2017년 11월 30일 목요일

[마태 복음 25: 14-30] 달란트의 우화


메모 1: [마태복음 25: 14-30] The Parable of the Talents


메모 2: 한글 공동번역 개정판의 발췌

(14) " 하늘 나라는 또 이렇게 비유할 수 있다. 어떤 사람이 먼 길을 떠나면서 자기 종들을 불러 재산을 맡기었다. (15) 그는 각자의 능력에 따라 한 사람에게는 돈 다섯 달란트를 주고 한 사람에게는 두 달란트를 주고 또 한 사람에게는 한 달란트를 주고 떠났다.
(16) 다섯 달란트를 받은 사람은 곧 가서 그 돈을 활용하여 다섯 달란트를 더 벌었다. (17) 두 달란트를 받은 사람도 그와 같이 하여 두 달란트를 더 벌었다. (18) 그러나 한 달란트를 받은 사람은 가서 그 돈을 땅에 묻어두었다.
(19) 얼마 뒤에 주인이 와서 그 종들과 셈을 하게 되었다. (20) 다섯 달란트를 받은 사람은 다섯 달란트를 더 가지고 와서 '주인님, 주인께서 저에게 다섯 달란트를 맡기셨는데 보십시오, 다섯 달란트를 더 벌었습니다.' 하고 말하였다. (21) 그러자 주인이 그에게 '잘하였다. 너는 과연 착하고 충성스러운 종이다. 네가 작은 일에 충성을 다하였으니 이제 내가 큰 일을 너에게 맡기겠다. 자, 와서 네 주인과 함께 기쁨을 나누어라.' 하고 말하였다.
(22) 그 다음 두 달란트를 받은 사람도 와서 '주인님, 두 달란트를 저에게 맡기셨는데 보십시오, 두 달란트를 더 벌었습니다.' 하고 말하였다. (23) 그래서 주인은 그에게도 '잘하였다. 너는 과연 착하고 충성스러운 종이다. 네가 작은 일에 충성을 다하였으니 이제 내가 큰 일을 너에게 맡기겠다. 자, 와서 네 주인과 함께 기쁨을 나누어라.' 하고 말하였다.
(24) 그런데 한 달란트를 받은 사람은 와서 '주인님, 저는 주인께서 심지 않은 데서 거두시고 뿌리지 않은 데서 모으시는 무서운 분이신 줄을 알고 있었습니다. (25) 그래서 두려운 나머지 저는 주인님의 돈을 가지고 가서 땅에 묻어두었습니다. 보십시오, 여기 그 돈이 그대로 있습니다.' 하고 말하였다. (26) 그러자 주인은 그 종에게 호통을 쳤다. '너야말로 악하고 게으른 종이다. 내가 심지 않은 데서 거두고 뿌리지 않은 데서 모으는 사람인 줄로 알고 있었다면 (27) 내 돈을 돈 쓸 사람에게 꾸어주었다가 내가 돌아올 때에 그 돈에 이자를 붙여서 돌려주어야 할 것이 아니냐? (28) 여봐라, 저자에게서 한 달란트마저 빼앗아 열 달란트 가진 사람에게 주어라. (29) 누구든지 있는 사람은 더 받아 넉넉해지고 없는 사람은 있는 것마저 빼앗길 것이다. (30) 이 쓸모없는 종을 바깥 어두운 곳에 내쫓아라. 거기에서 가슴을 치며 통곡할 것이다.' "

메모 3: 가톨릭 성경 새 번역 발췌
(14) “ 하늘 나라는 어떤 사람이 여행을 떠나면서 종들을 불러 재산을 맡기는 것과 같다. (15) 그는 각자의 능력에 따라 한 사람에게는 다섯 탈렌트, 다른 사람에게는 두 탈렌트, 또 다른 사람에게는 한 탈렌트를 주고 여행을 떠났다.
(16) 다섯 탈렌트를 받은 이는 곧 가서 그 돈을 활용하여 다섯 탈렌트를 더 벌었다. (17) 두 탈렌트를 받은 이도 그렇게 하여 두 탈렌트를 더 벌었다. (18) 그러나 한 탈렌트를 받은 이는 물러가서 땅을 파고 주인의 그 돈을 숨겼다.
(19) 오랜 뒤에 종들의 주인이 와서 그들과 셈을 하게 되었다. (20) 다섯 탈렌트를 받은 이가 나아가서 다섯 탈렌트를 더 바치며, ‘주인님, 저에게 다섯 탈렌트를 맡기셨는데, 보십시오, 다섯 탈렌트를 더 벌었습니다.’ 하고 말하였다. (21) 그러자 주인이 그에게 일렀다. ‘잘하였다, 착하고 성실한 종아! 네가 작은 일에 성실하였으니 이제 내가 너에게 많은 일을 맡기겠다. 와서 네 주인과 함께 기쁨을 나누어라.’
(22) 두 탈렌트를 받은 이도 나아가서, ‘주인님, 저에게 두 탈렌트를 맡기셨는데, 보십시오, 두 탈렌트를 더 벌었습니다.’ 하고 말하였다. (23) 그러자 주인이 그에게 일렀다. ‘잘하였다, 착하고 성실한 종아! 네가 작은 일에 성실하였으니 이제 내가 너에게 많은 일을 맡기겠다. 와서 네 주인과 함께 기쁨을 나누어라.’ 
(24) 그런데 한 탈렌트를 받은 이는 나아가서 이렇게 말하였다. ‘주인님, 저는 주인님께서 모진 분이시어서, 심지 않은 데에서 거두시고 뿌리지 않은 데에서 모으신다는 것을 알고 있었습니다. (25) 그래서 두려운 나머지 물러가서 주인님의 탈렌트를 땅에 숨겨 두었습니다. 보십시오, 주인님의 것을 도로 받으십시오.’ (26) 그러자 주인이 그에게 대답하였다. ‘이 악하고 게으른 종아! 내가 심지 않은 데에서 거두고 뿌리지 않은 데에서 모으는 줄로 알고 있었다는 말이냐? (27) 그렇다면 내 돈을 대금업자들에게 맡겼어야지. 그리하였으면 내가 돌아왔을 때에 내 돈에 이자를 붙여 돌려받았을 것이다. (28) 저자에게서 그 한 탈렌트를 빼앗아 열 탈렌트를 가진 이에게 주어라. (29) 누구든지 가진 자는 더 받아 넉넉해지고, 가진 것이 없는 자는 가진 것마저 빼앗길 것이다. (30) 그리고 저 쓸모없는 종은 바깥 어둠 속으로 내던져 버려라. 거기에서 그는 울며 이를 갈 것이다.’

※ 참고: [특집] 새 「성경」은 어떻게 옮겼는가 (강대인_라이문도, 주교회의 성서위원회 위원 지음. 2010년 9월)
( ... ) 외국어로 된 고유명사 표기는 일반 신자들의 이해를 위하여 관용 표현을 폭넓게 인정하면서도 되도록 본문의 특성과 외래어 표기법에 맞추려고 노력하였습니다. 이를테면, 「공동 번역 성서」에서 ‘달란트’(히브리 말 kikkar, 그리스 말 talanton)라고 한 말은 우리가 텔레비전에서 많이 보고 듣는 단어인 ‘탈렌트’라는 말로 옮겼습니다.


발췌 4: 하느님은 악덕재벌인가: 마태복음 해설 146 (김근수 지음. 가톨릭뉴스 지금여기, 2014. 2.11)
“ (14) 하늘나라는 또 이렇게 비유할 수 있습니다. 어떤 사람이 먼 길을 떠나면서 자기 종들을 불러 재산을 맡겼습니다. (15) 그는 각자의 능력에 따라 한 사람에게는 돈 다섯 달란트를 주고 한 사람에게는 두 달란트를 주고 또 한사람에게는 한 달란트를 주고 떠났습니다.
(16) 다섯 달란트를 받은 사람은 곧 가서 그 돈을 활용하여 다섯 달란트를 더 벌었습니다. (17) 두 달란트를 받은 사람도 그와 같이 하여 두 달란트를 더 벌었습니다. (18) 그러나 한 달란트를 받은 사람은 가서 그 돈을 땅에 묻어 두었습니다.
(19) 얼마 뒤에 주인이 와서 그 종들과 셈을 하게 되었습니다. (20) 다섯 달란트를 받은 사람은 다섯 달란트를 더 가지고 와서 ‘주인님, 주인께서 저에게 다섯 달란트를 맡기셨는데 보십시오, 다섯 달란트를 더 벌었습니다’ 하고 말하였습니다. (21) 그러자 주인이 그에게 ‘잘하였다. 너는 과연 착하고 충성스러운 종이다. 네가 작은 일에 충성을 다하였으니 이제 내가 큰일을 너에게 맡기겠다. 자, 와서 네 주인과 함께 기쁨을 나누어라’ 하고 말하였습니다.
(22) 그 다음 두 달란트를 받은 사람도 와서 ‘주인님, 두 달란트를 저에게 맡기셨는데, 보십시오 두 달란트를 더 벌었습니다’ 하고 말하였습니다. (23) 그래서 주인은 그에게도 ‘잘하였다. 너는 과연 착하고 충성스러운 종이다. 네가 작은 일에 충성을 다하였으니 이제 내가 큰 일을 너에게 맡기겠다. 자, 와서 네 주인과 함께 기쁨을 나누어라’ 하고 말하였습니다.
(24) 그런데 한 달란트를 받은 사람은 와서 ‘주인님, 저는 주인께서 심지 않은 데서 거두시고 뿌리지 않은데서 모으시는 무서운 분이신 줄을 알고 있었습니다. (25) 그래서 두려운 나머지 저는 주인님의 돈을 가지고 가서 땅에 묻어 두었었습니다. 보십시오, 여기 그 돈이 그대로 있습니다’ 하고 말하였습니다. (26) 그러자 주인은 그 종에게 호통을 쳤습니다. ‘너야말로 악하고 게으른 종이다. 내가 심지 않은 데서 거두고 뿌리지 않은 데서 모으는 사람인 줄을 알고 있었다면 (27) 내 돈을 돈 쓸 사람에게 꾸어 주었다가 내가 돌아 올 때에 그 돈에 이자를 붙여서 돌려주어야 할 것 아니냐? (28) 여봐라, 저 자에게서 한 달란트마저 빼앗아 열 달란트 가진 사람에게 주어라. (29) 누구든지 있는 사람은 더 받아 넉넉해지고 없는 사람은 있는 것마저 빼앗길 것입니다. (30) 이 쓸모없는 종을 바깥 어두운 곳에 내어 쫓아라. 거기에서 가슴을 치며 통곡할 것입니다.’”(마태오 25,14-30)

마르코에는 보이지 않고 루가 19,12-27과 같은 주제를 다루는 단락이다. 마태오와 루가는 같은 자료를 참고한 것 같다. 달란트, 이자, 벌다, 얻다, 셈 등 경제용어가 등장하는 것이 눈에 띤다. 앞 단락에 나온 열 처녀의 비유처럼 하늘나라에 대한 비유다. 예수를 따르기만 하면 어떤 경우에도 구원받을 것이라는 환상에 대해 마태오는 경고하고 있다. 예수가 체포되는 장면 직전에 배치된 단락이니 그 경고는 아주 심각하다.

