한국 셰익스피어 번역의 새로운 도약을 위한 제언
Beyond the 100 Year History of Shakespeare Translations in Korea: Focusing on the Matters of Authorship, Collaboration, Canon, and Editorship
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Though there is a disagreement on whether 1914, 1919, or 1920 was the year Shakespeare was first translated into Korean, we must now be proud of the 100 year tradition of Shakespeare translation in Korea. Since the first introduction of him in early twentieth century, the year 1964 was a turning point of Shakespeare reception in Korea because the public witnessed two translated versions of “complete Shakespeare” to appear at the same time—one as a collaborative project by Shakespeare Association of Korea, the other by Jae-nam Kim, whose revised version (1971) has become the standard edition in Korea for a long time. During the year of 2016 when the world was in euphoric celebration of the 400th anniversary, the Korean readers again saw two “new” translations of “complete Shakespeare”—ironically again by Shakespeare Association of Korea and by Lee Sangsup, a professor emeritus in English. While investigating the two recent Korean translations of “complete Shakespeare” as well as several editions of individual plays, I investigate how conscious or oblivious the Korean translators have been about the issues of authorship, collaboration, canon, and (modern) editorial interference (or, to borrow Lukas Erne’s expression, the contribution of “modern collaborators”). I also address the issues of how “complete” the new complete translations are, in what sense they did establish or betray “completeness,” what improvement they have made in comparison to the earlier translations, and so on. And thus I propose the translators of Shakespeare should not only become a kind of editor but also a collaborator, whose intercultural transposition will make Shakespeare a Shakespeare for contemporary Korean readers. In the same vein, I’d suggest a Shakespeare translator should not simply be a ventriloquist puppet but be a conjuror whose faculty may help the literary ghost come back to life. The translator of Shakespeare’s works must indeed become, in Marjorie Garber’s words, a ghost writer.
Abstract
Though there is a disagreement on whether 1914, 1919, or 1920 was the year Shakespeare was first translated into Korean, we must now be proud of the 100 year tradition of Shakespeare translation in Korea. Since the first introduction of him in early twentieth century, the year 1964 was a turning point of Shakespeare reception in Korea because the public witnessed two translated versions of “complete Shakespeare” to appear at the same time—one as a collaborative project by Shakespeare Association of Korea, the other by Jae-nam Kim, whose revised version (1971) has become the standard edition in Korea for a long time. During the year of 2016 when the world was in euphoric celebration of the 400th anniversary, the Korean readers again saw two “new” translations of “complete Shakespeare”—ironically again by Shakespeare Association of Korea and by Lee Sangsup, a professor emeritus in English. While investigating the two recent Korean translations of “complete Shakespeare” as well as several editions of individual plays, I investigate how conscious or oblivious the Korean translators have been about the issues of authorship, collaboration, canon, and (modern) editorial interference (or, to borrow Lukas Erne’s expression, the contribution of “modern collaborators”). I also address the issues of how “complete” the new complete translations are, in what sense they did establish or betray “completeness,” what improvement they have made in comparison to the earlier translations, and so on. And thus I propose the translators of Shakespeare should not only become a kind of editor but also a collaborator, whose intercultural transposition will make Shakespeare a Shakespeare for contemporary Korean readers. In the same vein, I’d suggest a Shakespeare translator should not simply be a ventriloquist puppet but be a conjuror whose faculty may help the literary ghost come back to life. The translator of Shakespeare’s works must indeed become, in Marjorie Garber’s words, a ghost writer.
참고문헌 (70)
- 강태경, "리차드 3세" (2011), 지만지
- 김성환, "줄리어스 시저" (2016), 동인
- 김재남, "셰익스피어 전집" (1995), 을지서적
- 김정환, "햄릿" (2008), 아침이슬
- 김종환, "줄리어스 시저" (2008), 지만지
- 박우수, "햄릿 : 제1사절판본" (2017), 휴북스
- 서경희, "로미오와 줄리엣" (2016), 을유문화사
- 설준규, "햄릿" (2016), 창비
- 신정옥, "리차드 3세" (1996), 전예원
- 이상섭, "셰익스피어 로맨스 희곡전집" (2012), 문학과지성사
- 이상섭, "셰익스피어 전집" (2016), 문학과지성사
