[햄릿]에 나타난 유령의 극적인 의미
The Dramatic Significance of the Ghost in Hamlet
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The ghost in Hamlet, the meaning of which many critics have investigated and explained, is the one of the greatest achievements in Shakespeare’s works. However, the ghost in Hamlet is not a Shakespeare’s invention. As like in other works, Shakespeare made much of traditional heritage but have transformed the tradition into his work in a unique and profound way. The convention of the ghost on the stage, i.e. revenge-ghost or prologue-ghost, was found in the classic and Senecan tragedies. Shakespeare interpolated this conventional features of the ghost into Hamlet while there was no ghost who commanded his revenge in the source of Hamlet. But the dramatic significance of the ghost in Hamlet is not limited to the interpolation of the ghost into Hamlet. Although Shakespeare followed the main characteristics of the classical ghost, he gave it the more complex and richer meanings. The ghost is integral to the movement that drives the main plot in Hamlet. But the ghost is not there at the end of the play to tell the ultimate reality like The Spanish Tragedy. The ghost disappears silently in the middle of the play. The ghost commands the revenge but don’t give the principle of life by which the revenge is justifiable. Hamlet, who is critical of the revenge and the honour which forms the basis of it, also cannot discover another perspective which may get over the problems of court society. In this respect, Hamlet is not about the story in which the hero is in agony after the ghost’s command of revenge but about the tragic uncertainties of Hamlet’s obligations. And although Hamlet does not succeed in resolving his problems and fears in Hamlet, his conflicts and effort that he has tried to find the way out of his maze do serve to illumine them.
Abstract
The ghost in Hamlet, the meaning of which many critics have investigated and explained, is the one of the greatest achievements in Shakespeare's works. However, the ghost in Hamlet is not a Shakespeare's invention. As like in other works, Shakespeare made much of traditional heritage but have transformed the tradition into his work in a unique and profound way. The convention of the ghost on the stage, i.e. revenge-ghost or prologue-ghost, was found in the classic and Senecan tragedies. Shakespeare interpolated this conventional features of the ghost into Hamlet while there was no ghost who commanded his revenge in the source of Hamlet. But the dramatic significance of the ghost in Hamlet is not limited to the interpolation of the ghost into Hamlet. Although Shakespeare followed the main characteristics of the classical ghost, he gave it the more complex and richer meanings. The ghost is integral to the movement that drives the main plot in Hamlet. But the ghost is not there at the end of the play to tell the ultimate reality like The Spanish Tragedy. The ghost disappears silently in the middle of the play. The ghost commands the revenge but don't give the principle of life by which the revenge is justifiable. Hamlet, who is critical of the revenge and the honour which forms the basis of it, also cannot discover another perspective which may get over the problems of court society. In this respect, Hamlet is not about the story in which the hero is in agony after the ghost's command of revenge but about the tragic uncertainties of Hamlet's obligations. And although Hamlet does not succeed in resolving his problems and fears in Hamlet, his conflicts and effort that he has tried to find the way out of his maze do serve to illumine them.
