“By Indirections Find Directions Out”: Indirect Words as Political/Artistic Bullets in Hamlet
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In a sense Hamlet dramatizes a story of crime and investigation. Claudius killed his brother to be a king; he succeeded in hiding his crime. But Hamlet suspects Claudius as a murderer and starts to investigate the murder suspect secretly. Hamlet also has to hide his inner mind to penetrate into the heart of the suspect. In this situation both Claudius the murder suspect and Hamlet the investigator fully employ the tendency of language to hide, to play, and to show. For both of them, language becomes an effective tool to find the truth about each other while they conceal the truth about themselves. Claudius plays the consummate Machiavellian who uses the language of persuasion, diplomacy, and deception to conceal his crime. He also uses agents or spies in his desperate attempt to penetrate into Hamlet’s real motives without arousing suspicion. Yet he does not dig Hamlet’s secret out before Hamlet himself reveals it. Like Claudius, Hamlet the investigator chooses, as his weapon, the indirect use of language and role-playing because only through guise and wit can he defend himself and strike out against the murder suspect. But Hamlet’s weapon is different from what Claudius uses in his defense. Hamlet’s instrument is, like Claudius’s, a political one to interrogate Claudius, but at the same time it is an artistic one. By using the various indirect forms of language—poetic, dramatic, obscure, bawdy, non-sense words,—Hamlet becomes a kind of artist who can succeed in finding that Claudius is a murderer. Hamlet’s word-play functions as a prelude to his grand symphony of the play-within-play. Just as Claudius manipulates his spies in an effort to ascertain Hamlet’s thoughts, so Hamlet is willing to employ the players for his detection of Claudius’ crime. As revised by Hamlet and presented by the players, “the Murder of Gonzago” becomes “the mouse-trap” to catch Claudius the mouse. For Hamlet the dramatic art is transformed into a pragmatic instrument to find a criminal.
Abstract
In a sense Hamlet dramatizes a story of crime and investigation. Claudius killed his brother to be a king; he succeeded in hiding his crime. But Hamlet suspects Claudius as a murderer and starts to investigate the murder suspect secretly. Hamlet also has to hide his inner mind to penetrate into the heart of the suspect. In this situation both Claudius the murder suspect and Hamlet the investigator fully employ the tendency of language to hide, to play, and to show. For both of them, language becomes an effective tool to find the truth about each other while they conceal the truth about themselves. Claudius plays the consummate Machiavellian who uses the language of persuasion, diplomacy, and deception to conceal his crime. He also uses agents or spies in his desperate attempt to penetrate into Hamlet’s real motives without arousing suspicion. Yet he does not dig Hamlet’s secret out before Hamlet himself reveals it. Like Claudius, Hamlet the investigator chooses, as his weapon, the indirect use of language and role-playing because only through guise and wit can he defend himself and strike out against the murder suspect. But Hamlet’s weapon is different from what Claudius uses in his defense. Hamlet’s instrument is, like Claudius’s, a political one to interrogate Claudius, but at the same time it is an artistic one. By using the various indirect forms of language—poetic, dramatic, obscure, bawdy, non-sense words,—Hamlet becomes a kind of artist who can succeed in finding that Claudius is a murderer. Hamlet’s word-play functions as a prelude to his grand symphony of the play-within-play. Just as Claudius manipulates his spies in an effort to ascertain Hamlet’s thoughts, so Hamlet is willing to employ the players for his detection of Claudius’ crime. As revised by Hamlet and presented by the players, “the Murder of Gonzago” becomes “the mouse-trap” to catch Claudius the mouse. For Hamlet the dramatic art is transformed into a pragmatic instrument to find a criminal.
참고문헌 (29)
- Alexander, Nigel, "Poison, Play and Duel: A Study in Hamlet" (1971), U of Nebraska P
- Ayers, P. K, "Reading, Writing, and Hamlet", Shakespeare Quarterly, 44, pp.423~439 (1993)
- Bache, William, "Hamlet, Macbeth and Lear Offstage: the Significance of Absence", Dalhousie Review, 59, pp.308~320 (1979)
- Birringer, Johannes, "Rhapsodies of Words: ‘Trapicality’ in Shakespeare’s Theater", New Literary History, 17, pp.493~510 (1986)
- Calderwood, James L, "To Be or Not To Be: Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet" (1983), Columbia UP
- Charney, Maurice, "Hamlet’s Fictions" (1988), Routledge
- Danner, Bruce, "Speaking Daggers", Shakespeare Quarterly, 54, pp.29~62 (2003)
- Danson, Lawrence, "Tragic Alphabet: Shakespeare’s Drama of Language" (1974), Yale UP
- Dawson, Anthony B, "Indirections: Shakespeare and the Art of Illusion" (1978), U of Toronto P
- Donawerth, Jane, "Shakespeare and the Sixteenth-Century Study of Language" (1984), U of Illinois P
- Doran, Nadeleine, "Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language" (1976), U of Wisconsin P
- Evans, G, Blackmore, "The Riverside Shakespeare" (1974), Houghton Mifflin
- Ewbank, Inga-Stina, "Hamlet: Critical Essays", pp.417~450 (1986), Garland
- Felprin, Howard, "Shakespearean Representation: Mimesis and Modernity in Elizabethan Tragedy" (1977), Princeton UP
- Ferguson, Margaret W, "Hamlet: Letters and Spirits, in Shakespeare and the Question of Theory", pp.292~310 (1985), Methuen
- Ferrell, Kirby, "Shakespeare’s Creation: The Language of Magic and Play" (1975), U of Massachusetts P
- Fish, Harold, "Hamlet and the Word: The Covenant Pattern in Shakespeare" (1971), Frederick Ungar
- Goldberg, Jonathan, "Hamlet’s Hand", Shakespeare Quarterly, 39, pp.307~327 (1988)
- Halpern, Richard, "Eclipse of Action: Hamlet and the Political Economy of Playing", Shakespeare Quarterly, 59, pp.450~482 (2008)
- Hawkes, Terence, "Shakespeare’s Talking Animals: Language and Drama in Society" (1973), Rowman and Littlefield
- Kim, Yongtae, "Hamlet: the Politics of the Gaze", Shakespeare Review, 37, pp.245~279 (2001)
- 권오숙, "햄릿의 말놀이 연구", Shakespeare Review, 38(1), pp.5~24 (2002), 한국셰익스피어학회
- Mazzaro, Jerome, "Madness and Memory: Shakespeare’s Hamlet and King Lear", Comparative Drama, 19, pp.97~116 (1985)
- Parker, Patricia, "Othello and Hamlet: Spying, Discovery, Secret Faults. Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context", pp.229~272 (1996), U of Chicago P
- Patridge, Eric, "Shakespeare’s Bawdy: A Literary & Psychological Essay and A Comprehensive Glossary" (1955), Routeldge
- 노승희, "『햄릿』의 카니발 미학", Shakespeare Review, 44(3), pp.365~390 (2008), 한국셰익스피어학회
- Sacks, Peter, "Where Words Prevail Not: Grief, Revenge, and Language in Kyd and Shakespeare", ELH, 49, pp.576~601 (1982)
- Sale, Carolyn, "Eating Air, Feeling Smells: Hamlet’s Theory of Performance", Renaissance Drama, 35, pp.145~168 (2006)
- Weimann, Robert, "Mimesis in Hamlet. Shakespeare and the Question of Theory", pp.275~291 (1985), Methuen