not confined to the material level but extended to a fundamental dismantling of traditional epistemological frameworks, including old institutions and forms.

Key Words

English Civil Wars, Iconoclasm, Newsbook, The Book of Common Prayer, Modern consciousness and sensibility 

최재민

국립목포대학교 영어교육과 교수

---

^[2] 여기서 ‘잉글랜드 내전’(English Civil Wars)이란 용어는 영국사에서 1642년~1651년, 의회파와 왕당파가 분열되어 극도로 혼란한 내전 상태에 있었던 시기를지칭하기 위해 사용하였다. ‘영국 내전’보다는 ‘잉글랜드 내전’이라 칭한 이유는 당시 내전의 상황이 스코틀랜드, 아일랜드까지 불이 붙은 상황이므로 ‘잉글랜드 내전’이 더 적절한 용어로 보이기 때문이다.

^[3] 매우 고전적이고 이제는 부분적으로는 도전을 받지만, 경제적인 관점에서 잉글랜드 내전을 살피고자 하는 시도는 두 거장의 책에 근거하여 시도되고 있다. 하나는 맑스적 관점에서 “경제적 위기”에 의해 사회의 주변부에서 힘들게 살던 “부랑아” (41), “소작농,” “광대,” “천한 사람들”(base people) (24) 등에 주목하면서 이들의 유토피아적 비전과 변혁의 목소리가 힘차게 울려 퍼지던 역사상 매우 이례적인 시기로 잉글랜드 내전을 접근한 크리스토퍼 힐(Christopher Hil)의󰡔세상이 뒤집혀지다: 영국 혁명시기 급진적 사상들󰡕(The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution)이다. 이와 대조적으로 잉글랜드 내전을 젠트리의 지속적인 부와 정치적 영향력이 마침내 귀족의 힘을 압도하고 우위를 점하는 과정의 한 국면으로 이해하는 로렌스 스톤(Lawrence Stone)의 󰡔귀족제의 위기󰡕(Crisis of the Aristocracy)가 다른 하나이다.

^[4] 예를 들어 찰스 1세의 매우 고지식한 성격이 어떻게 잉글랜드 내전의 악화에 일조했는지에 대해서는 존 모릴(John Morrill)의 ｢영국내전의 원인과 과정들｣(The Causes and Courses of the British Civil Wars), 󰡔영국혁명 문헌에 대한 케이브리지 가이드󰡕(The Cambridge Companion to Writing of the English Revolution) 참조.

^[5] 유럽 대륙을 전쟁의 화마로 뒤덮은 30년 전쟁(Thirty Years War)이 발발했을 때, 제임스는 자신의 사위이자 팔라틴의 선제후(elector Palatine)인 프레데릭 5세(Frederick V)의 왕위가 위협받는 상황에서도 스페인 왕가와의 결혼 가능성 등 여러 가지 이유로 전쟁 참여에 미온적이었으며 이는 30년 전쟁의 폐해로부터영국을 보호하는 결과를 낳았다(Reeve 9). 제임스 1세의 “평화 정책”(policy of peace)에 대한 다방면의 노력에 대한 설명은 ｢충성서약｣(Oath of Allegiance), 󰡔제임스 국왕과 그리스도 세계의 재통합󰡕(King James VI and I and The Reunion of Christendom), 89-91 페이지 참조할 것. 

^[6] 존 모릴(John Morrill)에 따르면 “1641년 11월에서 군사를 모으고 내전이 발발하는 1642년 8월까지 우후죽순으로 나타난 1500개의 팸플릿 중 여섯 개의 하나꼴로 아일랜드 반란에 관한 것”이었다. 이 팸플릿들은 대개 “끔찍한 묘사”와 “선정적인 판화”의 기법으로 아일랜드의 폭력적인 사태를 극악무도한 만행으로 묘사하였을 뿐 아니라, 찰스 1세와 그의 주교들을 “교황신봉자(papist)의 힘없는 앞잡이”로 몰아세우는 “논쟁적인 주장의 밑거름”으로 작용하였다고 모릴은 평가한다(21-22).

^[7] 우상파괴 운동은 근대 이전 8~9세기 비잔틴 성상파괴 논쟁에서도 나타난다. 그렇지만 이 당시 우상파괴의 대상은 교회 안 종교적 성상과 모자이크에 집중되었으며, 그 영향력은 비잔틴 제국 내에서 국한되었다. 이와 달리, 종교개혁 이후 신교도의 우상파괴는 광범위했고, 끈질겼으며, 단지 신학자 사이의 철학적 논쟁의 수준을 넘어 일반인의 참여를 아우르는 문화개혁 운동으로 퍼져나갔다. 또한 이 당시 영국에서 가톨릭주의자들이나 그들의 동조자들이 보여준성상이나 유물(relics)에 대한 공경이 신교도의 관점에서 맹목적인 신앙으로 비춰졌으며, 이로 인해 그들은 우상숭배자로 간주되었다. 잉글랜드 내전 맥락에서 우상파괴의 광범위한 양상을 보여주는 저작으로는 쥴리 스프래곤(Julie Spraggon)의 󰡔잉글랜드 내전 시기 청교도 우상파괴󰡕(Puritan Iconoclasm during the English Civil War, Boydell Press, 2003), 스베레 바게(Sverre Bagge)의 ｢우상파괴 – 근대화로의 길?｣(Iconoclasm – A Road to Modernization?), 󰡔유럽피언 리뷰󰡕(European Review) 참조. 또한 이런 우상파괴적 정신이 현대 예술의 혁신적인 실험 정신과 맥을 같이하고 있음을 여러 예술작품을 통해 보여주고 있는 비평서로는 부르노 라투어(Bruno Latour)의 󰡔아이코노클래쉬: 과학, 종교, 예술에서의 이미지 전쟁󰡕(Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art, MIT Press, 2002)을 참조.

