『햄리트』에 대한 리어리즘적 접근

Abstract

본고의 목적은 햄리트 왕자가 복수를 유예해 나가는 이유를 중세에서 근세로의 이행기라는 역사적 맥락과 관련지어 검토하는 것이다. 이 시기에는 중세 귀족계급이나 신흥 부르조아지 어느 쪽도 사회의 주도권을 장악하지 못한 상황에서 궁정을 중심으로 하는 통합이 일시적으로 이루어졌었다.

햄리트가 복수를 유예하는 이유는 자신이 제거하려 하는 악이 궁정을 중심으로 하는 질서와 불가분의 관계에 있다는 인식 때문이다. 즉, 햄리트는 사회의 근본적 개혁 없이 문제 해결은 불가능하다는 사실으 뼈저리게 깨닫는다. 봉건적 생활양식에 대한 그의 회의는, 부친의 복수를 하려는 레어티즈나 봉건적 명예를 중시하는 포틴브라스와 대조되어 더욱 두드러진다.

묘지파는 광대들의 '보충적 시각'은 작품의 지배적 가치에 도?徨磯?. 이들의 평등주의적 세계관은 햄리트에게 교훈을 주고 그의 언어구사에 영향을 미칠 뿐 아니라 유토피아적 세계를 미리 보여주는 적극적 기능을 하기도 한다.

햄리트가 자신이 처음에 거부했던 봉건적 가치관으로 복귀함에 반해 리어왕이 자신의 깨달음을 끝까지 고수한다는 사실은 [리어와]이 [햄리트]보다 한 걸음 진전한 작품임을 증명한다. 왕위를 계승하는 포틴브라스 역시 에드가에 비해 경험의 폭이나 깊이가 부족한 인물이다. [햄리트]의 결말부가 [리어왕]의 결말부에 비해 주인공의 깨달음을 받쳐주지 못한다는 것은 분명한 사실인데, 이 점은 16세기 휴머니즘의 한계, 더 나아가서 휴머니즘의 이론과 실제 사이의 괴리를 반영하는 것이다.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reason of Hamlet's procrastination in relation to the transitional period from medieval to modern. Neither the medieval aristocracy nor the newly arising bourgeoisie grasps the hegemony to lead society. Out of this turmoil the temporary unity is formed around the court and crown.

Hamlet's procrastination is due to his humanistic awareness that the 'canker' which he wishes to uproot from that order is intrinsic to that order itself. The prince knows well the betterment of the world would be impossible without the radical reform of society. Hamlet's doubts on the feudal values are brought into relief by contrast with Laertes who is suitable for Thomas Kydian revenge-tragedy or with Fortinbras who serves the feudal honor code.

'The complementary perspective' through gravedigger-clowns challenges some of the basic values immersed in this play. Clowns not only teach the prince but also affect his language. Moreover, their egalitarian world view palys the positive role in looking forward to the future utopian society.

king Lear shows an advance on Hamlet. Lear keeps his human awareness to the last, while Hamlet returns to feudal values which he has previously rejected. Fortinbras is much inferior to Edgar in terms of the range and depth of experience. The ending of Hamlet doesn't support the protagonist's awakeing at all, which implies certain limitations in the sixteenth-century humanism and discrepancies between humanistic theory proper and its practice.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reason of Hamlet's procrastination in relation to the transitional period from medieval to modern. Neither the medieval aristocracy nor the newly arising bourgeoisie grasps the hegemony to lead society. Out of this turmoil the temporary unity is formed around the court and crown.

Hamlet's procrastination is due to his humanistic awareness that the 'canker' which he wishes to uproot from that order is intrinsic to that order itself. The prince knows well the betterment of the world would be impossible without the radical reform of society. Hamlet's doubts on the feudal values are brought into relief by contrast with Laertes who is suitable for Thomas Kydian revenge-tragedy or with Fortinbras who serves the feudal honor code.

'The complementary perspective' through gravedigger-clowns challenges some of the basic values immersed in this play. Clowns not only teach the prince but also affect his language. Moreover, their egalitarian world view palys the positive role in looking forward to the future utopian society.

king Lear shows an advance on Hamlet. Lear keeps his human awareness to the last, while Hamlet returns to feudal values which he has previously rejected. Fortinbras is much inferior to Edgar in terms of the range and depth of experience. The ending of Hamlet doesn't support the protagonist's awakeing at all, which implies certain limitations in the sixteenth-century humanism and discrepancies between humanistic theory proper and its practice.