『베니스의 상인』과 『몰타의 유대인』에 나타난 반유대주의의 전복적 양상

강석주 ( Seok Ju Kang ) 21세기영어영문학회 2005 영어영문학21 Vol.18 No.2

The Subversive Aspects of Anti-semitism in The Jew of Malta and The Merchant of Venice Kang, Seok-Ju(Mokpo National University) Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta and William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice surely show a similarity in that they represent a wicked Jew derived from the contemporary Anti-semitism for the purpose of inciting the audience's interest. It seems certain that the popularity of the two works resulted from the excitement of crying out against the Jew and of applauding at his downfall, but the works include some ironical elements that evoke subversive meaning against the traditional anti-semitism: The Jew of Malta reveals not so much the Jew's wickedness as Christians' hypocritical aspects; The Merchant of Venice persuades the audience that the cruel Jew is also a human being. The dual aspects of the two works may create some dramatic effects that criticize the political and religious conflict between the Catholic and the Protestant in the Elizabethan English society. However, it is remarkable that Marlowe‘s voice sounds different from Shakespeare's in revealing the prejudice and hypocritical contradiction in Christian society, even though they share the same voice in condemning the Jew's cruel and wicked aspects that reflect anti-semitism. The Christians in Marlowe's work reveal their contradictory and hypocritical desire for money and women, and arecompletely mocked, despised, and ruined by Barabas. And this seems to be the result of their unjust desire to take Baraba's property which was gained by his excellent commercial technique. On the contrary, the Christians in Shakespeare's work never get ashamed by Shylock. Although Antonio and Bassanio borrow money from Shylock, Antonio risks his own life and never lose his dignity even when he is about to lose his life. Rather the Christians have the chance to enjoy mocking Shylock's cruelty in virtue of Portia's wisdom. While Marlowe focuses on criticizing the Christians' hypocritical double standard through the Jew's perspective, Shakespeare is focusing on the exclusion of the dangerous Jew and its invalidity at the same time. While Marlowe shows the boldness to represent his critical view against the contemporary political and social reality in his work, Shakespeare is quite careful in his representation. Although Marlowe drives Barabas the wicked Jew into destruction, he plainly reveals his desire to transgress the ruling order of his society displaying his political view. But Shakespeare, unlike Marlowe, doesn't express any single political voice. Rather by suggesting the contradicting plural voices at the same time without transgressing the establish ruling order, he attributes the judgement to the audience.

자연과학의 발전과 산업재산권

강석주,신진균,Kang, Seok-Ju,Shin, Jin-Keun 한국분석과학회 1996 분석과학 Vol.9 No.3

『리차드 3세』: 튜더(전통적) 역사관에 대한 패러디

강석주(Seok-Ju Kang) 한국셰익스피어학회 2003 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.39 No.4

It seems the structural pattern of Shakespeare's Richard Ⅲ represents the political myth of Tudor dynasty in that Richard's deformed appearance and villainous personality are not quite different from those described in the contemporary history books which were written to support so called the Tudor Myth. However, we can find some ingredients for making a parody of such political myth grounded on the traditional view of history that completely depends on God's providence. And the basis of the parody lies in Richard's duality. He is both a villain and a comedian, both a cruel monster and an attractive actor who can play lots of roles. Furthermore, he is a man free from God's providence and traditional order and also becomes a tragic person who is confined within the traditional order. This arbitrary duality results from the distance between history and history play. There lies Shakespeare's cynical view of history in this gap. In this sense, Shakespeare's writing is two-fold. In Richard Ⅲ, he supports the contemporary political discourse based on Tudor Myth on the surface, but below the surface he is hiding some little voices which deny and mock the ruling discourse. On the surface, Richard Ⅲ seems to show the typical structure that a Machiavellian villain mocking the traditional moral order dominates the dramatic world but is finally destroyed by Richmond, who becomes a new king guided under God's providence. But Richard, the dual role player, who mocks and parodies the distorted society owing to the bloody power struggle is not the typical villain that justifies the traditional view of history but a critical character that is produced by a new view of history and value.

