복수극으로서 Oresteia와 Hamlet

申兼秀 湖南大學校 1985 호남대학교 학술논문집 Vol.5 No.-

One of the subjects in Oresteia and Hamlet is that of revenge. These two tragedies have many things common in their plots. The motives of Greek tragedies can be divided into two large groups, i.e., divine motivation and human motivation. Aeschylus' oresteia is no exception. The analysis of murder-patterns in this trilogy shows that the murderers have their divine and human motives. With these two kinds of motivation, the Greek dramatist has created a typical revenge tragedy of blood. In regular sequence of bloodshed the reader experiences Aristotelian tragic catharsis. Neverthless, the question of the trilogy is that Orestes matricide could be justified even though the author proclaimed that the miserable son was pardoned. One of the reasons why oresteia has been so widely criticized is that is deals with moral and ethical question in human relations. The murder-pattern of Hamlet is quite different from that of Oresteia. With almost similar materials of revenge, Shakespeare did not satisfy with remaining in the realm of Senecan revenge plays but raised it on a higher level of tragedy which dealt with more general question of life. The deaths in Hamlet are not avenging acts, but murders by mistake. Hamlet hesitates between Elizabethan secular moral which longs for traditional bloody revenge and Christian Morale which prohibits killing including even suicide not ot speak of revenge. This may be said to be a reason of Hamlet's procrastination. Hamlet, caught in this inescapable conflicts, delays revenge and makes ironies to kill the other innocent people. The characters who meet death in Hamlet provide the reader with a sense of purposelessness and absurdity in life. Hamlet is a tragedy which suggests human dilemma, treating man's suffering which has come down since the Tree of Knowledge. Closing the last page of Hamlet the reader is given a higher tragic catharsis as he can never fail to feel sympathy with all the victims of Fate.