예수는 나무와 돌을 다루는 목수였다.(tekton) 예수는 나무가 적은 갈릴래아 지방에 살았으니 나무보다 돌을 더 자주 다루지 않았을까. 목수는 농부나 어부보다 사정이 나은 직업으로 중산층에 속했다. 예수를 농부로(peasant) 표현한 크로산(Crossan)의 주장에 나는 찬성하기 어렵다. 농촌에 살면 다 농부인가. 당시에 직업이 오늘처럼 세분화되지 않아서 목수라 해도 어지간한 농촌 일을 거들긴 했으리라.

옛날 이스라엘의 금융제도는 오늘의 은행제도와 비슷하다. 금융업자들은 이자 없이 돈을 보관, 환전(외국환 포함), 맡긴 돈으로 이자놀이 등 세 가지 업무를 다루었다. 유다인들은 로마제국의 거의 모든 대도시에 은행지점을 두고 있었다. 오늘 비유에서 그 세번째 부분이 언급되었다. 달란트는 70인역 공동성서(구약성서)에 자주 나오는 단위 표시(출애급 25,38; 열왕기하 12,30) 원래 26 또는 36Kg을 가리켰다. 화폐 단위로 1달란트는 6,000데나르에 해당한다. 5달란트는 30,000데나리온, 2달란트는 12,000데나리온, 1 달란트는 6,000데나리온이다. 노동자 하루 품삯이 1데나리온이었다. 노동자 일당을 10만원으로 가정한다면 5달란트는 30억, 2달란트는 12억, 1달란트는 6억에 해당하는 거액이다. 주인이신 하느님의 크신 은혜를 강조하기 위해 액수가 확대된 것 같다.

14절의 ‘어떤 사람’은 오늘의 재벌에 해당하고 종들이 벌어들인 수익은 당시 법에 따라 모두 주인 차지다. 고대시대에 가장 빨리 이윤을 얻는 일은 상품판매와 부동산 투자였다. 당시 이자율은 전쟁 때를 제외하면 그리 높지 않았다. 3세기 후 인플레 탓에 이자가 점점 높아지기 시작하였다. 당시 부자 중에 이스라엘에 거주하는 이방인들이 많았다. 24절에서 1달란트를 받았지만 땅에 묻어둔 종의 이야기가 오늘 단락의 핵심이다. 그가 돈을 왜 땅에 묻어두었는지 설명되지 않고 있다. 전쟁 때 적군에게 재산을 빼앗기지 않으려고 사람들은 돈을 땅에 묻어두기도 하였다. 묻어둔 돈이 도난당하면 묻어둔 사람은 체포되지 않는다. 26절에서 ‘게으른’ 종은 ‘근심어린’ 종으로 번역하는 것이 더 좋다. 오크네로스(okneros)를 ‘게으른’ 이라는 뜻으로 번역할 수는 없다. ‘근심어린’으로 번역해야 25절에서 종의 변명이 더 잘 연결된다. 하느님께 받은 재능을 실패할까 두려워 쓰지 않는 사람을 비판하는 말씀이다.

오늘 단락은 예수가 전하는 말씀과 행동이 기본적으로 ‘기쁨’이라는 사실을 강조하고 있다. 그러나 그 기쁜 소식이 악한 사람들에게는 두려움 자체다. 악한 사람들은 하느님이 몹시 두렵겠지만 의로운 사람들은 하느님을 왜 두려워하겠나. 불행하게도 성서해설 역사에서 세 번째 종은 율법학자나 바리사이파 사람이라고 잘못 비유되었다. 고대와 중세교회 때 오늘 비유는 성직자들의 행동을 비판하는데 쓰이기도 하였다. 하느님의 심판을 경고하는 오늘 단락은 ‘지금 행동하라’는 교훈을 주고 있다. 하느님께 받은 재능을 지금 사용하라는 뜻이다. 선하고 옳은 일에 쓰라는 말이다.  ( ... ... )

2017년 11월 28일 화요일

[자료 메모] 중세 영국의 개방 농지제(open-field system)



출처 1: 중세 영국의 개방농지제의 기원 (심재윤 지음. 동국사학, 제30권. 1996. 595~631쪽). 서지 정보.


출처 2: 중세 영국 농민의 상속관습과 개방농지제: 분할상속론 비판을 중심으로 (심재윤 지음. 서양 중세사 연구, 제10권 0호. 2003년 3월). 서지 정보; 소개 자료

※ 발췌:       중세 영국 농민 보유지의 상속 관습은 크게 비분할 상속(impartible inheritance)과 분할 상속(partible inheritance)의 두 종류로 분류할 수 있다. 비분할 상속은 토지의 분할을 방지하고 보유지를 한데 유지하기 위한 상속 관습이었다. 따라서 한 농민의 보유지는 그가 사망했을 때 그의 아들들 중에서 한 아들에게만 상속되었다. 아들이 없을 때에는 맏딸에게 상속되거나, 딸들 사이에 분할되었다. ( ... ... )

상속 관습의 [유형]은 중세 영국에서 농지제의 유형과도 밀접한 관련을 맺고 있었다. 따라서 대부분 개방 농지(open field) 지역에서는 비분할 상속이 일반적이었으며, 켄트와 이스트 앵글리아와 같은 비개방 농지(non-open field) 지역은 분할 상속이 중요한 상속 관습이었다.

예를 들면 노샘프톤셔와 같은 잉글랜드의 중부 지역은 대규모의 밀집된 촌락들로 특색을 이루고 있으며, 그러한 촌락들의 농지는 삼포 윤작(three-course rotation)을 특성으로 하는 개방 농지제(open-field system)에 의해서 경영되고 있었다. 촌락민들의 보유지는 농지 위에 스트립(strips)의 형태로 분산되었고, 그러한 보유지들은 계층 간에 동등성을 유지했다. 이 지역에서는 대부분의 농민 보유지가 한사람의 남자에 의해 보유되었으며, 그 토지는 그의 아들 중의 한 명에게만 상속되었다.

반면에 켄트와 이스트 앵글리아는 잉글랜드 중부 지역과는 여러 가지 점에서 달랐다. 켄트의 농촌은 개방농지촌락(open-field village)이라기보다는 작은 정주지가 그 특색을 이루고 있었다. 농민들의 보유지는 원래부터 분산된 스트립으로 구성된 것은 아니었으며, 보다 초기에는 밀집된 토지구역을 형성했던 것으로 여겨진다. 또한 농민 보유지는 공동 규율에 종속되는 것이 아니라 독립적인 농업단위로서 경영되었으며, 여러 명의 상속인들에게 공동으로 상속되었다. ( ... ... )

농지들 사이의 스트립들의 다소 공평한 분할과 균일한 배치라는 개방농지제의 본질적인 특성이 상대적으로 후기까지 결여되었다 점을 인정한다 해도 보다 후기에 시행되었을 완전히 성숙된 개방농지제의 존재를 증명하기 위해서는 광범위하고 전반적인 보유지들의 재구성에 관한 증거가 필요하다.  ( ... ... )


출처 3: 중세의 경제 생활 (자료라기 보다는 자료의 출처 모음. 원광대학교 사학과, 마한역사교실)


출처 4: 중세 전성기 (High Middle Ages: 1050~1300)의 모든 것

※ 발췌:     수백에서 수천 에이커에 달했던 장원의 토지는 영주에게 속한 땅과 농노들에게 배당된 땅으로 구분되었다. 영주 직영지(demesne)로 불리는 전자는 보통 경작지의 1/3 내지 1/2크기였다. 그 땅은 농노들이 일정한 날에 경작했는데 대개 일주일에서 3일 정도였다. 영주 직영지는 커다란 땅덩이가 아니라 기다란 지조(地條, strips)로 이루어졌는데 이 지조는 농민 보유의 지조와 혼재되어 있었다. (교회 보유 지조가 따로 있는 경우도 있었다.)

모든 지조들은 길고 좁다란 것이어서 멍에를 멘 말이나 소가 끄는 무거운 쟁기가 쉽사리 방향을 돌릴 수 없었다. 그리고 각 지조의 경계에는 밭둑만 있을 뿐 울타리가 없었기 때문에 이러한 전체계를 일컬어 개방 경지제(open-field system)이라고 부른다. 농노들은 자신의 토지를 경작할 때에도 거의 대부분 공동작업을 해야만 했다. 왜냐하면 그들은 대개 가축과 농기구를 공동으로 소유했기 때문이다. 이와 마찬가지로 목초지도 "공유지"라고 불렸다. 공동 소유의 가축들이 그곳에서 함께 풀을 뜯었기 때문이다.

이러한 경작지와 목초지에다 또 농노들은 보통 보통 자신의 작은 텃밭을 더 가지고 있었다. 대부분의 장원에는 별도의 숲도 있었는데 이것은 일차적으로 영주의 사냥을 위한 것이지만, 돼지 먹이와 땔감 수집을 위해서도 유용한 것이었다. 농노들이 그러한 일을 할 수 있도록 허락받은 경우에도 그 일 또한 공동으로 했다. 실로 장원제는 전반적으로 공동 작업과 결속을 강조하는 체제였다.