『리처드 3세』영상화에 나타난 시각의 차이

강석주(Seok-Ju Kang) 한국셰익스피어학회 2012 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.48 No.2

Even though Loncraine’s Richard Ⅲ (1995) and Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard (1996) attempt filming Shakespeare’s Richard Ⅲ they seem completely different works to the modern audience. It’s not only the matter of filming techniques, but that of the representative meanings the directors focus on. The purpose of this paper is to make a comparison analysis of the different political perspectives of Loncraine’s Richard Ⅲ and Alpacino’s Looking for Richard. While Shakespeare’s Richard is a very complicated character, Loncraine’s Richard and Alpacino’s Richard are portrayed rather simple and obvious characters. Shakespeare’s Richard is not a historical king but rather a role-player of villain escaping from history. Loncraine’s Richard and Alpacino’s Richard are the role-players of villain escaping from Shakespearean play. While Loncraine produced a modern film adapting a completely new historical background, Alpacino attempted a documentary film focusing on producing process of Shakespearean drama. If Alpacino plays the role of a kind guide for people who want to know and study Shakespeare, Loncraine and McKellen put new clothes on Shakespeare’s Richard Ⅲ. Loncraine draws out a modern dictator through the character of Richard III evoking Hitler and Mussolini, and presents a satirical message toward dictatorship. Meanwhile Alpacino arouses an effect of epic theater by keeping the audience from being immersed in the film, which make it possible for the audience to enjoy Alpacino’s role-playing and making a film. Furthermore, these two films subtly reveal quite contrasting national feelings of Shakespearean dramas. Loncraine’s Richard Ⅲ, which was made in England, seems to reveal some uncomfortable feelings against America and American film industry. On the contrary, Alpacino’s Looking for Richard well represents the Americans’ dual feelings about Shakespeare. Most Americans don’t have interests in Shakespeare and find it difficult and boring, but they also have some kind of inferiority to English royal tradition. Alpacino seems to attempt overcoming this inferiority and to present his excellence, an American’s excellence.

[해설] 자연과학의 발전과 산업재산권

강석주(Seok-Ju Kang),신진균(Jin-Keun Shin) 한국분석과학회 1996 분석과학 Vol.9 No.3

『맥베스』영상화에 따른 시각의 차이

강석주(Seok-Ju Kang) 한국셰익스피어학회 2007 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.43 No.1

The purpose of this study is to compare Orson Wells's film Macbeth with Roman Polanski's film Macbeth focusing on their different representation of the dual political aspects presented in the original Macbeth. Orson Wells takes notice of the typical morality pattern of good and evil in Shakespeare's original work. So he emphasizes the protagonist's evil deeds and their results based on Christian doctrine. It's political vision is that the absolute kingship tested by the villain like Macbeth is finally recovered by the legitimate heir. On the contrary, Roman Polanski discovers the corrupted and hypocritical human nature in the original work. He emphasizes the political reality dominated by violence, crime, and disorder, representing the skepticism and absurdity of the absolute power and justice. Because of these different viewpoints, the famous two directors show quite different film-making techniques and different interpretations of the major scenes. Orson Wells uses expressionistic technique in order to express Macbeth's painful and confused inner mind. Therefore, his work is full of surreal images and settings which represent the embodiment of the dark evil force based on Christianity. On the contrary, Roman Polanski uses realistic technique in order to show the wicked social reality which is full of violence and betrayal for one's desire. Polanski's protagonist Macbeth is portrayed not as a tragic hero but as a coward trickster, and we can find lots of characters like him in the play. His confession that "life is but a walking shadow" and "a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury" becomes an effective way to present the absurd reality.