Denmark is a Prison : 셰익스피어 연극에서 범죄와 형벌, 그리고 교정

신겸수 아시아교정포럼 2007 교정담론 Vol.1 No.-

미셸 푸코는 1956년 암스테르담에 건설된 라스푸이 감옥을 징벌적 감옥의 첫 모델로 보고 있다. 범죄자를 교정한다는 본격적 감옥은 18세기 후반에 되어서야 확립되었다고 푸코는 말한다. 이러한 푸코의 이론에 의하면 윌리엄 셰익스피어는 1916년에 죽었기 때문에 근대적인 감옥을 둘러보거나 죄수들을 볼 기회는 없었을 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리는 셰익스피어의 연극에서 범죄, 범인, 형벌, 감옥, 죄수 심지어 교정과 관련된 많은 장면들을 발견한다. 물론 이러한 용어들이 엘리자베스 시대의 처벌과 직결된 것은 아니다. 햄릿은 그의 친구 로젠크란츠와 길던스턴에게 이 세상에는 크고 작은 감옥이 수없이 많이 있고, “덴마크는 그중에서도 최악의 감옥”이라고 말한다. 셰익스피어는 고금의 영국 및 외국으로부터 온갖 흥미로운 이야기들을 빌어다가 극작을 하였다. 그리스 로마 및 많은 유럽 국가에서 이야기를 차용하여 인간성과 문화의 다양한 양상을 창조했던 것이다. 그러므로 우리가 그의 희곡에서 범죄나 교정학과 관련된 다양한 흥미로운 소재를 발견하는 것도 놀라운 일이 아니다. 본 논문은 셰익스피어와 교정학사이의 학제간 연결을 위한 간략한 시도이다. 셰익스피어의 연구와 교정학 연구의 교량을 구축하기 위하여 이 논문은 셰익스피어 희곡에서 범죄, 처벌, 감옥, 죄수, 교정 등과 같은 교정학적 주제들을 분석하고자 한다. 다양한 형태의 예를 들어 사형, 교수형, 감옥형, 또는 채찍형과 같은 다양한 형태의 신체적 처벌을 살펴봄으로써 우리는 셰익스피어가 범죄 및 형벌과 관련된 이야기들이 주는 극적 효과를 충분히 알고 있었음을 확인 할 수 있다. 예를 들어 그의 희곡에서 햄릿, 로미오, 밸런타인, 코리오레이너스 등과 같이 추방된 인물들은 반드시 되돌아온다. 적어도 우리는 3편의 그의 희곡에서 범죄학이나 교정학과 관련된 유용한 정보가 들어있음을 입증할 수가 있다. 『이척보척』, 『십이야』, 『리어왕』이 이러한 희곡인데, 이들 속에는 감옥이나 교정학과 관련 고찰해 볼만한 흥미로운 이슈들이 많이 포함되어 있다. 셰익스피어의 죄수들이 교정의 효과를 내는지는 단정지어 말할 수 없다. 예를 들어, 『이척보척』의 뚜쟁이 폼피는 “교정과 교훈을 함께 가해야할” 사람이다. 그러나 극중에서 그의 유일한 관심사는 옛날 고객의 힘을 빌어 보석금을 내고 감옥에서 풀려나는 것이다. 『십이야』에서 말볼리오는 교정의 대상으로 투옥되는 가장 훌륭한 모델이다. 그렇지만 그를 어리석은 사랑과 무지에서 일깨워 주려는 토비경이나 광대 페스테, 마리아 등의 노력은 완전히 실패로 돌아간다. 그가 같은 집안사람들에게 완전히 속아 바보가 되었다는 사실을 깨달았을 때, 말볼리오의 정신 상태는 훨씬 더 나빠져 있다. 연극의 끝에서 그가 내뱉는 말은 “당신네들 모두에게 내가 복수할꺼야!”라는 저주로서 아마추어적 교정의 실패를 상징적으로 보여 준다. 셰익스피어의 감옥은 물리적 측면이라기 보다는 심리적 측면에서 더 가치를 지닌다. 셰익스피어 희곡에서 교정은 보다 엄밀히 말하면 사회적 교정으로서 무대 위의 극중인물이 아니라 연극을 보는 관객 속에서 실현되는 교정이다. 무대 위의 범법자들이 고통받고 파멸되는 모습을 지켜보면서 셰익스피어의 관객들은 소위 아리스토텔레스가 말하는 “연민과 공포”를 느끼는 것이다. 이러한 측면에서 셰익스피어의 무대는 17세기 영국의 교정 포럼이라고 불리울만 하다. Michel Foucault thought of the Rasphuis constructed in Amsterdam in 1596 as the first model of modern punitive imprisonment. Foucault said the "proper" prison with the modern concept of housing criminals for correction was not established until the late 18th century. According to Foucault's theory, William Shakespeare could have never had a chance to look around "modern" prisons or view prisoners since the playwright died in 1616. Nevertheless, we remember a lot of scenes in his plays related to crimes, criminals, punishments, prison, prisoners and even "correction," even if this word just meant "punishment" in the Elizabethan age. Hamlet tells his school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, "there are many confines, wards, and dungeons," and Denmark was the worst one. Shakespeare borrowed all sorts of interesting stories home and abroad, and ancient and modern. Adopting and adapting stories from Greece, Rome, and many European countries, Shakespeare created varied aspects of human character and culture. Therefore it is no wonder for us to recognize various interesting topics in criminology or correctional studies. This paper is a brief attempt for an interdisciplinary study between Shakespeare and Correction. In order to make a bridge of Shakespearean studies and correctional studies, this paper tries to analyze several topics of correction in Shakespeare's plays, such as crime, punishment, prison, prisoner, and correction. Looking over varied types of physical penalties, such as death, hanging, imprisonment, and pillory or whipping, we can confirm Shakespeare was fully aware of the dramatic effect of crime/punishment stories. For instance, in his plays banished characters such as Hamlet, Romeo, Valentine, and Coriolanus never fail to return. We can prove at least three of his plays contain useful information about criminology and correction. They are Measure for Measure, The Twelfth Night, and King Lear. These plays provide lots of interesting issues to be considered for prison and correctional studies. We can not ascertain positive effects of correction in Shakespeare's prisoners. For example, Pompey, a bawd in Measure for Measure, is a man whom "correction and instruction must both work". However, his single interest is in getting ransom to be free by the favor of his former customers. Malvolio in The Twelfth Night could be the best model to be imprisoned for correction. Yet, the efforts of Sir Toby, Feste, and Maria to awaken him out of his foolish love and ignorance prove to be a complete failure. The mental state of Malvolio becomes even worse when he finds himself to be gulled by the rogues in the same house. His cursing outcry at the end of the play, "I will be revenged on the whole pack of you," is a symbolic sign of failure in correctional amateurism. Shakespeare's prisons are more valued for their psychological functions than their physical ones. In Shakespeare's plays, correction, to be exact, social correction, is formed not through the characters on the stage but among the audience in the theatre. Looking at the criminals, suffered and destroyed on the stage, Shakespeare's audience feel what is called, "pity and fear". In this respect, Shakespeare's stage can be called a correctional forum in the 17th century England.