- 이성일, "리차드 3세" (2012), 나남
- 이성일, "오셀로" (2013), 나남
- 이윤기, "한여름 밤의 꿈" (2005), 달궁
- 이현우, "제1사절판본 햄릿(2007)" (2018), 연극과 인간
- 이형식, "로미오와 줄리엣" (2018), 새문사
- 최종철, "리어 왕" (2005), 민음사
- 최종철, "셰익스피어 전집 1 : 희극 1" (2014), 민음사
- 피천득, "셰익스피어 전집 4권(1964)" (1983), 정음사
- Bate, Jonathan, "The RSC Shakespeare, Complete Works" (2007), Macmillan
- Bevington, David, "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" (1992), HarperCollins
- Evans, G. Blakemore, "The Riverside Shakespeare" (1974), Houghton Mifflin
- Greenblatt, Stephen, "Norton Shakespeare" (1997), W. W. Norton
- Jenkins, Harold, "Hamlet : The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd Series" (1982), Methuen
- Taylor, Gary, "The New Oxford Shakespeare, The Complete works : Modern Critical Edition" (2016), Oxford UP
- Thompson, Ann, "Hamlet: The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd Series" (2016), Bloomsbury
- Thompson, Ann, "Hamlet : The Texts of 1603 and 1623" (2006), Bloomsbury
- 권오숙, "셰익스피어 한국어 번역 100년사: 번역 현황과 번역 태도의 변화 연구", 번역학연구, 19(4), pp.45~74 (2018), 한국번역학회[DOI]
- 김종환, "햄릿 번역의 문제", 2017년 유영학술재단 심포지엄 자료집 (2017)
- 김태원, "넘치는 셰익스피어, 여전히 부족한 셰익스피어", 문학과 사회, 22(1), pp.508~513 (2009)
- 김태원, "명작의 새번역: 온고지신의 미덕", 창작과 비평, 174, pp.576~579 (2016)
- 김태원, "셰익스피어는 가짜인가? 음모론 시대의 원저자 논쟁" (2015), 서강대출판부
- 윌리엄 셰익스피어, "줄리어스 시저", pp.5~6 (2016), 동인
- 백정국, "학술적 셰익스피어 번역을 옹호하며: 『햄릿』 번역에 대한 소고(小考)", 고전 르네상스 영문학, 24(2), pp.133~156 (2015), 한국고전중세르네상스영문학회[DOI]
- 신정옥, "셰익스피어 한국에 오다 : 셰익스피어의 韓國受容科程硏究" (1998), 백산출판사
- 안선재, "번역과 시 살아있는 참새 또는 박제된 독수리?", 안과밖:영미문학연구, (47), pp.130~149 (2019), 영미문학연구회[DOI]
- 영미문학연구회, "영미명작, 좋은 번역을 찾아서" (2005), 창비
- 이경식, "셰익스피어 본문硏究" (1980), 서울대출판부
- 이윤택, "연출가의 입장에서 본 셰익스피어 극의 번역 문제", 연극, 7, pp.65~71 (2014)
- 이현우, "셰익스피어의 극 언어, 어떻게 한국화 할 것인가?", Shakespeare Review, 51(1), pp.27~65 (2015), 한국셰익스피어학회[DOI]
- 이현우, "한국 셰익스피어 르네상스" (2016), 동인
- 황정현, "「줄리어스 시저」 번역 연구 - 1945년 이전의 번역을 중심으로", 한국문학이론과 비평, 17(3), pp.243~264 (2013), 한국문학이론과비평학회
- Benjamin, Walter, "Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings Vol. 1", pp.253~263 (1926), Belknap
- Brooke, C. F. Tucker, "The Apocryphal Shakespeare" (1908), Clarendon
- Egan, Gabriel, "The Struggle for Shakespeare’s Text : Twentieth-Century Editorial Theory and Practice" (2010), Cambridge UP
- Erne, Lukas, "Shakespeare’s Modern Collaborators" (2008), Continuum
- Foster, Don W., "A Study in Attribution" (1989), U of Delaware P
- Garber, Marjorie, "Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers : Literature as Uncanny Causality" (1987), Methuen
- Greenblatt, Stephen, "Hamlet in Purgatory" (2001), Princeton UP
- Hirschfeld, Heather, "Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship", PMLA, 116(3), pp.609~622 (2001)
- Kim, Jaenam, "Shakespeare Translation in Korea", Shakespeare Review, 5, pp.53~57 (1975)
- David Michôd, "King, The. Dir" (2019), A film by Netflix
- Kirwan, Peter, "Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha" (2015), Cambridge UP
- Knapp, Jeffrey, "What is a Co-Author", Representations, 89(1), pp.1~29 (2005)
- Knapp, Jeffrey, "Shakespeare Only" (2009), U of Chicago
- Lee, Jongsook, "Colonial Shakespeares: Shakespeare in Korea, 1906-1945", Shakespeare Review, 32, pp.115~141 (1997)
- Love, Harold, "Attributing Authorship : An Introduction" (2002), Cambridge UP
- Marcus, Leah, "Shopping-Mall Shakespeare: Quartos, Folios, and Social Difference", Shakespeare Quarterly, 58(2), pp.161~178 (1995)
- Massai, Sonia, "Shakespeare and the Rise of the Editor" (2007), Cambridge UP
- Masten, Jeffrey, "Textual Intercourse : Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama" (1997), Cambridge UP
- Monsarrat, G. D., "A Funeral Elegy: Ford, W.S., and Shakespeare", The Review of English Studies, 53(210), pp.186~203 (2002)
- Murphy, Andrew, "A Concise Companion to Shakespeare and the Text", pp.93~108 (2007), Blackwell
- Orgel, Stephen, "The Authentic Shakespeare and Other Problems of the Early Modern Stage" (2002), Routledge
- Taylor, Gary, "The New Oxford Shakespeare : Authorship Companion" (2017), Oxford UP
- Taylor, Gary, "Why did Shakespeare Collaborate?", Shakespeare Survey, 67, pp.1~17 (2014)
- Thompson, Ann, "Hamlet: A Critical Reader" (2016), Bloomsbury
- Urkowitz, Steven, "Shakespeare’s Revision of King Lear" (1980), Princeton UP
- Vickers, Brian, "Shakespeare, Co-Author : A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays" (2004), Oxford UP
- Vickers, Brian, "The One King Lear" (2016), Harvard UP
- Werstine, Paul, "Early Modern Playhouse Manuscripts and the Editing of Shakespeare" (2012), Cambridge UP