참고문헌 (50)
- Battenhouse, Roy, "The Ghost in Hamlet? A Catholic Linchpin", pp.161~192 (1951)
- Berry, Philippa, "Hamlet’s Ear", 50, pp.57~64 (1997)
- Booth, Stephen, "On the Value of Hamlet", 19(42) (1995), New York
- Bowers, Fredson, "Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy" (1966), Princeton Princeton UP
- Bradley, A. C, "Shakespearean Tragedy" (1904), London: Macmillan
- Bradshaw, Graham, "Shakespeare’s Scepticism" (1987), London: The Harvester
- Broude, Ronald, "Revenge and Revenge Tragedy in Renaissance England", pp.38~58 (1975)
- Brower, Reuben A, "Hero and Saint: Shakespeare and the Graeco-Roman Heroic Tradition" (1971)
- Bullough, Geoffrey, "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare VII" (1973)
- Cantor, Paul A, "Shakespeare: Hamlet" (1989)
- Council, Norman, "When Honour’s at the Stake: Ideas of Honour in Shakespeare’s Plays" (1973)
- Coyle, Martin, "Hamlet" (1992), London: Macmillan
- Deats, Sara M, "The Once and Future Kings: Four Studies of Kingship in Hamlet", pp.15~30 (1982)
- Derrida, Jaques, "specters of marx" (1994), New York: Routledge
- Dodsworth, Martin, "Hamlet Closely Observed" (1985)
- Edwards, Philip, "Tragic Balance in Hamlet", 36, pp.43~52 (1983)
- Empson, William, "Hamlet", pp.79~136 (1986)
- Fleissner, R.F, "From Whose Bourn", 8(1, pp.2) (1986), 89~92
- Fly, Richard D, "Accommodating Death: The Ending of Hamlet", 24, pp.257~274 (1984)
- Foakes, R. A, "Hamlet and the Court of Elsinore", 9, pp.35~43 (1956)
- Foakes, R. A, "Shakespeare and Violence" (2003), Cambridge: Cambridge UP
- Foakes, R. A, "The Reception of Hamlet", 45, pp.1~14 (1993)
- Frye, Roland Mushat, "The Renaissance Hamlet: Issues and Responses in 1600" (1984), Princeton: Princeton UP
- Greeblatt, Stephen, "Hamlet in Purgatory" (2001), Princeton Princeton UP
- Greene, Thomas, "The Postures of Hamlet", 11(3), pp.357~366 (1960)
- Hallett, Charles A, "Andrea, Andrugio and King Hamlet: The Ghost as Spirit of Revenge", pp.43~64 (1977)
- Hammersmith, James P, "Hamlet and the Myth of Memory", 45(4), pp.597~605 (1978)
- Helgerson, Richard, "What Hamlet Remembers", 10, pp.67~97 (1977)
- Jenkins, Harold, "The Tragedy of Revenge in Shakespeare and Webster", 14, pp.45~55 (1970)
- Kastan, David Scott, "’His Semblance Is His Mirror’: Hamlet and the Imitation of Revenge", pp.198~198 (1995), New York
- Kerrigan, John, "Hieronimo, Hamlet, and Remembrance", XLII(2), pp.105~126 (1992)
- Knight, G. Wilson, "The Wheel of Fire" (1965), New York: Barnes and Noble
- Knights, L. C, "An Approach to Hamlet" (1961), London: Chatto & Windus
- Knights, L. C., "Hamlet and the Perplexed Critics", 92(2), pp.225~238 (1984)
- Lacan, Jaques, "Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet", 55(66), pp.11~52 (1977)
- Levin, Harry, "The Question of Hamlet" (1959), New York: Oxford UP
- Lewis, C. S, "Hamlet: The Prince or The Poem" (1942), London: Humphrey Mileford Amen House
- Mahood, M.M., "Shakespeare’s Wordplay" (1957), London: Methuen
- Mallin, Eric S, "Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England" (1995), Berkeley: U of California P
- Mason, H.A, "The Ghost in Hamlet", 3, pp.127~152 (1968)
- Mclauchlan, Juliet, "The Prince of Denmark and Claudius’s Court", 27 (1974)
- Neill, Michael, "Remembrance and Revenge: Hamlet, Macbeth and The Tempest", pp.35~56 (1983)
- Prosser, Eleanor, "Hamlet and Revenge" (1967), Stanford: Stanford UP
- Rose, Mark, "Hamlet and the Shape of Revenge", 1(2), pp.132~143 (1971)
- Sanchez, Reuben, "’Thou Com’st in Such a Questionable Shape’: Interpretation of the Textual and Contextual Ghost in Hamlet", 18, pp.65~84 (1996), Hamlet Studies 18.1[DOI]
- Skulsky, Harold, "Spirits Finely Touched" (1976), Athens: U of Georgia P
- Watson, Robert N, "Giving up the Ghost in a World of Decay: Hamlet, Revenge, and Denial" (1990)
- Werstine, Paul, "The Textual Mystery of Hamlet", 39(1), pp.1~27 (1988)
- Wilson, John Dover, "What Happens in Hamlet" (1935), Cambridge: Cambridge UP
- Zitner, S. P, "Hamlet, Duellist", 39(1), pp.1~18 (1969)