The Wood Demon and Uncle Vanya

申兼秀 호남대학교 1986 호남대학교 학술논문집 Vol.6 No.2

The Wood Demon (1889) is one of Chekhov's early ploays. It was hurriedly written and poorly produced upon the stage even though Chekhov had designed its outline long time before. After its dissatisgactory production, Chekhov took back the manuscript of The Wood Demon and locked it in his desk and never allowed it to be produced again. About nine uears afterwards, however, Chekhov revised The Wood Demon and reorgaoized another play titled Uncle Vanya. Altough the two plays are originated from the same materials, they are quite different from each other in many respects. The Wood Demon is his early Ibsenian play and Uncle Vanya is one of his later four masterpieces. And Chekhov himself did not want the two plays to be identified. And Chekhov himself didnot want the two plays to be identified. We can figure out the characteristics of Chekhovian realiam by the analysis of the differences of the plays. By comparison of The wood Demon with Uncle vanya, the following major characteristics are revealed: 1. Curtailing Act I and Act Ⅳ of The wood Demon, Chekhov restricted the acion of Uncle Vany ato the estate of Serebriakoff. This alteration is confirmed with Aristotelian unity of action as well as with unity of place. 2. Reducing the subsidiary characters of two families, i.e., the Zheltoukhins and the Orlovskys, Chekhov achieved a plausable characterization with various motives. 3. Discarding the romantic quality of Wood Demon, Chekhov transformed him a realistic doctor of Astroff who was exhausted with hard work. 4. Excluding violent actions of The wood Demon, such as Voynitsky's suicide, Elena's flight, the happy ending of reconciliation and marriage, Chekhov established his psychological realism or inner realism which came from his view of life.