Shakespeare and Renaissance Discourse of Madness

Kang Seok-Ju(강석주) 한국셰익스피어학회 2001 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.37 No.3

이성이 지배해 온 서구 역사에서 광기는 “타자성”으로 규정되어 왔다. 그리고 그러한 광기의 타자성은 데카르트의 이성론과 절대 권력, 그리고 과학과 산업의 발전으로 특징지을 수 있는 근대 사회에서부터 현대에 이르기까지 광기를 비정상 과 질병으로 규정하면서 더욱 심화되었다고 볼 수 있다. 하지만 현대 후기 구조주의의 지평 위에서 볼 때, 광기는 라캉이 말하는 “아버지의 법”으로 상징되는 타자 의 권위와 질서에 의해서 구성된 거짓 자아로부터 자유로운 유일한 영역이 될 수 있지 않을까? 광기란 무엇인가? 결국 기존 사회의 법률, 관습, 질서와의 동일시를 향한 욕망으로부터 일탈된 언어와 행위를 지시하는 또 다른 욕망의 기표라고 할 수 있지 않겠는가? 따라서 우리는 광기의 뿌리를 개인을 둘러싼 사회의 객관적 모 순 속에서 발견할 수 있다. 그렇다면 그동안 이성에 의해 억압당하고 감금당하고 격리되어 온 광기는 하나의 정신질환으로서 개인적인 심리사의 차원을 넘어, 그 속에 내재되어있는 위반과 일탈의 욕망을 이성의 역사와 마찬가지로 사회적, 정치 적, 문화적으로 재해석하는 작업이 필요하다. 한 가지 흥미있는 사실은 서구의 역사에서 광기가 이성과 함께 활개치며 거리를 활보하고, 인간 본질의 중요한 일부로써 대접받았던 르네쌍스 시기에는 셰익스피어와 그의 동시대인들이 놀라운 결작들을 쏟아낸 반면에, 광기에 대한 억압과 대감금을 시작했던 고전주의와 계몽주의 시대에는 결코 위대한 예술과 문학 작품 을 찾아보기 힘들다는 점이다. 고전주의 시대부터 현대에 이르기까지 광기의 억압은 이성과 권력의 결탁을 의미하는 상정적인 사건이었으며, 과학과 실증주의에 입각한 물질적 성장과 권력에 의한 지배와 통제의 강화는 오히려 제국주의나 식민주 의와 같은 지배와 착취 분화를 발달시킨 반면, 그 사회와 문화의 정신적 성숙과 발전을 억압하는 결과를 가져온 것이다. 셰익스피어의 비극들이 그토록 위대한 정신세계를 표현할 수 있었던 배경에는 바로 광기가 있다. 햄릿과 오필리어, 리어와 에드거, 멕베드와 멕베드 부인 등으로 이어지는 광기의 재현은 기존 질서의 틀을 벗어나 그 이면의 진실을 밝히고, 인간의 본질과 억압된 욕망, 그리고 사회와 권력에 대한 비판 등올 적나라하게 드러내는 역할을 한다. 본 연구의 목적은 바로 이러한 광기에 관한 르네상스의 담론이 셰익스피어의 작품들 속에서 어떻게 재구성되어 나타나는지 고찰함으로써, 셰익스피어의 광기 재현이 당대의 이성과 권력의 질서 속에서 어떤 의미를 가질 수 있었는지 분석하는 것이다. 이를 위해서 광기가 작품의 의미를 결정하는 중요한 극적 요소로 작용 하는 비극을 중심으로 분석하게 될 것이다. 자신의 작품들에서 광기를 중요한 극 적 요소로 사용하고 있는 셰익스피어는 광기를 어떻게 재현하고 있는가? 그는 당 대의 복합적이고 이중적인 광기 담론 가운데에서 어떤 일정한 견해를 정치적, 사 회적 목적을 위해 무대 위에서 재현하고 있지는 않는가? 셰익스피어는 자신의 비극들에서 엘리자베드 당대의 담론들을 포함하여 다양하고 복합적인 르네쌍스의 담론을 반영하는 광기의 양태들을 표현하고 있다『햄릿』과 『리어왕』 등의 작품에서 우리는 리어와 햄릿의 어리석음을 깨우치는 바보 광대들의 지혜와 유머를 들을수 있는가 하면, 멕베드 부인과 오필리어가 보여주는 여성의 광기와, 햄릿, 라어, 멕베드, 등이 겪는 광기의 경험을 통해 인간의 기질이나 감정의 문제, 죄의식, 악령이나 마녀의 영향력, 인간의 어두운 본성과 비극적 지혜, 그리고 두려움과 공포에 사로잡힌 환상, 등 다양한 모습들을 발견해 낼 수 있다. 극작가이자 예술가로서 현실과 허구의 경계를 넘나드는 셰익스피어는 일차적으로 자신의 예술적 목적과 상업적 목적에 충실하게 광기를 재현하고 있다. “유사성"(analogy)과 “변화"(transition) 가 공존하는 시대에 살면서 다양한 계층의 관객들을 만족시키기 위해 모호하고 복 합적인 목소리를 내었던 그는 당대의 광기에 관한 다양한 담론들을 극적 효과의 극대화를 위한 수단으로 사용하고 있으며, 어떤 정치적, 종교적, 사회적 판단을 쉽게 드러내는 입장은 가능한 유보하고 있다. 셰익스피어에게 있어서 광기는 질병이라기 보다는 현실로부터 벗어나 그 이변 을 보고 싶은 욕망에 대한 은유이다. 셰익스피어의 주인공들에게서 발현히는 광기의 원인을 깊게 생각해 보면, 우리는 광기가 어떤 종교적, 초자연적인, 혹은 의학적 요소와의 관련보다는 기존의 도덕이나 정치적 이데올로기가 정하는 질서와 이에 반하는 개인의 욕망과 관련되어 있다는 사실을 파악할 수 있다. 즉, 표면적으로는 신과 개인의 관계, 혹은 개인의 육체적 정신적 문제가 광기의 원인으로 여겨지지만, 그 밑바닥에는 기존 사회의 질서나 이데올로기를 고수하려는 정신과 그들로부터 일탈하려는 욕망 사이의 갈등과 투쟁 속에서 광기가 발현하는 것이다. 결국 셰익스피어의 극 세계에 발현된 광기는 그 시대를 지배하는 이데올로기와 질서를 직시하고 저항하는 수단이며, 또 한편으로는 이를 극복할 수 없는 한계를 드러내는 극적 수단이기도 하다. 축제의 자유와 해방이 축제가 끝남과 동시에 사라지고 더욱 강한 일상과 질서의 틀을 요구하는 것처럼, 광기의 해방 역시 광인들의 죽음과 함께 생명력을 잃는것 처럼 보인다. 하지만 가장된 광기를 통해 사회의 잘못된 질서로부터 벗어나 사회의 진설을 깨닫는 지혜를 얻는 에드거처럼, 셰익스피어의 광기는 작품 속에 등장하는 광인들의 죽음 이후에도 계속 살아 있을 것이 분명하다.