2017년 11월 27일 월요일

[발췌: Trollope, Phineas Finn] Violet and Laura

※ 발췌 (excerpts):


출처 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Finn

( ... ... )  Finn is the only son of a successful Irish doctor, Dr Malachi Finn of Killaloe, County Clare, who sends him to London to become a lawyer. ( ... ) The closest of his London friends is his mentor, Lady Laura Standish, the daughter of the prominent Whig politician Lord Brentford. As their relationship develops, Finn considers asking for her hand in marriage, despite the great social and financial gulf between them. ( ... ) monetary consideratins and her own political ambitions convince her to marry the dour, extremely wealthy Robert Kennedy instead.

At first devastated, Finn soon recovers and becomes enamoured of a lovely heiress, Violet Effingham. This proves to be awkward, as both Lady Laura and Lord Brentford vehemently want her to marry (and hopefully tame) Lord Brentford's estranged son, the savage Lord Chiltern. In addition, Lady Laura encourages Finn to become acquainted with her brother.  Finn and Chiltern becomes fast friends, which makes the situation even more uncomfortable. ( ... ... )


출처 2: https://www.enotes.com/topics/phineas-finn/characters

- Lady Laura Standish: Lord Brentford's daughter. She marries Mr. Kennedy after she exhausts her fortune on her profilgate brother, Lord Chiltern.
- Lord Brentford: a prominent Whig.
- Lord Chiltern: The profilgate son of Lord Brentford.


출처 3: http://www.nggprojectucd.ie/phineas-finn/

- Lord Chiltern: Oswald Standish.


출처 4-1: Anthony Trollope. Phineas Finn. October 1867 - May 1868, in St Paul's Magazine (Read Books Ltd, 2016). 구글도서
출처 4-2: ______________. Phineas Finn. Booklassic, 2015. 구글도서
출처 4-3: Adeleide Univ-provided eBook


※ 발췌 (excerpt): Chapter 10, Violet Effingham,

Oswald may have an equal chance then among the other favouriates?” said Lady Laura, after another pause.

“There are no favourites, and I will not say that any man may have a chance. Why do you press me about your brother in this way?”

“Because I am so anxious. Because it would save him. Because you are the only woman for whom he has ever cared, and because he loves you with all his heart; and because his father would be reconciled to him to-morrow if he heard that you and he were engaged.”

“Laura, my dear--”

“Well.”

“You won't be angry if I speak out?”

“Certainly not. After what I have said, you have a right to speak out.”

“It seems to me that all your reasons are reasons why he should marry me;--not reasons why I should marry him.”

“Is not his love for you a reason?”

“No,” said Violet, pausing,--and speaking the word in the lowest possible whisper, “If he did not love me, that, if known to me, should be a reason why I should not marry him. Ten men may love me,--I don't say that any man does--”

“He does.”

But I can't marry all the ten. And as for that business of saving him--”

“You know what I mean!”

“I don't know that I have any special mission for saving young men. I sometimes think that I shall have quite enough to do to save myself. It is strange what a propensity I feel for the wrong side of the post.”

“I feel the strongest assurance that you will always keep on the right side.”

“Thank you, my dear, I mean to try, but I'm quite sure that the jockey who takes me in hand ought to be very steady himself. Now, Lord Chiltern--”

“Well,--out with it. What have you to say?”

“He does not bear the best reputation in this world as a steady man. Is he altogether the sort of man that mammas of the best kind are seeking for their daughters? I like a roué myself;--and a prig who sits all night in the House, and talks about nothing but church-rates and suffrage, is to me intolerable. I prefer men who are improper, and all that sort of thing. If I were a man myself I should go in for everything I ought to leave alone. I know I should. But you see,--I'm not a man, and I must take care of myself. The wrong side of a post for a woman is so very much the wrong side. I like a fast man, but I know that I must not dare to marry the sort of man that I like.”

“To be one of us, then,--the very first among us;--would that be the wrong side?”

“You mean that to be Lady Chiltern in the present tense, and Lady Brentford in the future, would be promotion for Violet Effingham in the past?”

“How hard you are, Violet!”

“Fancy,--that it should come to this,--that you should call me hard, Laura. I should I like to be your sister. I should like well enough to be your father's daughter. I should like well enough to be Chiltern's friend. I am his friend. Nothing that any one has ever said of him has estranged me from him. I fave fought for him till I have been black in the face. Yes, I have,--with my aunt. But I am afraid to be his wife. The risk would be so great. Suppose that I did not save him, but that he brought me to shipwreck instead?”

“That could not be!”

“Could it not? I think it might be so very well. When I was a child they used to be always telling me to mind myself. It seems to me that a child and a man need not mind themselves. Let them do what they may, they can be set right again. Let them fall as they will, you can put them on their feet. But a woman has to mind herself;--and very hard work it is when she has a dragon of her own driving her ever the wrong way.”

“I want to take you from the dragon.”

“Yes;--and to hand me over to a griffin.”

“The truth is, Violet, that you do not know Oswald. He is not a griffin.”

“I did not mean to be uncomplimentary. Take any of the dangerous wild beasts you please. I merely intend to point out that he is a dangerous wild beast. I daresay he is noble-minded, and I will call him a lion if you like it better. But even with a lion there is risk.”

“Of course there will be risk. There is risk with every man,--unless you will be contented with the prig you described. Of course there would be risk with my brother. He has been a gambler.”

“They say he is one still.”

“He has given it up in part, and would entirely at your instance.”

“And they say other things of him, Laura.”

“It is true. He has had paroxysms of evil life which have well-nigh ruined him.”

“And these paroxysms are so dangerous! Is he not in debt?”

“He is,--but not deeply. ( ... ... ) ”

Dic/ set someone up: put someone in a position (in which ... )


─ set (someone) up:

   § to do something that makes it likely or possible for (someone) to do, get, or experience something.

  • The team's excellent defense set them up to score the winning touchdown.
  ☞ usually + for:
  • I think you're just setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
    [= you're expecting something that won't happen and you will be disappointed when it doesn't]
   § to cause (someone) to be in a bad situation or to appear guilty
  • Those aren't his drugs. Someone must have set him up!
  • He claimed he was set up by the police.

─ set sb up [PUT SOMEBODY IN POSITION]

   § to put someone in a position in which they are able to do someting, or in which something is likely to happen to them.

   ☞ set somebody up for:
  • If he won the fight, it would set him up for a title shot.
  • Anyone with public duties sets themselves up for attack.

─ set sb up [TRICK SOMEBODY]

   § to trick someone in order to achieve what you want, esp. to make it appear that they have done something wrong or illegal.
  • Cox claimed that the police had tried to set him up.
   § If you are set up by someone, they make it seem that you have done something wrong when have not.
  • He claimed that he had be set up after drugs were discovered at his home.

.... http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/set; LDOCE; COBUILD

* * *

CF.

To set yourself up for something means to put yourself in the position where that "something" will happen to you again. The son is asking why she is doing something that will lead to being hurt by this man again. 


2017년 11월 26일 일요일

[발췌: S. Bellow, Seize the Day] 토미의 무결정 인생, 탬킨의 사기 초식


출처: Saul Bellow, Seize the Day. 1956. Chapter 4. (자료: 링크 1, 링크 2)
출처: 솔 벨로. <오늘을 잡아라>. 민음사 2008년(2012년 1판 12쇄). 4장.


※ 발췌 (excerpt):

Someone in a grey straw hat with a wide cocoa-colored band spoke to Wilhelm in the lobby. The light was dusky, splotched with red underfoot; green, the leather furniture; yellow, the indrect lighting.

다갈색 넓은 띠가 둘린 잿빛 밀짚모자를 쓴 사람이 로비에서 윌헬름에게 말을 걸었다. 발밑의 붉은색 양탄자와 초록색 가죽 의자, 그리고 노란색 간접조명으로 인해 실내가 어두웠다.

"Hey, Tommy. Say, there."
"Excuse me," said Wilhelm, trying to reach a house phone. But this was Dr. Tamkin, whom he was just about to call.
"You have a very obsessional look on your face," said Dr. Tamkin.

"여보게, 토미. 이봐."
"실례하겠습니다." 윌헬름이 구내 전화기가 있는 쪽으로 다가가면서 말했다. 그러나 방금 그를 부른 사람은 탬킨 박사였다.
"자네 얼굴을 보니, 신경이 많이 쓰이는 일이 있는 것 같구먼." 탬킨 박사가 말했다.

Wilhelm thought, Here he is, Here he is. If I could only figure this guy out.
"Oh," he said to Tamkin. "Have I got such a look? Well, whatever it is, you name it and I'm sure to have it."
The sight of Dr. Tamkin brought his quarrel with his father to a close. He found himself flowing into another channel.

윌헬렘은 생각했다. 여기에 이 사람이 있다. 여기에 이 사람이 있어. 이 사람이 어떤 사람인지 알아낼 수만 있다면 얼마나 좋을까.
그가 탬킨에게 말했다. "아, 제가 그런 표정을 짓고 있었나요? 하기야 어떻든 간에, 박사님이 그렇게 말씀하시면 확실히 그런 거겠죠."
그는 탬킨 박사와 마주치자 머릿속으로 벌였던 아버지와의 싸움을 끝냈다. 그는 생각이 다른 방향으로 흘러가고 있는 자신을 발견했다.

"What are we doing?" he said. "What's going to happen to lard today?"
"Don't worry yourself about that. All we have to do is hold on to it and it's sure to go up. But what's made you so hot uner the collar, Wilhelm?"

"뭘 할까요?" 윌헬름이 말했다. "오늘 라드 시세는 어떤가요?
"그것은 걱정하지 마. 우리는 꽉 붙들고 있기만 하면 돼. 그러면 틀림없이 오를 테니까. 한데 무엇 때문에 자네 목이 빨갛게 달아올랐나, 윌헬름?"

"Oh, one of those familiy situations." This was the moment to take a new look at Tamkin, and he viewed him closely but gained nothing by the new effort. It was conceivable that Tamkin was everything that he claimed to be, and all the gossip false. But was he a scientific man, or not? If he was not, this might be a case for the district attorney's office to investigate. Was he a liar? That was a delicate question. Even a liar might be trustworthy in some ways. Could he trust Tamkin--Could he? He feverishly, fruitlessly sought an answer.

