헨리 5세의 전쟁 정당화 작업: 「헨리 5세」에 나타난 국가와 폭력

Yongjae Han 한국중세근세영문학회 2004 고전·르네상스 영문학 Vol.13 No.1

헨리 5세의 핵심문제는 전쟁이다. 다른 작품들과는 다르게, 셰익스피어는 자신의 가장 잘 알려진 역사극에서 폭력의 극단적인 본보기라 할 수 있는 전쟁을 작품의 전면에서 조명한다. 여러 등장인물들을 통하여 헨리 5세(Henry V)의 침략전쟁을 옹호하기도 하고, 때로는 통렬히 비판하기도 한다. 이 과정에서 세익스피어는 전쟁의 본질을 보여주게 되는데, 이는 토마스 합스(Thomas Hobbes)의 절대국가론에 나타난 모순성을 상기시킨다. 합스에 따르면, 국가는 개인이나 단체간의 충돌에서 일어날 수 있는 폭력을, 위임받은 권력을 통하여 해결하는 것에서 그 정당성과 필요성을 인정받는다. 하지만 합스 이론의 딜레마는 국가가 폭력의 중재자가 아닌 당사자가 될 수 있다는 것에 있다. 전쟁이 그 좋은 예이다. 국가는 폭력으로부터 보호해야 할 시민을 폭력의 대상으로도 활용할 수 있기 때문이다. 셰익스피어는 국가가 지니고 있는 바로 이 모순성을 헨리를 통해 극화시킨다. 즉, 헨리가 끊임없이 자신의 침략전쟁을 정당한 것으로 만들려는 시도에서 관객들은 국가가 어떤 이유에서 폭력의 직접적인 원인이 될 수 있는가를 체험하게 된다. 본 논문은 셰익스피어가 제공한 바로 이 극적 체험을 특별히 세 장면을 통하여 알아본다. 첫째는 헨리의 암살기도 장면이다. 일견, 역모로 치부될 수 있는 이 장면이 중요한 이유는 헨리가 자신의 정통성을 강화하기 위한 일환으로 전쟁을 시작했다는 암시를 주기 때문이다. 둘째는 소위 켄터베리(Canterbury) 일화이다. 이 장면에서 셰익스피어가 보여주는 것은 교회가 자신들의 이득을 보호하기 위하여 헨리가 일으킨 침략전쟁을 옹호하고 있다는 사실이다. 마지막으로 윌리암스(Williams)와 헨리의 전쟁의 정당성에 관한 격론이다. 셰익스피어는 이 장면에서 어떻게 한 국가의 왕(혹은 지도자가)이 전쟁의 책임을 회피 할 수 있는지 보여주며, 또한 이를 통해 시민의 안전과 복지를 목적으로 하는 국가의 존립기반이 얼마나 취약한 것인지를 제시한다.

Violence and Contamination of the Law in The Merchant of Venice

Han Yongjae(한용재) 한국셰익스피어학회 2004 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.40 No.2

벤야민에 따르면 법은 내재적 모순성을 지닌다. 합법적인 권리규정도 해석에 따라 때로는 불법이 되기 때문이다. 가령, 법이 정한 파업권이 실행되면 국가는 이를 언제든 불법으로 규정 할 수 있다. 흥미로운 것은 폭력으로 발전될 수 있는 파업권이나 이를 막을 수 있는 공권력 모두 법으로부터 나온다는 사실이다. 폭력은 법과 함께 시작되며, 유지되고, 또한 집행된다. 셰익스피어는 바로 폭력을 막아야 할 법이 사실은 폭력의 가능성을 끊임없이 열어두고 있다는 사실을 『베니스의 상인』에서 극화 시켰다. 물론 이 극에서 폭력의 위협은 있을지언정 그 위협이 바로 폭력으로 실현되지는 않는다. 계약만기와 더불어 바로 그 계약에 쓰여진 데로 1 파운드의 안토니오 살점을 요구하는 샤일록의 위협. 그 위협을 실천하면 선량한 베니스의 시민이 피를 흘리게 되고, 그것은 위법이므로 합법적 법의 심판을 받아야 한다는 법이라는 이름의 위협. 셰익스피어는 이런 위협의 폭력 가능성을, 그래서 비극이 될 수도 있었던 극을 코메디라는 장르와 절묘하게 융화 시켰다. 하지만 그 과정에서 셰익스피어는 동시에 법과 폭력이 밀접한 연관성이 있음을 보여주고 있으며, 폭력은 언제든 법의 내재적 모순성에 의해 실현 될 수 있음을 강하게 암시하고 있다. 폴샤의 고민은 바로 여기에서 시작된다. 한편으로는, 샤일록이 요구하는 안토니오 살점에 관한 합법적인 폭력을 인정해 주어야하며, 또 다른 한편으로는 선량한 시민인 안토니오를 (법의 원래 목적대로) 폭력으로부터 보호해야 한다. 문제는 바로 이 두 가지 법 행위가 서로 상충된다는 사실이다. 한 행위를 합법적으로 인정하여 주는 일은 이렇듯 다른 합법적 행위를 불법으로 만들어야 하는 논리적 모순에서 가능하게 된다. 폴샤는 지나치게 기술적인 판결을 내림으로서 법에 의해 시작된 폭력의 가능성을 제거하고, 법이 지닌 내재적 모순성을 해결하려 한다. 하지만 그 과정에서 그녀는 자비라는 초법적이고 탈법적인 요소를 법의 이름으로 샤일록에게 강요하는 모순을 만들어낸다. 그녀의 주장대로, 자비는 하나님이며 법밖에 존재해야 하는 것이기 때문이다. 결국 법에 내재한 모순성을 풀고자 했던 폴샤는 근본적으로 법은 모순에 의해서만 체험이 가능함을 입증하게 되는 것이다.