『복수자의 비극』 -조롱과 환멸의 정치학

강석주 ( Seok Ju Kang ) 21세기영어영문학회 2011 영어영문학21 Vol.24 No.3

The Revenger`s Tragedy seems to be a kind of allegory in which the wicked and corrupted villains are punished, and the moral order is recovered at the end of the play. However, underneath the allegorical structure as we see in the morality plays, the skeptical view of God`s justice lies and is expressed in the form of cruel revenge and challenge against the ruling authority. The private revenge which was prohibited in the contemporary English society becomes the means to challenge and subvert the established political order. Vindice`s revenge seems ironical, as he uses what the ruling class prohibits in order to punish the ruling class. From this ironical context comes Vindice`s twofold identity. Whether we should define him as a villain or a hero makes the meaning of the play quite different. If we see his cruel revenge in the perspective of Christianity, Vindice is the same villain as the Duke`s family and his destruction is a kind of providence. But if we see his revenge in the perspective of the oppressed class, he is a kind of hero who fulfills their subversive desire. Even though he is destructed in the end, his evil pleasure and madness contributes to establishing a new political order represented by Antonio. In The Revenger`s Tragedy, the process of Vindice`s revenge is full of cynicism and mockery rather than the noble recognition derived from suffering and inner conflict. If we notice the society of the play where justice is impossible, we should not overlook that his cynicism and cruelty was born out of suffering. Since the moral justice in this play is accomplished by cruel revenge and cynical skepticism, it damages the conservative view of order based on Christian justice.