"아, 가족 문제 때문이에요." 이 순간 그는 탬킨을 다시 한 번 바라보면서 면밀히 관찰했지만 헛수고였다. 탬킨이 주장하는 말들이 모두 정말이고, 오히려 그에 대한 뒷말이 모두 거짓일 수도 있다. 그렇지만 이 양반은 과학자인가 아닌가? 만약 아니라면, 관할 지방검찰청에서 수사해야 할 사건이다. 그렇다면 이 양반은 사기꾼인가? 참 민감한 질문이다. 그가 사기꾼이라 해도 믿을 만한 구석이 있을 수 있다. 그럼 윌헬름은 탬킨을 믿어도 될까? 정말 그래도 될까? 그는 열심히 그 물음에 대한 답을 찾았지만 아무런 성과가 없었다.

But the time for this question was past, and he had to trust him now. After a long struggle to come to a decision, he had given him the money. Practical judgment was in abeyance. He had worn himself out, and the decision was no decision. How had this happened? But how had his Hollywood career begun? It was not because of Maurice Venice, who turned out to be a pimp. It was because Wilhelm himself was ripe for the mistake. His marriage too, had been like that. Through such decisions somehow his life had taken form. And so, from the moment when he tasted the peculiar flavor of fatality in Dr. Tamkin, he could no longer keep back money.

사실 윌헬름이 그 질문에 대답하기에는 이미 때가 늦었다. 그는 이제 탬킨을 믿을 도리밖에 없다. 그는 오랜 고민 끝에 탬킨에게 돈을 내주기로 결정했다. 그때 그는 현실적인 판단을 제대로 할 수 없는 상태였다. 완전히 지쳐버린 그가 내린 결정을 결정이라고 할 수도 없었다. 어떻게 그런 일이 일어날 수 있었지? 하지만 할리우드로 갔던 일도 어떻게 시작됐던가? 그것은 모리스 베니스라는 사람 때문이 아니었다. 나중에 그 사람이 포주라는 판명이 났다 해도, 그것은 윌헬름 자신이 그런 잘못을 저지를 지경에 도달해 있었기 때문이다. 그의 결혼도 마찬가지였다. 이런 잘못된 결정들을 내리면서 그의 인생은 모양새를 갖춰 온 것이다. 그래서 그가 탬킨 박사라는 사람에게서 야릇한 숙명을 발견한 그 순간부터, 그는 자신의 돈을 내주지 않을 수 없었던 것이다.

Five days ago Tamkin had said, "Meet me tomorrow, and we'll go to the market." Wilhelm, therefore, had had to go. At eleven o'clock they had walked to the brokerage office. On the way, Tamkin broke the news to Wilhelm that though this was an equal partnership, he couldn't put up his half of the money just yet; it was tied up for a week or so in one of his patents. Today he would be two hundred dollars short; next week he'd make it up. But, neither of them needed an income from the market, of course. This was only a sporting proposition anyhow. Tamkin said. Wilhelm had to answer, "Of course." It was too late to withdraw. What else could he do? Then came the formal part of the transaction, and it was frightening. The very shade of green of Tamkin's check looked wrong; it was a false, disheartening color. His handwriting was peculiar, even monstrous; the e's were like i's, the t's and I's, the same, and the h's like wasps' bellies. He wrote like a fourth-grader. Scientists, however, dealt mostly in symbols; they printed. This was Wilhelm's explanation.

오 일 전에 탬킨이 그에게 말했다. "내일 나를 만나러 오게나. 함께 객장에 가 보세." 그래서 윌헬름은 그곳에 가게 됐다. 11시에 그들은 걸어서 증권사 사무실로 갔다. 도중에 탬킨은 윌헬름에게, 이번 일로 그들은 동등한 동업자가 되지만, 아직까지 자기는 투자금의 절반을 전부 내놓을 수 없는 입장이라는 이야기를 꺼냈다. 그 이유는 자기가 특허받은 어느 발명품에 이번 주까지 돈이 묶여 있기 때문이라는 것이었다. 그래서 그는 당장 200달러가 부족하지만, 다음 주에는 갚을 수 있을 것이라고 했다. 하기야 둘 중 어느 누구도 증권 수입이 반드시 필요한 처지는 아니지, 물론. 이것은 그저 장난 삼아 하는 사업이라고 탬킨은 말했다. 윌헬름은 "물론이죠."라고 대답하지 않을 수 없었다. 발을 빼기에는 너무 늦었다. 그가 달리 뭘 할 수 있겠는가? 이제 정식으로 거래가 이루어지자 그는 겁이 났다. 탬킨이 내놓은 수표는 너무 어두운 초록빛을 띠고 있어 수상해 보였다. 그 색깔은 의심될 만했다. 그의 특이한 글씨체는 괴상스럽기까지 했다. 영어 알파벳 'e'와 'i가 비슷했고, 't'와 'l'은 똑같았으며, 'h'는 말벌의 배 모양 같았다. 마치 초등학교 4학년짜리 글씨 같았다. 하지만 과학자들은 대개 기호를 다룰 뿐 아니라 타자기를 사용하니까 글씨 쓰는 일에는 서툴 수밖에 없다고 윌헬름은 해석했다.

2017년 11월 24일 금요일

[허먼 멜빌, 바틀비] 자료, 해설, 발췌 등


출처 1 & 2: 원문 링크와 해설 하나


출처 3: ‘I Would Prefer Not To’: Giorgio Agamben, Bartleby and the Potentiality of the Law (Jessica Whyte 지음. Law and Critique, Nov 2009, 20: 309)


출처 4: Giorgio Agamben, Potentialities. 1999.


출처 5: 필경사 바틀비는 왜 글쓰기를 멈추었을까: 비잠재성의 틀로 본 <바틀비> (1) (양운덕 지음. 사람과글, 2013년 7월호 027호)

※ 발췌:

('I would prefer not to'는 번역하기 어렵다. 이것을 독일어 번역은 "차라리 하지 않았으면 합니다(Ich moechte lierber nicht)"로, 일본어 번역은 "하지 않는 것인 좋겠습니다(しないほつがいいのてすが)"로 옮긴다. 이 표현은 '나는 ~하지 않기를 의지한다'처럼 의지의 강한 표현이거나 그것을 완곡하고 부드럽게 표현한 것으로 보기는 어렵다. 의지와 결정, 또는 그것의 거부와는 다른 방식의 의미로 '~을 하는 것을 멈추고 유보하기를 제안'한다고 할 수 있다. "차라리 하지 않는 것이 좋을 것 같은데, 반드시 그것을 해야만 할까요? 잠시 멈추고 ~해야 하는 이유를 되살펴보면 어떨까요?")

<바틀비는 자신의 구석자리에서 움직이지 않고 그 특유의 온화하면서도 단호한 목소리로 "하지 않았으면 좋겠습니다(I would prefer not to)"하고 대답했을 때 나의 놀라움, 아니 대경실색을 상상해보라.>

<나는 내가 구사할 수 있는 가장 선명한 어조로 그 부탁을 되풀이했다. 그러나 똑같은 선명한 어조로 "하지 않았으면 좋겠습니다"라는 종전과 같은 대답이 들렸다. "하지 않았으면 좋겠다(prefer not to)"니 나는 크게 흥분하여 자리에서 일어나 사무실을 성큼성큼 가로질러 걸어가면서 그 말을 되풀이했다. "무슨 소리야? 자네 미쳤어? 내가 이 서류를 비굫게 도와달란 말이야. 이거 받아" 하고 그 서류를 그를 향해 들이밀었다.

"저는 하지 않았으면 좋겠습니다." 그가 말했다. ( ... ... )>

변호사가 며칠 뒤에 다른 직원들과 함께 필사본을 검토하면서 바틀비에게 사본을 내밀지만 그는 여전히 같은 태도를 보일 뿐이다.

< "바틀비! 빨리, 기다리고 있잖아."

"무슨 일이십니까?" 그가 부드럽게 말했다.

"필사본, 필사본 말일세." 내가 서둘러 말했다. "우린 필사본을 검토할 거야. 자, 여기." 그러고는 그를 향해 네 번째 사본을 내밀었다.

"저는 하지 않았으면 좋겠습니다" 하고 말하고 그는 칸막위 뒤쪽으로 점잖게 사라졌다.

 잠시 동안 나는 소금 기둥으로 변해서 줄지어 앉은 직원들 맨 앞에 우두커니 서 있었다. 정신을 차리자 나는 칸막이 쪽으로 가서 그런 터무니없는 행동을 하는 이유를 물었다. “왜 거절하는 거지?”

   “저는 하지 않았으면 좋겠습니다.”>


출처 5: 필경사 바틀비는 왜 글쓰기를 멈추었을까: 비잠재성의 틀로 본 <바틀비> (2) (양운덕 지음. 사람과글, 2013년 8월호 028호)


출처 6: 철학자들 II: 아감벤의 새로운 사고 [7강 잠재성과 비잠재성을 함께 사고하기: 아감벤의 <바틀비> 읽기 (양운덕 강의. 아트 앤드 스터디, ...)


출처 7: 인간 바틀비: 아, 인간이여 (권영호 지음. 브런치, 2015년 10월 31일)

※ 발췌: ( ... ... ) 바틀비는 돌림노래처럼 "안 했으면 좋겠습니다"를 수없이 반복한다. 취하는 문법이 독특하다. 원문으로 "I would prefer not to". 보통 "I would not prefer to"로 쓴다. 진중권이 지적하는 것처럼 "일하는 것을 '부정'하는 게 아니라, 일 안 하는 것을 '긍정'했던 것"이다. 즉 긍정의 부정이 아니라, 부정의 긍정이다. 안 하는 편에 있겠다는 말이다. ( ... ... )

이 원문을 어떻게 번역하느냐에 따라 그 느낌이 다르다. 문학동네는 이것을 '안 하는 편을 택하겠습니다'로 번역했다. 이는 다른 출판사에선 '안 하고 싶습니다'(창비)거나 '안 했으면 좋겠습니다'(블루프린트)로 번역한 것과 세다.[???] 이를 두고 소설가 함정임은 '부정의 선택'이라는 화법을 잘 살렸다고 평가한다. ( ... ... )


출처 8: '되기'의 실패와 잠재성의 정치학: 멜빌의 <필경사 바틀비> (윤교찬, 조애리 지음. 한남대학교 2009)

... ...