^[8] 브렌트 시로타(Brent Sirota)는 󰡔기독교 수호자들󰡕(The Christian Monitors)에서 17세기 말, 18세기 초 영국 국교회가 단순히 교리를 실천하거나 영적 구원에머물지 않고, 자선 및 봉사를 통해 사회적, 제국적 활동을 지원하였음을 여러 사례를 통해 보여준다. 시로타는 SPCK, SPG와 같은 자선 단체의 예를 통해 당시 국교회 단체가 상업과 제국 활동을 지원하기 위해 도덕적 관점을 재구성하고 교리의 문제에 있어 매우 유연하며 실리적인 접근을 보였다고 주장한다.시로타의 연구는 베버의 저작에 나타난 종교적 관심과 상업적 이해의 역사적 연결고리를 사회단체와 제도의 관점에서 풀어 서술하고 있는데, 이는 베버의추상적인 측면을 해소하고, 사회적, 문화적 맥락의 풍부함과 구체성을 살리고 있다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 

^[9] 번연은 자신의 자서전 󰡔죄인의 우두머리에게 내린 넘치는 은혜󰡕(Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners), 󰡔천로역정󰡕(The Pilgrim’s Progress) 등을 통해 불안과 회의로 점철된 신교도적 특유의 정신세계를 잘 표현하고 있다. 영혼의 고통과 갈등을 심도있게 파고들고 이를 면밀히 기록하고자 하는 그의 집요함은단지 번연이라는 한 개인의 특성이라기보다는 일상생활에서 심리적, 영적 변화에 민감하게 반응하는 청교도주의 문학의 한 예라 할 수 있다. 그리고 이런일상적 변화에 대한 면밀한 관찰과 반성의 목소리는 소설이라는 장르적 발전이 한창이었던 18세기 화자(narrator)의 기능에 통합되어 더욱 발전하게 된다. 특히 디포의 소설 가령, 󰡔록산나󰡕(Roxana)나 󰡔로빈슨 크루소󰡕(Robinson Crusoe) 같은 작품에 나타난 화자의 감시적 시선은 푸코가 말한 근대적 주체의 형성에 소설이 어떤 식으로 기여하는지를 잘 보여주고 있다. 18세기 소설적 공간에서 화자가 어떻게 감시의 시선을 내면화하고, 각 개인을 유순한 주체로 개조하는 역할을 맡았는지에 대해서는 존 벤더(John Bender)의 이론서 󰡔감옥 상상하기: 18세기 영국 소설과 정신의 구조󰡕(Imagining the Penitentiary: Fiction and the Architecture of Mind in Eighteenth Century England)를 참고. 

^[10] 윌리엄 불먼(William J. Bulman)은 그의 저서 󰡔국교회 계몽주의: 1648-1715년 영국과 제국에서의 오리엔탈리즘, 종교, 그리고 정치󰡕(Anglican Enlightenment: Orientalism, Religion and Politics in England and Its Empire, 1648-1715)에서 국교회가 계몽주의와 같은 근대적 가치를 일상생활에 정착시키는데 크게 기여했다고 주장한다. 그는 국교회 성직자인 랜슬롯 에디슨(Lancelot Addison)의 생애를 면밀히 추적하면서, 잉글랜드 내전과 찰스 1세의 공개 처형이라는 참혹한 현실을 겪은 이후, 에디슨이 국교회를 통해 끊임없이 평화를 정착시키고자 다양한 노력과 실험을 시도했음을 강조한다. 불먼에 따르면, 국교회는 신학적 자원을 활용하여 새로운 정치적, 사회적 질서를 정당화하고, 안정성을 확보하려고 노력했으며, 이러한 시도는 단순히 신학적 논쟁을 넘어서, 영국 사회 전체평화와 질서를 정착시키려는 실질적인 결과물을 만들었다고 주장한다. 이와 같은 연구는 기존의 국교회에 대한 오랜 편견을 불식시키고 17세기 영국의 다층적인 측면을 더욱 풍부하게 이해할 수 있도록 돕는다. 하지만 이런 연구를 근거삼아, 잉글랜드 내전의 파괴와 폭력이 혼란과 불안정한 사회 여건을 야기했기 때문에 근대화의 촉진이 아니라 방해물로 작용했다고 주장하는 것은 역사의 복잡다단한 과정을 매우 단순하게 이해하는 것이 될 것이다. 대한민국 현대사에서 4 ·19 항쟁, 광주 민주화의 기억이 단순히 집단적 외상이나 잊고 싶은 기억으로만 남지 않고, 보다 나은 사회를 염원하는 원동력이자 해방구의 경험으로 작용했음을 인정한다면, 이런 논리가 온당치 않음은 더욱 분명해진다.

영미문학연구
Journal of English Studies in Korea
47 (2024): 24-89
http://doi.org/10.46562/jesk.47.3