『오셀로』-타자의 타자

강석주 ( Seok Ju Kang ) 21세기영어영문학회 2012 영어영문학21 Vol.25 No.3

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the prejudice against ``otherness`` determine the tragic fate of Othello. Othello is not a tragic hero but rather a victim of the racial prejudice of Venetian society. Desdemona is also a victim of the gender prejudice in that society. Iago is the main character who represents the social prejudice against ``otherness.`` However, we should notice the fact that Othello is both an ``other`` and one who oppresses ``other.`` It is revealed in the relationship between Desdemona and Othello himself. He is a racial other oppressed by the prejudice of Venetian society, and also a male character who tortures Desdemona with his gender prejudice at the same time. He represents a dual persona, as a victim of racial prejudice and also as a Venetian who gets rid of himself, a jealous and cruel Moor, an ``other`` in himself. Othello seems fit to the concept of the traditional tragic discourse. A great and noble general makes a terrible mistake obsessed by uncontrollable jealousy, and at the moment he recognizes the truth he destroys himself. Tempted by the villain Iago, Othello who committed sins of jealousy and murder arouses pity and fear to the audience, warning the danger of evil and jealousy. According to this perspective, it seems Shakespeare`s view of human nature is that a great general can be a cruel monster in a moment. However, the most important element that determines the tragic result of the play is the prejudice against ``otherness`` to the eyes of both Venetian people and Othello. We should approach Othello not with the conservative view that justifies the prejudice against ``otherness,`` but with a critical view of the misfortune and pain that this prejudice results in. This play reflects a rage against other`s success, overflowing of materialism, and social reality full of deceptions and intrigues. The tragedy of ``other`` is not an imitation of an individual`s behavior but that of social prejudice and political ideology. If this play is regarded as a tragedy and we feel pity toward Othello, it enforces how wicked the conservative prejudice of white male society is.

최근 『오셀로』 영상 작품과 인종주의 문제

강석주(Seok-Ju Kang) 한국셰익스피어학회 2004 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.40 No.3

The purpose of this study is to explore how the two recent films adapted from Shakespeare's Othello, Geoffrey Sax's Othello and Tim Blake Nelson's O, represent modem British and American culture, especially the problem of racism. It is remarkable that the two films commonly seem to focus on jealousy which has been regarded as one of the most important themes in Othello rather than on the problem of race which is the main issue of post-colonial critical view. Especially the white man's jealousy of the black hero is much more emphasized than the black hero's jealousy of his woman. The directors might have judged that jealousy is more universal and sympathetic to modem people than the race problem. However, as long as a black actor plays the role of Othello, we cannot deny that the racial prejudice has its root under the universal feeling of jealousy in the two films, whether the directors admit it or not. Although both films commonly represent anti-racism, Sax's Othello is quite different from Nelson's O in that the one directly deals with the serious problem of racism in modern British society while the other tries to hide the voice of racism in American society. Odin in Nelson's O is a black hero, an excellent basketball player, who pursues for "American Dream." Nobody around him expresses any direct racial prejudice. Rather he is the man everybody applaud and admire. However he is but a negro who desires to be successful in the society white people dominate. He turns into a beast as soon as he is caught in the trap of racism. On the contrary, John Othello in Sax's Othello becomes the black hero, the chief constable, who fights for the right of black people emphasizing "justice under the law." But his promotion and success makes him more tragic. He cannot overcome the overruling racial prejudice in modem British society. Sax and Nelson created quite different descendents of Shakespeare's Othello in their works, but they are not so different in the sense that both are victims of racism.