Hepatoprotective potential of Dendropanax morbifera leaf extracts on ethanol-induced liver toxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats

Yongjae Han,Dong-Eon Lee,Cheol-Hee Choi,Hu-Jang Lee 한국예방수의학회 2021 예방수의학회지 Vol.45 No.3

This study investigated the preventive effect of Dendropanax morbifera leaf extracts (DMLEs) drew out with water, 30, 50 and 70% ethanol against alcohol-induced hepatotoxicity in vitro and vivo. The 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-dipenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay was performed to assess cytotoxic activity of DMLEs, and the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) ranged between 1.11 and 2.08 mg/mL on Hep3B cells. In preventing ethanol-induced-hepatotoxicity on Hep3B cells, 30 and 50% ethanol DMLEs were significantly effective compared to the 5% ethanol treatment control. In addition, the 30% ethanol DMLE was orally provided to rats 30 min prior to the administration of ethanol (3 mL/kg body weight). At 1, 3 and 5 h after ethanol treatment, the plasma levels of ethanol and acetaldehyde were determined. The 30% ethanol DMLE effectively decreased the plasma ethanol levels during 5 h but increased the plasma acetaldehyde levels until 3 h and then significantly decreased at 5 h, as compared to the control. These results indicate that the 30% ethanol DMLE possesses a potent preventive effect against ethanol-induced liver toxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats.

Transient global amnesia after pain interventions such as nerve block and intramuscular stimulation: a case report

Yongjae Han,Yongwon Cho 조선대학교 의학연구원 2022 Medical Bilogical Science and Engineering Vol.5 No.1

Transient global amnesia (TGA) is characterized by a sudden episode of memory loss that usually lasts for minutes to several hours but never longer than 24 hours. TGA is triggered by events such as Valsalva maneuver, acute emotional stress, sexual intercourse, or pain. Since case reports of TGA occurring after pain interventions are extremely rare, it may be difficult for the physician to respond appropriately. Although TGA is self-limiting, it is important for the physicians to be aware of this unique syndrome and to distinguish it from other neurological complications or local anesthetic toxicity. We report a case of a 57-year-old female patient who experienced TGA after pain interventions such as nerve block and intramuscular stimulation at a pain clinic. The symptoms disappeared within 1 hour without neurological sequelae.

『코리오레이너스』에 나타난 책임의 문제

한용재(Yongjae Han) 한국셰익스피어학회 2014 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.50 No.4

This essay reads Shakespeare’s Coriolanus by drawing on Derrida’s account of the paradoxical structure of responsibility in The Gift of Death. According to Derrida, responsibility operates in the incompatible conflict between generality and singularity; one ought to act irresponsibly in order to fulfill an absolute responsibility, as best shown in Biblical Abraham who tried to sacrifice his only beloved son Isaac to be absolutely responsible for God. Shakespeare’s Coriolanus shows a structural similarity with Abraham in that the Roman warrior takes the absolute responsibility for Rome while not answering to all other calls, especially a call from Roman populace. From Coriolanus’ perspective, the Roman plebeians cannot represent Rome as it is due to their mutability. Rome is one thing and its populace is another. The representation of Rome ought to be invariably consistent with Rome itself. Otherwise responsibility, which presumes the self sameness of being, is not possible in the first place. This is why Coriolanus opposes the Roman populace and later noble Romans as well; he acts irresponsibly in response to their calls to retain his absolute responsibility for Rome. However, Coriolanus’ absolute sense of responsibility for Rome begins to collapse, as it collides with another responsibility for his family. In other words, he finds himself doubly bound to the two incompatible responsibilities, both of which are absolute in their own right, thereby revealing that responsibility operates only in the annulment of the call to which it ought to answer.