플라우투스의 『암피트뤼온』의 구조

신겸수 경기대학교 인문학연구소 1999 시민인문학 Vol.7 No.-

제1및 제2사절판 『햄릿』의 인쇄와 발행에 관련된 사람들

신겸수 한국중세근세영문학회 2008 고전·르네상스 영문학 Vol.17 No.2

Concerning the publication of the First and Second Quartos of Hamlet, at least four people were involved: Nicholas Ling, John Trundle, James Roberts, and Valentine Simmes. What happened to them individually and collectively in the printing and publishing of Hamlet Quartos One and Two? About this mystery, David Scott Kastan has suggested a most persuasive explanation. He argued that these two stationers, Nicholas Ling and James Roberts "were known to one another." During the process of publishing early quartos of Hamlet, Kastan claims they came to "a pragmatic compromise." James Roberts was more of a printer than of a publisher even though he made business in both fields. He was in the habit of acquiring for his future use as many as assets by registering them in the Stationer's Company. Among these copyrights he registered (except for those he himself published), Roberts often transferred his rights to publish books to his co-publishers, and especially with Nicholas Ling. With him, Roberts co-published as many as 23 books. One may easily suspect, if we accept Kastan's theory, why did Roberts himself did not print Hamlet Quarto 1 in 1603? About this, Kastan says that Roberts was in "the third busiest year" of his printer's career so that he passed "the opportunity to work on Hamlet" to Valentine Simmes. After the Quarto 1 was published, Roberts was "no doubt delighted to produce a second edition," partly because the theater company was not happy with Quarto 1, and partly because both Simmes and he judged a new publication of Hamlet would make more profit. I think Kastan's scenario is attractive because there is no one until now who has suggested such plausible theory as this. Nevertheless, the possibility of pirate publication of Quarto 1 is still open. We need to consider that both Ling and Simmes were concerned with unhonorable printing or publication. If Valentine Simmes was allowed by James Roberts to do his printing of Hamlet Quarto 1, why did he omit his name on the title page? Another thing we need to remember is that James Roberts was not in good health around this time. Can we not we suppose that James Roberts could not prevent the clandestine publication of Hamlet’s Quarto 1 by John Trundle and Nicholas Ling because of his poor health? Is there no possibility that he was unable to give full attention to the general conditions extant in the printing and publishing market, as he was suffering from a chronic disease? My scenario for this mystery is as follows: John Trundle was a minor publisher without much money, yet he obtained the text of Quarto 1 through an unknown channel. Thus acquiring this Hamlet text, he hoped to profit by publishing it with Nicholas Ling. While accepting Trundle's offer, Ling also asked Valentine Simmes to quickly print this play secretly. Ling and Simmes learned printing under the same master, Henry Bynneman, and spent at least two years in the same printing house. Their special friendship was the reason for this disreputable double-printing. Worrying about unfavorable consequences, Simmes did not print his name on the title page. Concerning the publication of the First and Second Quartos of Hamlet, at least four people were involved: Nicholas Ling, John Trundle, James Roberts, and Valentine Simmes. What happened to them individually and collectively in the printing and publishing of Hamlet Quartos One and Two? About this mystery, David Scott Kastan has suggested a most persuasive explanation. He argued that these two stationers, Nicholas Ling and James Roberts "were known to one another." During the process of publishing early quartos of Hamlet, Kastan claims they came to "a pragmatic compromise." James Roberts was more of a printer than of a publisher even though he made business in both fields. He was in the habit of acquiring for his future use as many as assets by registering them in the Stationer's Company. Among these copyrights he registered (except for those he himself published), Roberts often transferred his rights to publish books to his co-publishers, and especially with Nicholas Ling. With him, Roberts co-published as many as 23 books. One may easily suspect, if we accept Kastan's theory, why did Roberts himself did not print Hamlet Quarto 1 in 1603? About this, Kastan says that Roberts was in "the third busiest year" of his printer's career so that he passed "the opportunity to work on Hamlet" to Valentine Simmes. After the Quarto 1 was published, Roberts was "no doubt delighted to produce a second edition," partly because the theater company was not happy with Quarto 1, and partly because both Simmes and he judged a new publication of Hamlet would make more profit. I think Kastan's scenario is attractive because there is no one until now who has suggested such plausible theory as this. Nevertheless, the possibility of pirate publication of Quarto 1 is still open. We need to consider that both Ling and Simmes were concerned with unhonorable printing or publication. If Valentine Simmes was allowed by James Roberts to do his printing of Hamlet Quarto 1, why did he omit his name on the title page? Another thing we need to remember is that James Roberts was not in good health around this time. Can we not we suppose that James Roberts could not prevent the clandestine publication of Hamlet’s Quarto 1 by John Trundle and Nicholas Ling because of his poor health? Is there no possibility that he was unable to give full attention to the general conditions extant in the printing and publishing market, as he was suffering from a chronic disease? My scenario for this mystery is as follows: John Trundle was a minor publisher without much money, yet he obtained the text of Quarto 1 through an unknown channel. Thus acquiring this Hamlet text, he hoped to profit by publishing it with Nicholas Ling. While accepting Trundle's offer, Ling also asked Valentine Simmes to quickly print this play secretly. Ling and Simmes learned printing under the same master, Henry Bynneman, and spent at least two years in the same printing house. Their special friendship was the reason for this disreputable double-printing. Worrying about unfavorable consequences, Simmes did not print his name on the title page.

차숫가락 다정(茶情)이

신겸수 고요아침 2009 열린시학 Vol.14 No.4

플라톤과 문학비평

신겸수 경기대학교 인문학연구소 1998 시민인문학 Vol.6 No.-

The Comedy of Errors의 희극성 : The Menaechmi와의 비교분석 A Comparison with The Menaechmi

申兼秀 湖南大學校 1987 호남대학교 학술논문집 Vol.8 No.1

The Comedy of Errors is generally thought of as Shakespeare's first comedy. In his adoptation of Plautine materials Shakespeare follows the learned tradition of classical playwrights. In comparison with their counterparts in THe Menaechmi, however, the characters in The Errors are noble ones. the initial assumption of this comedy is that the twin brothers have a complete similarity in their character as well as in their appearance. Plautus put more weight upon the citizen, Menaechmas I, whereas Shakespeare was more interested in the traveller, Antipholus of Syracuse. Shakespeare successfully added the Dromios as a plot-complication but he found this addition to be a hindrance to a further characterization. The creation of Luciana is a meaningful innovation which foresees the poet's later fomantic lovers. The reatoration of Egeon and Aemilia contributes to a balanced structure of the play. In this well-balanced structure Shakespeare shows his talent of sontrast, parallelism and repetition. As shown in most of his plays, The Errors has some minor inconsistencies but the comedy does not stand outside of his romantic comedies whose characteristics are loove, reconciliation,a dn family reunion.

William Blake論

申兼秀 成均館大學校 英語英文學會 1983 Academia Vol.6 No.-

서해 바다 그날

신겸수 경기대학교인문대학 1998 人文春秋 Vol.1 No.-