2017년 11월 23일 목요일

[메모] 탈레스와 최초의 (올리브 압착기) 옵션 거래


※ 발췌 (excerpts):


출처 1 & 2: http://hsalbert.blogspot.kr/2017/10/1-11.html


출처 3: Aristotle. Politics. 2nd edition. Translated by Carnes Lord. University of Chicago Press, 2013. 구글도서: Book I, Chapter 11:

( ... ... ) There is, for example, the scheme of Thales of Miletus. This is a money-making scheme that is attributed to him on account of his wisdom, yet it happens to be general in application. For they say that when some on account of his poverty reproached him with the uselessness of philosophy, Thales, observing through his knowledge of astronomy that there would be a good harvest of olives, was able during the winter to raise a small sum of money to place in deposit on all the olive presses in both Miletus and Chios, which he could hire at a low rate because there was no one was competing with him; then, when the season came, and many of them were suddenly in demand at the same time, he hired them out on what terms he pleased and collected a great deal of money, thus showing how easy it is for philosophers to become wealthy if they so wish, but it is not this they are serious about. Thales, then, is said to have made a display of his wisdom in this manner, though, as we said, this piece of art of money-making is universal, if someone is able to establish a monopoly for himself. Thus even some cities raise revenue in this way when they are short of money; they establish a monopoly on things being sold. ( ... ... )

출처 4: http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

( ... ) He raised the money to put a deposit on the olive presses of Miletus and Chios, so that when the harvest was ready, he was able to let them out at a rate which brought him considerable profit. ( ... )


출처 5: What is the Fair Rent Thales Should Have Paid? (Vasiliki Makropoulou, Raphael N. Markellos 지음. ...)

Unlike common belief, derivative instruments are not recent inventions. ( ... ... ) People had been telling Thales that his philosophy was useless, since it had left him a poor man. "But he, deducing from his knowledge of stars that there would be a good crop of olives, while it was still winter raised a little capital and used it to pay deposits on all the oil-presses in Miletus and Chios, thus securing an option on their hire. This cost him only a small sum as there were no other bidders. Then the time of the harvest came and as there was a sudden and simultaneous demand or oil-presses, he hired them out at any price he liked to ask. He made a lot of money and so demonstrated that it is easy for philosophers to be rish, if they want to; but that is not their object in life. Such is the story of Thales, how he gave proof of his cleverness but, we have said, the princile can be generally applied; the way to make money in business is to get, if you can, a monopoly for yourself. Hence we find governments also on certain occasions employing this menthod when they are short of money. They secure a sales monopoly for themselves."

The story of Thales in Aristotle's writings is often cited as the first published discussion of a derivative instument (see Allende and Elias, 2004; Brach 2003; Copeland and Antikarov, 2001; Cummins, Phillips, and Smith, 1998; Dimson and Mussavian, 1999; Ineichen, 2001; LeVeaue, 1994).

Thales actually purchased a call option. By giving depoisits for the use of the olive presses, he purchased the right, but not the obligation, to hire the presses at a very low price since there were no bidders. Had the harvest been poor, Thales would have chosen not to exercise his right to rent the presses and lost only the initial deposit, i.e., the option premium. Given that the olive harvest was bountiful Thales exercised the option and made a lot of money. In option pricing terminology the predetermined rental price, at which Thales contracted, is called the exercise price. If the market price is higher than the exercise price at maturity, the option is said to be "in-the-money" whereas otherwise "out-of-money". Note that Thales' option was issued "at-the-money", meaning that the exercise price of the contract was equal to the rental price at the time the contract was entered into. Thales' option expired deep in-the-money, which induced him to exercise it and, as a result he became rich. Whether the option would be of value or not at maturity depended on the market rental price of presses at that time. The latter was affected by the size of the olive harvest. Therefore, in the terminology of options, the underlying asset was the size of the olive harvest. The greatest the size of the harvest of olives to be pressed, the more valuable the option would be. Generally, the payoff from an option increases linearly with the price of the underlying variable at maturity. As Aristotle says, Thales managed to secure a high rental price by creating monopoly for himself. ( ... ... )


출처 6: How an Ancient Greek Philosopher Bet on the Future – and Won! (
Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams, Nottingham Business School. Apr 2013)

( ... ) Aristotle (in part XI of Book 1 of his ‘Politics’) relates the tale According to Aristotle’s account, Thales put a deposit during the winter on all the olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which would allow him exclusive use of the presses after the harvest. Because the harvest was in the future, and nobody could be sure whether the harvest would be plentiful or not, he was able to secure the contracts for a very low price. In fact, we are informed that there was not one bid against him. From the olive press owners’ point of view, they were protecting themselves against a poor harvest by earning at least some money up front regardless of how things turned out.

Thales’ bet came off, big time. The harvest was excellent and there was heavy demand for the presses. Thales held the monopoly and was able to rent them out at a huge profit. Either he was an expert forecaster or he had calculated that a bad harvest would not lose him much in terms of lost deposits, whereas the upside of a good harvest was enormous. “Thus he showed the world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort”, wrote Aristotle.

In effect, Thales had exercised the first known options contract, more than 2,500 years ago. Today we would term it as buying a ‘call option’, i.e. an option to buy something at some designated price at some future date for a fixed fee (or ‘premium’). Put another way, it is an agreement that gives the purchaser the right (but not the obligation) to buy a commodity, stock, bond or other instrument at a specified price (the ‘strike price’) at the end of or within a specified time period. When the price exceeds the strike price, the option is said to be ‘in the money’.  ( ... )


출처 7: Aristotle and Business : Friend or Foe (Fred D. Miller, Jr., ... )

( ... ... ) Aristotle gives a report of commodity speculation in his day involving Thales of Miletus, the first philosopher:
People were reproaching Thales for being poor, claiming that it showed his philosophy was useless. The story goes that he realized through his knowledge of the stars that a good olive harvest was coming. So, while it was still winter, he raised a little money and put a deposit on all the olive presses in Miletus and Chios for future lease. He hired these at a low rate, because no one was bidding against him. When the olive season came and many people suddenly sought olive presses at the same time, he hired them out at whatever rate he chose. He collected a lot of money, showing that philosopher could easily become wealth[y] if they wished, but that this is not their concern. Thales is said to have demonstrated his own wisdom in this way. But ... his scheme involves a generally applicable principle of wealth acquisition: to secure a monopoly if one can. Hence some city-states also adopt this scheme when they are in need of money: they secure a monopoly in goods for sale.   (Politics. I. 11. 1259a9-23)


출처 7: 파생금융 사용 설명서 (권오상 지음. 부키 2013년)

※ 발췌:     ( ... ... ) 기원전 6세기경 밀레투스 철학자 탈레스의 얘기 ( ... ) 그는 곧 있을 올리브의 수확이 풍작일 것이라 전망하고는 주변을 수소문해 올리브 압착기드을 매우 싼 가격에 사용할 수 있는 권리를 확보했다. 그의 전망대로 올리브는 대풍작을 거뒀고, 탈레스는 미리 확보한 사용권을 통해 엄청난 이익을 보았다. 탈레스가 한 거래는 미리 돈을 지불하고 후에 올리브 작황이 좋지 않아 올리브유 압착기가 필요 없는 상황이 되면 아무 의무를 질 필요가 없다는 점에서 선도가 아니라 옵션을 매입한 상황이었다. 이처럼 최초의 파생금융이 옵션일 수도 있다는 사실은 ( ... ) 흥미롭기 그지없다. ( ... ... ) 따라서 옵션이 현대에 출현했다거나 거래소가 옵션을 장내화하면서 중요한 의미를 가졌다고 말하는 것은 잘못된 진술이다. 옵션은 거래소가 생기기 전에도 거래된 기록이 있고, 옵션의 한 형태인 워런트는 1970년대보다 한참 이전부터 거래되고 있었기 때문이다.

[메모] 금융 시장에서의 ‘포지션’ 개념과 ‘옵션’에 대한 상식적 묘사


아마도 웬만한 교과서나 해설서 들에서 모든 금융 시장의 현장에서 상식적인 용어로 쓰이는  ‘포지션’이라는 용어에 대해 명시적인 정의를 내리지 않을 가능성이 높다(왜냐하면 다들 잘 알고 있다고 여기기 때문이다). 그렇지 않을지도 모르지만, 대체로 명확한 정의를 내리려고 (또 명확한 정의에 따라 용어를 사용하려고) 노력하지 않는 것이 우리가 사는 사회의 풍토이기도 하다.
그야 어쨌든, 적절한 정의를 다시 찾게 될 때가 많으니 두루 활용하기에 좋아 보이는 상식적 정의를 아래에 소개해 두면 여러모로 좋을 것 같다. 덩달아, 옵션의 상식적 의미를 전달하려고 노력하는 구절도 소개한다.

* * *

1.
“포지션이란 주식, 채권, 통화, 원자재 상품 등 어떤 금융 상품의 일정량을 어떤 가격에 사거나 팔겠다고 약속하는 것으로, 구속력이 따르는 거래 약정을 말한다.”
“positions: biding commitments to buy or sell a given amount of financial instruments such as shares, bonds, currencies or commodities, for a given price.”
─ Joris Luyendijk,
Swimming with Sharks, Chapter 3. p. 51. 
번역서, 《상어와 헤엄치기》 ??쪽.

