연극의 구성요소로서의 햄릿
Hamlet as a Part of the Whole
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Seen from the perspective of what the hero says, Hamlet is a contradictory play for Hamlet does not do as he says he is going to do. This has led many critics to conjecture concerning the character of the hero. Some mistakenly separate Hamlet from the play as if he were an independent man in the real world and read themselves into his problems. However, as a character in the drama, no matter how dominant he may be, he is only a part of the whole which is a series of situations. Hamlet does as the situations direct him. Along with other characters, he is only a component part of the situations he participates in. He is, unlike individuals in the real world, a being created for the situation he is in so he is not more important than the situation for which he exists. As a part of the whole, which is the play, he has no identity other than the situations which set the limits no matter what he says. In this respect, he is the speaker who is spoken as E. D. Hirsch, Jr. pointed out. Seen from this perspective, Hamlet is a public man, “th’observed of all observers,” who should not kill Claudius out of personal sense of hatred and anger. He does so only when the observers can believe that the present king is the murderer of the former king. Hamlet’s duty as given to him by the ghost of his father and the dramatic situation is not just to kill but to restore the order of his kingdom which has been fallen apart due to the usurpation since the death of old Hamlet. Though Hamlet inveighs his inactions and delays, he is an undaunted soldier and prince, as Fortinbras later acknowledges, who has fought in single combat, as his father did, to save his kingdom from becoming a couch for luxury and damned incest by choosing “To be,” which, includes Hamlet’s antic disposition, wordplay and play-within-the-play, things which look like doing nothing but actually keep the dramatic situations going.
Abstract
Seen from the perspective of what the hero says, Hamlet is a contradictory play for Hamlet does not do as he says he is going to do. This has led many critics to conjecture concerning the character of the hero. Some mistakenly separate Hamlet from the play as if he were an independent man in the real world and read themselves into his problems. However, as a character in the drama, no matter how dominant he may be, he is only a part of the whole which is a series of situations. Hamlet does as the situations direct him. Along with other characters, he is only a component part of the situations he participates in. He is, unlike individuals in the real world, a being created for the situation he is in so he is not more important than the situation for which he exists. As a part of the whole, which is the play, he has no identity other than the situations which set the limits no matter what he says. In this respect, he is the speaker who is spoken as E. D. Hirsch, Jr. pointed out. Seen from this perspective, Hamlet is a public man, “th’observed of all observers,” who should not kill Claudius out of personal sense of hatred and anger. He does so only when the observers can believe that the present king is the murderer of the former king. Hamlet’s duty as given to him by the ghost of his father and the dramatic situation is not just to kill but to restore the order of his kingdom which has been fallen apart due to the usurpation since the death of old Hamlet. Though Hamlet inveighs his inactions and delays, he is an undaunted soldier and prince, as Fortinbras later acknowledges, who has fought in single combat, as his father did, to save his kingdom from becoming a couch for luxury and damned incest by choosing “To be,” which, includes Hamlet’s antic disposition, wordplay and play-within-the-play, things which look like doing nothing but actually keep the dramatic situations going.
참고문헌 (18)
- Barnet,Sylvan, "William Shakespeare:The Tragedy of Hamlet,Prince of Denmark" (1998), Signet Classics
- Bevington,David, "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" (1997), Longman
- Brooks,Cleanth, "Understanding Drama" (1961), Holt, Reinhardt and Winston
- Butcher,S.H, "Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art" (1978), Kalyani Publishers
- Edwards,Philip, "The New Cambridge Shakespeare: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" (1988), Cambridge UP
- Fergusson,Francis, "The Idea of a Theater" (1972), Princeton UP
- Gardener, Helen, "The Historical Approach: Hamlet, In Shakespeare: The Tragedies: A Collection of Critical Essays", pp.61~70 (1964), Prentice-Hall
- Gregson,James, "Public & Private Man in Shakespeare" (1983), Croom Helm
- Hirsch,E.D.Jr, "Validity in Interpretation" (1978), Yale UP
- Honigmann,E.A.J, "Shakespeare: Seven Tragedies: Dramatist’s Manipulation of Response" (1985), Macmillan
- Hunt, John, "A Thing of Nothing: The Catastrophic Body in Hamlet", Shakespeare Quarterly, 39(1), pp.27~43 (1988)
- Jacobus,Lee A, "Shakespeare and the Dialect of Certainty" (1992), St. Martins
- Kermode, Frank, "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, In The Riverside Shakespeare", pp.1183~1188 (1997), Houghton Mifflin
- Lewis, C. S, "Interpretations of Shakespeare", pp.124~141 (1985), Clarendon
- Mack, Maynard, "The World of Hamlet, In Shakespeare: The Tragedies: A Collection of Critical Essays", pp.44~60 (1964), Prentice- Hall
- Mahood,M.M, "Shakespeare’s Wordplay" (1979), Methuen
- Mercer,Peter, "Hamlet and the Acting of Revenge" (1987), Macmillan
- Summers,Joseph, "Dreams of Love and Power on Shakespeare’s Plays" (1984), Claredon