『햄릿』의 유령과 데리다

한용재(Yongjae Han) 한국셰익스피어학회 2010 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.46 No.4

By drawing on Derrida’s Specters of Marx, a book in which he meticulously reads Shakespearean creativity into the critique of the capitalist world of today, this essay addresses what the Ghost in Hamlet signifies, as it relates to the question of justice and language. The first part of the essay, following and reconstructing Derrida’s both explicit and implicit supposition on the Ghost, argues for the inextricable interdependence between the apparition of the Ghost and the idea of justice, while the second part examines the ways in which the Ghost’s statement of his own identity implicates the ghostly nature of language. All in all, the essay makes two major points. First, Hamlet's fundamental problem is structured by the originary and necessary spacing between his idea of justice prompted by the Ghost and justice itself. Hamlet is the one that thinks over the ultimate impossibility of bringing justice to the world of corruption due to the paradoxical fact that he can justly act only by acting unjustly. He thinks and acts only in anguish, which stems from the fact that he is born homo ethicus. Second, language, especially in its function of calling for something or somebody into an identifiable being, sets the stage for the interplay between the present and the absent. Put another way, the difference between beings and non-beings begins to collapse, insofar as the mediation of language comes into play. It is in this aporetic moment that any statement, including the one that made by the Ghost, becomes ghostly; one ought to come up with meanings out of it in his or her own terms. This is what precisely Hamlet does, as he accepts the Ghost as his father’s spirit, and subsequently verifies his statement. The ghost, something that always already exceeds any ontological determination, in other words, is what Hamlet lives and dies for. Hamlet is a tragedy of language-so much so that it is the one that simultaneously dramatizes the triumph and scandal of reason.

개방형 5G-K 시뮬레이터 및 통합 플랫폼

김용재(Yongjae Kim),한상익(Sang Ik Han),주철(Chol Chu),배지민(Jimin Bae),김도연(Doyeon Kim),임진택(Jinteak Lim),박은혜(Eunhye Park),백재욱(Jaeuk Baek),한영남(Youngnam Han) 한국통신학회 2018 한국통신학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2018 No.1

핀터극에 나타난 환대의 문제

한용재(Han, Yongjae) 한국현대영미드라마학회 2005 현대영미드라마 Vol.18 No.3

M. Butterfly에 나타난 법의 무대와 무대의 법

한용재(Han Yongjae) 한국현대영미드라마학회 2010 현대영미드라마 Vol.23 No.1

Will it be legitimate to discuss the nature of theater on the one hand and the nature of law on the other hand? This essay proposes that David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly offers a positive answer to the question. The play dramatizes the ways in which theater and law converge into each other on account of their performative nature. One must “perform” in court, just as he or she cannot avoid performance in theater. Not surprisingly, the question of performance appears as the main object of study in this essay, which is divided into two parts along the way. The first part focuses on the discussion of what it means to perform, especially in reference to act three scene two in which the clear distinction between theater and court blurs. The audience cannot determine whether Gallimard and Song “perform” in a sense of acting on a stage or they “perform” in a sense of carrying out their truthful legal duty in court. It is here that the traditional dichotomy between the true court and the false theater, as best shown in the case of Plato, begins to collapse. One cannot distinguish the legal performance from the dramatic performance at a fundamental level. Both performances relate to action or deed that one ought to play. The legal proceedings, in other words, are not so much the truth as the legal facts determined by performative action. The second part of the essay begins with a question that the first part entails: What does one perform either on a stage or in court? What, in other words, puts a person into motion in the first place? The answer lies in the fact that this play is framed by Gallimard’s story. All he does is to tell his story in front of the audience. Simply put, that is what the play is all about. For this reason, this part of the essay addresses the nature of telling a story in the analysis of Gallimard’s transformation caused by words power, and suggests that he, as well as every other character, performs with (or in) words in order to fulfill his will, which cannot be either finally or completely identified under any circumstances. The audience is only able to read his will as he or she intends. However, this is not necessarily bad news in that one’s given right to write the law is restored. Set free from ontological, as well as epistemological, pressure under which the process of signification is fixed enough to be calculable, one is now able to activate meanings behind any given performative acts. How do I want to change the world? This question becomes the condition of one’s performative acts in a world where there is no absolute correspondence between the signifier and the signified.

『한여름 밤의 꿈』(A Midsummer Night’s Dream)에 나타난 사랑의 이율배반적 구조

한용재(Yongjae Han) 한국셰익스피어학회 2016 셰익스피어 비평 Vol.52 No.4

This essay examines the ways in which Shakespeare dramatizes the antinomic structure of love in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Starting from the assumption that love operates only in its antinomic structure of ‘absoluteness’ and ‘relativity,’ this essay aims to show that Shakespeare’s two young couples experience two irreducible nature of love simultaneously throughout the play. Specifically speaking, Shakespeare sets up a legal scene in which absolute love and relative love collide against each other, resulting in the illustration of the antinomic structure of love, given that a court is the best place for the opposing argument of love to be heard. Needless to say, Hermia and Lysander argue for absolute love because they pursue true love. They believe that love is neither replaceable nor negotiable under any circumstances. Rather, it requires only faithfulness in the form of mutual oath between lovers. Love even transcends law in its creation of a new law and a new world. Demetrius and Egeus cannot buy this claim because love is also a certain business deal on the basis of the rationality of economy. Love is no exception to law, another form of rationality, either. However, as the play goes on, Shakespeare demonstrates how each argument contradicts itself, especially through the wood scene in which the young couples go through the mispairings and reparings. Consequently the play seems to affirm that love is neither absolute nor relative, but rather it requires both of its nature at the same time.