2.
“옵션은 두 당사자 중 한쪽이 사고 다른 쪽이 판다.[주]11  옵션을 사는 것은 내 선택권을 유효하게 유지하기 위해 돈을 지불하는 것과 같다. 즉, 어떤 행동을 할 권리를 사거나 어떤 행동을 중단할 권리를 사는 것이다. 옵션을 파는 것은 어떤 행동을 할 권리를 팔거나 어떤 행동을 중단할 권리를 파는 것이다.[역주] 이렇게 사고파는 옵션 중 옵션은 어떤 행동을 할 선택권이다. 옵션은 어떤 행동을 중단할 선택권이며, 따라서 면책 조항과 비슷하다. 그리고 옵션을 사고팔 때 지불하는 가격을 ‘프리미업’이라고 부른다.”
“Options are bought by one party and sold by another. Buying an option is akin to paying to keep one's choices open─either buying the right to do someting, or buying a right to stop doing something. To sell an option is to sell the right to do something, or to sell the right to stop doing somethng. A call option is an option to do something. A put option is an option to stop doing something, like an escape clause. The price for either option is called the ‘premium’.”[11]
─ Brett Scott,
The Heretic's Guide to Global Finance, Chapter 2, p.68.
미출간 번역서. ??쪽

[주]11. 옵션은 말 그대로 ‘사고팔’ 수 있는 유일한 파생상품이다. 옵션 계약 하나를 살 때 실제로 프리미엄을 지불하고 해당 옵션을 산다. 하지만 선물은 실제로 ‘살’ 수 있는 게 아니다. 경마 도박이 무얼 사고파는 게 아닌 것과 같다. 선물은 우리가 선물이라는 계약을 약정하는 것이다. 그래서 금융계 용어로 ‘선물은 산다’는 것은 미래에 무엇을 사겠다는 당사자의 약정을 가리킨다.
[역주] 이 부분의 표현에 대한 옮긴이의 질문에 대해 지은이가 보내준 답변을 남겨두는 것이 독자들에게 도움이 될 것 같다. 이하 지은이의 답장을 번역한 것이다.
“내 책에서 꽤 많은 부분이─서문에서도 지적했듯이─기술적 의미에서 정확한 것은 아닙니다. 그러한 부분들 모두 완벽하게 정확한 기술이 아니라 기초적인 이해가 필요한 독자를 더 배려해서 구성된 것입니다. 어떤 전문가든 파생상품을 정확하게 설명하려고 하면, 듣는 사람들은 두뇌 회로의 스위치를 꺼버리기 쉽습니다. 그래서 결국 이해하지 못합니다. 그래서 나는 의도적으로 금융시장의 내부자가 설명하는 방식과 달리 초보자에게 유용한 방식으로 묘사했습니다. 그 때문에 정확성은 느슨하더라도 ‘어떤 행동을 할 권리(right to do something)’와 ‘어떤 행동을 중단할 권리(right to stop doing something)’라는 개념을 사용한 것입니다. 왜냐하면 이런 식으로 묘사하면, 옵션이란 것이 누구나 쉽게 이해할 수 있는 대상으로 다가오기 때문이지요. 그러니까, 비록 풋옵션이 항상 ‘어떤 행동을 중단할 권리’는 아니더라도─일례로 헤지 펀드에게 풋옵션은 능동적으로 어떤 행동을 하려는 선택이지, 어떤 행동을 중단하려는 선택은 아니더라도─말입니다. 폿옵션은 온갖 종류의 의도적인 기획에 이용됩니다. 하지만 애초에 풋옵션이 등장하게 된 본래의 정신은 면책 조항과 같은 것으로 구상된 것입니다. 즉 내가 보유하고 있는 무언가를 처분할 권리, 내가 보유하고 있는 무언가를 처분할 미래의 권리인 것이죠. 그래서 나는 앞의 표현을 선택한 것입니다.
아마도 번역자가 해당 표현을 어떤 것에 들어갈 권리(right to get into something) 그리고 어떤 것에서 빠져나올 권리(right to get out of something)로 바꾸어도 좋을 듯합니다. 이런 식으로 묘사하면 금융 시장의 ‘포지션’ 개념에 좀 더 근접한 묘사가 될 것입니다. 그러니까 콜옵션을 사면 나는 어떤 ‘포지션에 들어갈(어떤 것에 대한 지분을 획득할─즉 매수)’ 권리를 얻는 것이지요. 반대로 폿옵션을 사면─적어도 풋옵션 본래의 정신에서 볼 때─어떤 ‘포지션에서 빠져나올(어떤 것에 대한 지분을 해제할─즉 매도)’ 권리를 얻는 것이 됩니다.
요컨대, 이런 사안들을─모든 독자를 고려하면서─완벽하게 묘사할 방법은 없습니다. 하지만 확신하건대, 만일 당신이 초보자에게 옵션을 가르치면서 무엇을 ‘살 권리’와 ‘팔 권리’라고 설명한다면, ‘어떤 것에 들어갈 권리’와 ‘어떤 것에서 빠져나올 권리’라는 묘사보다 훨씬 더 어렵게 들릴 것입니다. 초보자들이 일단 쉬운 묘사로 이해하고 나면, 나중에 더 자세한 내용을 배울 기회도 그만큼 많을 것입니다.”(브레트 스코트, 2014년 9월 24일의 전자우편)

2017년 11월 22일 수요일

[제인 오스틴, 오만과 편견] 샬럿의 약혼 결정


출처: 제인 오스틴, 오만과 편견.
자료: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/austen/jane/a93pr/ (cf: http://hsalbert.blogspot.kr/2017/11/e.html)


※ 발췌:

Chapter 22

The Bennets were engaged to dine with the Lucases and again during the chief of the day was Miss Lucas so kind as to listen to Mr. Collins. Elizabeth took an opportunity of thanking her. "It keeps him in good humour," said she, "and I am more oblige to you than I can express." Charlotte assured her friend of her satisfaction in being useful, and that it amply repaid her for the little sacrifice of her time. This was very amiable, but Charlotte's kindness extended farther than Elizabeth had any conception of; its object was nothing else than to secure her from any return of Mr. Collins's adresses, by engaging them towards herself. Such was Miss Lucas's scheme; and appearances were so favorable, that when they parted at night, she would have felt almost secure of success if he had not been to leave Herfordshire so very soon. But here she did injustice to the fire and independence of his character, for it led him to escape out of Longbourn House the next morning with admirable slyness, and hasten to Lucas Lodge to throw himself at her feet. He was anxious to avoid the notice of his cousins, from a conviction that if they saw him depart, they could not fail to conjectur his design, and he was not willing to have the attempt known till its success might be knowon likewise; for though feeling almost secure, and with reason, for Charlotte had been tolerably encouraging, he was comparatively different since the adventure of Wednesday. His reception, however, was of the most flattering kind. Miss Lucas perceived him from an upper window as he walked towards the house, and instantly set out to meet him accidentally in the lane. But little had she dared to hope that so much love and eloquence awaited her there.

In as short a time as Mr. Collins's long speeches would allow, everything was settled between them to the satisfaction of both; and as they entered the house he earnestly entreated her to name the day that was to make him the happiest of men; and though such a solicitation must be waived for the present, the lady felt no inclination to trifle with his happiness. To stupidity with which he was favoured by nature must guard his courtship from any charm that could make a woman wish for its continuance; and Miss Lucas, who accepted him solely from the pure and disinterested desire of an establishment, cared not how soon that establishment were gained.

Sir William and Lady Lucas were speedily applied to for their consent; and it was bestowed with a most joyful alacrity. Mr. Collins's present circumstances made it a most eligible match for their daughter, to whom they could give little fortune; and his prospects of future wealth were exceedingly fair. Lady Lucas began directly calculate, with more interest than the matter had ever excited before, how many years longer Mr. Bennet was likely to live; and Sir William gave it as his decied opinion, that whenever Mr. Collins should be in possession of the Longbourn estate, it would be highly expedient that both he and his wife should make their appearance at St. James's. The whole family, in short, were properly overjoyed on the occasion. The younger girls formed hopes of ^coming out^ a year or two sooner than they might otherwise have done; and the boyes were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte's dying an old maid. Charlotte herself was tolerably composed. She had gained her point, and had time to consider of it. Her reflections were in general satisfactory. Mr. Collins, to be sure, was neither sensible nor agreeable; his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still he would be her husband. Without thinking highly either of men or matrimony, marriage had always heen her object; it was the only provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want. This preservative she had now obtained; and at the age of twenty-seven, without having ever been handsome, she felt all the good luck of it. The least agreeable circumstance in the business was the surprise it must occasion to Elizabeth Bennet, whose friendship she valued beyond that of any other person. Elizabeth would wonder, and probably would blame her; and though her resolution was not to be shaken, her feelings must be hurted by such a disapprobation. She resolved to give her the information herself, and therefore charged Mr. Collins, when he returned to Longbourn to dinner, to drop no hint of what had passed before any of the family. A promise of secrecy was of course very dutifully given, but it could not be kept without difficulty; for the curiosity excited by his long absence burst forth in such very direct questions on his return as required some ingenuity to evade, and he was at the same time exercising great self-denail, for he was longing to publish his propersous love.

As he was to begin his journey too early on the morrow to see any of the family, the ceremony of leave-taking was performed when the ladies moved for the night; and Mrs. Bennet, with greate politeness and cordiality, said how happy they should be to see him at Longbourn again, whenever his engagement might allow him to visit them.

"My dear madam," he replied, "this invitation is particularly gratifying, because it is what I have been hoping to receive; and you may be very certain that I shall avail myself of it as soon as possible."

They were all astonished; and Mr. Bennet, who could by no means wish for so speedy a return, immediately said:

"But is there not danger of Lady Catherine's disapprobation here, my good sir? You had better neglect you relations than run the risk of offending your patroness."

"Mr dear sir," replied Mr. Collins, "I am particularly obliged to you for this friendly caution, and you may depend upon my not taking so material a step without her ladyship's concurrence."

"You cannot be too much upon your guard. Risk anything other than her displeasure; and if you find it likely to be raised by your coming to us again, which I should think exceedingly probable, stay quietly at home, and be satisfied that ^we^ shall take no offence."

"Believe me, my dear sir, my gratitude is warmly excited by such affectionate attention; and depend upon it, you will speedily receive from me a letter of thanks for this, and for every other mark of your regard during my stay in Hertfordshire. As for my fair cousins, though my absence may not be long enough to render it necessary, I shall now take the liberty of wishing them health and happiness, not excepting my cousin Elizabeth."

With proper civilities the ladies then withdrew; all of them equally surprised that he meditated a quick return. Mrs. Bennet wished to understand by it that he thought of paying his addresses to one of her younger girls, and Mary might have been prevailed on to accept him. She rated his abilities much higher than any of the others; there was a solidity in his reflections which often struck her, and though by no mens so clever as herself, she thought that if encouraged to read and improve himself by such an example as hers, he might become a very agreeable companion. But on the following morning, every hope of this kind was done away. Miss Lucas called soon after breakfast, and in a private conference with Elizabeth related the event of the day before.

The possibility of Mr. Collins's fancying herself in love with her friend had once occurred to Elizabeth within the last day or two; but that Charlotte could encourage him herself, and her astonishment was consequently so great as to overcome at first the bounds of decorum, and she could not help crying out:

"Engaged to Mr Collins! My dear Charlotte -- impossible!"

The steady countenance which Miss Lucas had commanded in telling her story, gave way to a momentary confusion here on receiving so direct a reproach; though, as it was no more than she expected, she soon regained her composure and calmly replied:

"Why should you be surprised, my dear Eliza? Do you think it incredible that Mr. Collins should be able to procure any woman's good opinion, because he was not so happy as to succeed with you?"

