『햄릿』의 정치적 무의식과 텍스트 편집 —4막 5장 106행의 아포리아—
The Political Unconscious of Hamlet and the Editing of the Text: The Aporia of Act 4, Scene 5, Line 106
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the field of the textual criticism on Hamlet, a minor crux in a line had been quite controversial for some time in the past; the line in question reads: "The ratifiers and props of every word"(4.5.106). In Hamlet, this is the moment when the Messenger reports to Claudius about the imminent attack of the plebeians who desire to overthrow Claudius's kingship. The Messenger's psychic state is complicated; he not only has to be careful not to offend Claudius's rulership but also is unable to conceal the rush of the plebeians as it will be shortly attested to Claudius. Helplessly split between the presence of Claudius and the forces of the approaching plebeians, the line 106 refers either to 'antiquity and custom'(105) or to 'they'(107). If referring to the former, the utterance looks conservative: the lawless plebeians are going to overthrow the kingdom, its order being represented by 'antiquity and custom.' If referring to the latter, however, the speech turns out to be revolutionary: 'They,' the plebeians as 'the ratifiers and props of every word,' are challenging against the supposedly absolute kingship of Claudius's. Thinking this difficult question of reference irrelevant to the speech of such a minor character as the Messenger, Lewis Theobald in the 18th century attempted to emend "word" to "ward(security)," yet without any textual evidences from Quartos or Folios. Letting the "word" stand as it is, since then, the modern editions of Hamlet took either the former or the latter reading to be correct, each revealing one's own conservative or radical political outlook. Harold Jenkins, the editor of the second series Arden Hamlet, seems to have been especially provoked as to his political (un)conscious, since he went so far as to insert dash signs into the line to stress that the line obviously refers to 'antiquity and custom.' The Jenkins-like scrupulousness, however, should be thought unnecessary if Shakespeare himself had been originally undecided of his authorial intention.
Abstract
In the field of the textual criticism on Hamlet, a minor crux in a line had been quite controversial for some time in the past; the line in question reads: "The ratifiers and props of every word"(4.5.106). In Hamlet, this is the moment when the Messenger reports to Claudius about the imminent attack of the plebeians who desire to overthrow Claudius's kingship. The Messenger's psychic state is complicated; he not only has to be careful not to offend Claudius's rulership but also is unable to conceal the rush of the plebeians as it will be shortly attested to Claudius. Helplessly split between the presence of Claudius and the forces of the approaching plebeians, the line 106 refers either to 'antiquity and custom'(105) or to 'they'(107). If referring to the former, the utterance looks conservative: the lawless plebeians are going to overthrow the kingdom, its order being represented by 'antiquity and custom.' If referring to the latter, however, the speech turns out to be revolutionary: 'They,' the plebeians as 'the ratifiers and props of every word,' are challenging against the supposedly absolute kingship of Claudius's. Thinking this difficult question of reference irrelevant to the speech of such a minor character as the Messenger, Lewis Theobald in the 18th century attempted to emend "word" to "ward(security)," yet without any textual evidences from Quartos or Folios. Letting the "word" stand as it is, since then, the modern editions of Hamlet took either the former or the latter reading to be correct, each revealing one's own conservative or radical political outlook. Harold Jenkins, the editor of the second series Arden Hamlet, seems to have been especially provoked as to his political (un)conscious, since he went so far as to insert dash signs into the line to stress that the line obviously refers to 'antiquity and custom.' The Jenkins-like scrupulousness, however, should be thought unnecessary if Shakespeare himself had been originally undecided of his authorial intention.
참고문헌 (7)
- 최종철, "햄릿" (1998), 민음사
- Evans, G. Blackmore, "The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd Ed." (1997), Houghton Mifflin
- Furness, Horace Howard, "A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare Hamlet" (1963), Dover
- "Hamletworks.org."[URL]
- "Internet Shakespeare Editions."[URL]
- Thompson, Ann, "The Arden Shakespeare Hamlet. 3rd Series" (2006), Thompson Learning
- Jenkins, Harold, "The Arden Shakespeare Hamlet. 2nd Series" (1982), Routledge