But Elizabeth had now recollected herself, and making a strong effort for it, was able to assure with tolerable firmness that the prospect of their relationship was highly grateful to her, and that she wished her all imaginable happiness.

"I see what you are feeling," replied Charlotte. "You must be surprised, very much surprised -- so lately as Mr. Collins was wishing to marry you. But when have had time to think it over, I hope you will be satisfied with what I have done. I am not romantic, you know; I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state."

Elizabeth quietly answered "Undoubtedly;" and after an awkward pause, they returned to the rest of the family. Charlotte did not stay much longer, and Elizabeth was then left to reflect on what she had heard. It was a long time before she became at all reconciled to the idea of so unsuitable a match. The strangeness of Mr. Collins's making two offers of marriage within three days was nothing in comparison of his being now accepted. She had always felt that Charlotte's opinion of matrimony was not exactly like her own, but she had not supposed it to be possible that, when called into action, she would have sacrificed every better feeling to worldly advantage. Charlotte the wife of Mr. Collins was a most humiliating picture! And to the pang of a friend disgracing herself and sunk in her esteem, was added the distressing conviction that it was impossible for that friend to be tolerably happy in the lost she had chosen.

2017년 11월 21일 화요일

[제인 오스틴, 오만과 편견] 영문 e북


출처 1: https://www.janeausten.org/pride-and-prejudice/pride-and-prejudice-online.asp

출처 2: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1342?msg=welcome_stranger

출처 3: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/austen/jane/a93pr/


* * *

※ 첫 구절들:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighborhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the right property of some one or other of their daughters.


"My dear Mr Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?"

"Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.

"But it is," returned she; "for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me about it."

Mr. Bennet made no answer.

"Do you want to know who has taken it?" cried his wife impatiently.

"You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it."

This was invitation enough.

"Why, my dear you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortue from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delightful with it, that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week."

알 수 없는 어느 영시


문학은, 더욱이 시는, 그것도 영시는 공부해 본 적이 없다. 그중에서도 이 시는 참 읽기 어려운 시다. 수많은 상징으로 범벅이 되어 있어 이해할 엄두가 나지 않아 해설들을 찾아 읽었지만, 그래도 어렵다. 말의 구조와 어순이 우리말과는 다른 본래의 시에서는 그 언어 본래의 특성대로 낱말의 순서와 읽는 호흡을 따라가며 이미지가 형성되고 전달될 터인데, 어순과 구조가 다른 우리말로 번역하면서 본래 시의 행 그대로 우리말로 옮기는 일이 가능한 일인지 모르겠다. 국역본를 찾아 읽어봐도 다 제각각이고, 무슨 말인지 알 수가 없다.

이 낱말들의 향연이 그냥 한 문장(또는 한 구절)씩 적어내려가는 산문 비슷한 것이었다면, 어떻게 생겼을 말들일지 상상하면서 제멋대로 읽어 보기로 ...




* * *

1.
She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.


She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice.
It was like a body, wholly body, fluttering its empty sleeves.
Yet its mimic motion made constant cry;
Rather, it caused constantly a cry.
That was not ours, although we understood.
It was inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

그녀는 바다의 신 따위는 무시하고 노래했다.
바닷물의 모습이란 결코 마음이나 목소리에 이르지 못했다.
그것은 하나로 된 몸처럼, 그 전체가 몸인 것처럼 빈 소맷자락만 출렁거렸다.
그럼에도 무얼 흉내내는 듯한 바닷물의 움직임은 계속 울부짖는 소리를 질렀다.
아니, 계속하여 어떤 울부짖음이 일어나도록 만들었다
우리가 알고 있기는 했지만 그것은 우리의 것이 아니었다.
인간의 것이 아니라, 그야말로 바다의 것이었다.


2.
The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard,
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.


The sea was not a mask.
No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound even if what she sang was what she heard.
Because what she sang was uttered word by word.
In all her phrases, perhaps, stirred the grinding water and the gasping wind.
But it was she and not the sea that we heard.

바다는 가면이 아니었다.
그녀 또한 가면이 아니었다.
그녀가 부르는 노랫소리나 그녀가 듣는 소리나 똑같은 것이었만, 그 노래와 바닷물은 메들리로 이어지는 소리는 아니었다.
왜냐하면 그녀는 한 마디 한 마디 또박또박 노래했기 때문이다.
그녀의 노래 구절이 나올 때마다 아마도 그 소리와 함께 철썩거리는 바닷물과 숨막히는 바람이 움직거렸을지도 모른다.
그러나 우리가 들었던 것은 그녀였지 바다가 아니었다.


3.
For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew
It was the spirit that we sought and knew
That we should ask this often as she sang.


Why? Because she was the maker of the song she sang.
Ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this, we said.
Because we knew it was the spirit that we sought, and we knew that we should ask this ofen as she sang.

왜냐하면 그녀가 그 노래를 만든 사람이었기 때문이다.
언제나 너울을 뒤집어쓴 비극적 몸짓의 바다는 그녀가 노래하려고 따라 걷는 장소였을 뿐이다.
이것이 누구의 정신이냐고 우리는 물었다.
왜냐하면 그것이 우리가 찾고 있던 정신임을 알았고, 그녀가 노래할 때면 이 질문을 자주 물어야 한다는 것을 우리는 알고 있었기 때문이다.


4.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of sky
And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled,
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And sound alone. But it was more than that,
More even than her voice, and ours, among
The meaningless plungings of water and the wind,
Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped
On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres
Of sky and sea.


Was it only the dark voice of the sea that rose, or even colored by many waves?
Was it only the outer voice of sky and cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled?
If so, however clear, it would have been deep air, the heaving speech of air, a summer sound repeated in a summer without end, and sound alone.
But it was more than that, more even than her voice, and ours.
Though it was among the meaningless plungings of water and the wind, theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped on high horizons, mountainous atmospheres of sky and sea.

그것이 단지 수많은 파도로 인해 차오르거나 색조까지 띠는 바다의 어두운 목소리였을까?
그것이 단지 하늘과 구름이, 심해의 바닷물로 둘러쳐진 산호가 바깥으로 내지르는 목소리였을까?
만일 그렇다면, 아무리 분명히 들릴지라도 그것은 깊은 공기(?, deep air)였을 것이고, 바람이 새는 소리였을 것이고, 여름날 끝없이 들리는 여름의 소리였을 것이고, 그저 소리에 불과했을 것이다.
하지만 그것은 그 이상의 것이었고, 심지어 그녀의 목소리도 우리의 목소리도 아닌 그 이상의 것이었다.
아무 의미 없이 요동치는 바닷물과 바람이며, 가까이서 보는 공연처럼 다가오는 모습들이며, 청동빛 그림자들이 높게 쌓아 올린 수평선과, 하늘과 바다의 대기로 이루어진 거대한 산악 속에서 들렸을지라도 말이다.


5.
It was her voice that made
The sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.


It was her voice that made the sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world in which she sang.
And, when she sang, the sea, whatever self it had, became the self that was her song.
For she was the maker.
Then, as we beheld her striding there alone,
We knew that there never was a world for her except the one she sang and, made singing.

하늘이 사라질 때, 그녀의 목소리에 하늘은 가장 날카로워졌다.
그녀는 정확한 시간까지 하늘의 고독을 맞추었다.
그녀는 그녀가 노래하는 세계의 유일한 창조자였다.
그리고 바다의 자아가 무엇이든 그녀가 노래할 때 바다는 자아가 되었고, 그 자아는 그녀의 노래였다.
왜냐하면 그녀가 창조자였기 때문이다.
그래서 그곳을 홀로 걷는 그녀를 보는 동안,
우리는 그녀가 노래하는 세계, 그녀가 노래하면서 만드는 세계 말고는 그녀에게 어떤 세계도 없다는 것을 알았다.


6.
Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.


Ramon Fernanez, if you know,
Tell me why, when the singing ended and we turned toward town,
Tell me why, as the night descended tilting in the air, the glassy lights, the lights in the fishing boats at anchor there mastered the night and portioned the sea, fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles, arranging, deepening, enchanting night.

러몬 페르난데스여, 당신이 알고 있다면 내게 말해주오.
노래가 끝나고 우리가 마을로 돌아올 때 말이요,
그러니까 허공으로 밤이 기울며 내려올 때, 어째서 유리처럼 투명한 불빛들이, 그곳에 정박한 고기잡이배들의 불빛들이 밤을 장악하고 바다의 구획을 나누어놓았는지 말이오.
그 불빛들이 환하게 밝혀진 구역들과 불꽃이 타오르는 기둥들의 자리를 정하고서
밤을 정돈하고, 밤을 깊게 하며, 밤을 매혹하고 있지 않았소.


7.
Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.


Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon.
It was the maker's rage to order words of the sea, words of the fragrant portals,diml-starred, and of ourselves and our our origins, in ghostlier demarcations, in keener sounds.

창백한 러몬이여,  질서를 창조하려는 복된 열망을 보시오.
바다의 언어에, 희미한 별빛에 비추인 향기로운 문들의 언어에, 나아가 우리들 자신과 우리들의 근원에 대한 언어에, 더욱 영기 어린 구분선과 더 날카로운 소리로 질서를 부여하려는 창조자의 열망을 말이오.



2017년 11월 19일 일요일

[발췌: P.L. Mariani] The Idea of Order at Key West: 1934-1936



※ 발췌 (excerpt):

( ... ... ) that poem was an announcement ( ... ) that Stevens had once again found both his voice and his subject; now only death would be strong enough to stop him. It is a threshold piece, with the poet on the shore, the tenuous sands of the known beneath his feet, facing the immense uncharted depths before him. Here is Crispin, come back to face once more the sublime immensity of a sea which had nearly drowned him even as it baptized him into the knowledge of just how little we really know. "She sang beyond the genius of the sea," the poen begins, thus announcing Stevens's reinvigorated muse, and surely not the paltry nude of his earlier verse.

Nature, in the guise of the ^genius loci^, the genius or spirit of the place (in this instance the world in and about Key West), contains its own reality, the speaker realizes. But so does the woman, the singer, the poet, the one who would render reality in a language supple enough to contain reality's ever-changing fluctuations. And when she sings, she has the ability to sing ^beyond^ what the sea is capable of singing. For the sea is like some uncouth giant who makes recurring slapping sounds, slurping sounds, sea sounds, C sounds, much as Crispin the Comedian once heared, even as this speaker understands that humans need something more: a meaning, a music, subtle registers to satisfy the restless mind. And yet a music that somehow contans the real, for without a sense of the real undergirding one--shifting as that foundation may be--one sings mere nonsense, however modulated and beautifully arranged.

Though we speak of it as an entity with a self, the sea is never really that, can never be that. We give it a self, and if a self, a spirit, a ghost, whether we call it Nature or Neptune or Proteus. The truth is that "the water never formed to mind or voice / Like a body wholly body, fluttering / Its empty sleeves." And yet

                      ^its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the vertiable ocean.^

In its mimicry the sea seems to cry out constantly, as if pleading to be understood or at least acknowledged. That cry, that sound of the sea in its various shapes, creates in us a cry as well, as if it called out to us and we answered with our own cry, our own words, the human addressing the inhuman. Nature, not in the sense of harmful or cruel, but simply a thing apart, though we depend on it for our very being.

If we, islands in ourselves, are to provide a meaning for things which can be communicated to other human islands all about us, we will have to use signs of some sort, and these will for the most part entail sounds, and, if sounds, words. Therein lies the difficulty, for the sounds of a song or a poem can never be one with the sounds of water, "even if what she sang was what she heard / Since what she sang was uttered word by word." That is, even if the poet could re-create the sensation of the sea, "the grinding water and the gasping wind," still it would be the poet, the maker, the ^maker^ we would be hearing, not the sea. Can the poet, no matter how skilled, ever actually embody the real? No more than the element of air can ever embody the element of water. Or human sounds, however modulated, contain the "dark voice of the sea," with its "meaningless plunging of water and wind." Or poems ever be moe than "bronze shadows heaped / On high horizons," mere still lifes--^mortes natures^--of the ever-fluent Real.

All poetry is by its nature elegiac, so that it is the song that makes "the sky acutest at its vanishing," that captures an emotion, a feeling, a gesture, a living thought, even as these slip from us and vanish, or remain behind to taunt us with what we have lost. Only the poet, the woman singing, remain as

         ^the single artifice of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.^

We speak of the world, but there is no world for us except the one we create in our imagination and which is constantly being created--and re-created--only as we sing or write, composing our world even as we attempt to compose ourselves.

In closing stanza the speaker turns to the one beside him, Ramon Fernandez, the philospher, and dares him to tell us, if he knows (and he doesn't, any more than the poet fianally knows)

^Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As night descended, tilting in the are,
Mastered the night and portione out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.^

We are witness to an order here a song sung note by note and word by word by the poet, and now, as we watch the lights on the Lilliputian fishing boats tied up in the harbor, much as the old seamen sought out the stars, forming them into constellations and assigning them myths and stories to try to tame the terror of the dark and the vastness of the sea, we do so by "arranging, deepening, enchanting" what cannot be so ordered except as the capable imagination is able to ward off, for the moment at least, the depths of darkness and death. "Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon," the speaker ends his mediation, because it is the romantic's one weapon against the encroaching chaos not only without but, more frighteningly, within us, as we keen in ever-keener sounds, crying out for a fiction that will sustain us, at least for now, in

^Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.^

What, after all, can the poet offer by way of comfort in the midst of the calamitous 1930s? What song should he play? It is a question central to Stevens's second book of poems, ^Ideas of Order^, and the very question he asks in "Mozart, 1935."  ( ... ... )

2017년 11월 18일 토요일

[발췌] Cambridge Pragmatism


  • 출처: Cheryl Misak 지음. Cambridge Pragmatism: From Peirce and James to Ramsey and Wittgenstein. Oxford University Press, 2016. 구글도서.
  • 관련 발췌: Charles S. Peirce. The Doctrine of Chances (1878).

OF WHICH:

PART 1. Cambridge Massachussetts

1. Peirce  (11)

  1.1 Introduction  (11)
  1.2 The Pragmatic Maxim: Meaning, Use, Practice  (12)
  1.3 Belief and Disposition  (17)
  1.4 Truth  (23)
  1.5 Experience: Mathematics, Metaphysics, Religion, and Morals  (31)
  1.6 Logic and Probability  (39)
  1.7 Regulative Assumptions and the Principle of Bivalence  (48)

2. James  (52)
  2.1 Introduction  (52)
  2.2 Psychology: Observation and Experience  (53)
  2.3 Truth and Usefulness  (60)
  2.4 Willing to Believe  (63)
  2.5 Religious Experience  (67)
  2.6 James on Common Sense  (73)

OF WHICH:

※ 발췌 (excerpt):

* * *

( ... ... ) In articulating Peirce's position, I will focus upon Illustration of the Logic of Science, ‘Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmatism’, and his letters to Victoria Welby. In this material, one gets Peirce's pragmatic maxim, inquiry-centred account of truth, and formal logic--the existential graphs and their extension to modalities and intentions. These were the materials that were accessible in 1923 to Russell, Ramsey, and Wittgenstein.


1.2 The Pragmatic Maxim: Meaning, Use, Practice

The 1878 article ‘How to Make Our Ideas Clear’is one of the essays in Illustrations of the Logic of Science, and it contains the best-known, if not the most felicitous, statement of the pragmatic maxim. Peirce was not happy with his expression of the maxim in this paper ( ... ... )

The pragmatic maxim requires our beliefs, theories, and concepts to be linked to experience, practice, expectations, or consequences. ( ... ... )




( ... ... ) We shall see in the next section how much important the ‘normative sciences’ were for him.

A question arises as to how Peirce can distinguish truth-conductive experiences (or pieces of evidence) from misleading ones. The issue arises in every kind of inquiry, from science to ethics. His criterion for the truth-conductivity of an experience has been signaled already--experience that leads us to beliefs that work or gives us habits that enable us to successfully predict and act is the right kind, the kind that leads us to the truth. The question is one for every pragmatist, and it will be a theme that runs through the whole of this book.


1.6 Logic and Probability

Peirce thought of himself first and foremost as a logician. Indeed, that was the one intellectual community in which he was known and respected. The London mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford reportedly thought him to be the greatest living logician, and the only logician 'since Aristotle who has added to the subject something material'.[주]27  ( ... ... ) Peirce developed ( ... ) ; and made advances in the logic of statistical reasoning. The latter is especially important to understanding the influence he might have had on Ramsey. So is his definition of logic.

Peirce conceived of logic in an unusual way--a way that struck Ramsey as right. Logic is a 'normative science', along with ethics and aesthetics. [:]
  • Aesthetics, the most abstract of the normal sciences, is to provide us with our ultimate aims. 
  • Ethics explores the connection between our aims and our conduct. 
  • Logic is the study of valid inference, and hence explores a particular kind of conduct--rational conduct. Logic is about finding habits of reasoning and inference that do not lead us astray. It tells us how to conduct in an inquiry aimed at truth. It is ‘the doctrine of truth, its nature and the manner in which it is to be discovered’ (W 3: 14, 1872).
From 1902 on, he had in mind to write a logic text, titled Minute Logic While it would have had formal material in it, it would have had at its center the study of inquiry aimed at the truth. He tells us in one prospectus:
Begin, if you will, by calling logic the theory of the conditions which determine reasoning to be secure ... Logic, then, is a theory. The end of any theory is to furnish a rational account of its object ... A theory directly aims at nothing but knowing. Maybe, if it be sound, it is likely, some day, to prove useful. Still, fairness forbids our making utility the criterion of the excellence of the theory.   [CP 2. 1, 1902]

( ... ... )

To see how logic is bound up with inquiry in Peirce's thought, we need a summary of the three kinds of reasoning he identifies: deduction, induction, and his own contribution, abduction. In his early work, in papers Ramsey had access to, Peirce calls abduction 'hypothesis'. It is fundamentally creative[주]30 or 'ampliative'. It goes beyond what is in the premises, unlike deduction, which explicates what is in the premises. Abduction is thus capable of importing new ideas into our body of knowledge. It takes the form:
The surprising fact, C, is observed;
But if A were true, C would be a matter of course.
Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.     [CP 5, 189, 1903]

Something very like this now gets called inference to the best explanation.[주]31  Peirce might well have been happy with this label, as he says that this mode of inference is 'the operation of adopting an explanatory hypothesis' (CP 5. 189, 1903).  He would not have been happy, however, with the modern idea that explanatory power is evidence for the belief's corresponding to reality. ( ... ... )

Peirce takes the first step in the scientific method to be abductive inference. [:]
  • A hypothesis or a conjecture is identified that explains some surprising experience--some exception to what was expected. 
  • Consequence are then deduced from this hypothesis and are tested by induction. 
  • If the hypothesis passes the test of induction, then it is accepted--it is stable and believed until upset by a new and surprising experience. 
The scientific method thus proceed as follows: from abduction, to deduction, to induction. Peirce thinks that because abduction and induction both add to our knowledge, 'some logicians have confounded them'. But he clearly means to describe the two types of inference as separate stages of a tripartite process of scientific inquiry (W 3: 330, 1878).
( ... ... )

Whether or not Peirce being fair to Hume (I think he isn't), his point is novel and important. As I have argued elsewhere,[주]32  Peirce's account of abductive inference anticipated Nelson Goodman's Fact, Fiction, and Forecast in allowing us to see our way through Hume's problem by reframing it as a problem not for induction, but for hypothesis formation. ( ... ... )

Let us turn to Peirce's accunt of probability and statistical inference. He thinks that there is an objective and a subjective side to probability. We have already seen that in ‘The Fixation of Belief’, he makes reference to degrees of belief. He continues that talk in ‘The Doctrine of Chances’, also part of the Illustrations of the Logic of Science. He identifies the problem of probabilities thus:
The general problem of probabilities is, from a given state of facts, to determine the numerical probability of a possible fact. This is the same as to inquire how much the given facts are worth, considered as evidence to prove the possible fact. Thus the problem of probabilities is simply the general problem of logic.   [W 3: 278, 1878]

Peirce's question is to figure out how to weigh evidence.[주]33 or how to inquire into what the given facts are worth. His answer is that degrees of belief must line up with the facts:
Numbers one and zero are appropriated ... to marking these extreme of knowledge; while fractions having values intermediate between them indicate ... the degrees in which the evidence leans toward one or the other.    [W 3: 278, 1878]

He then applies the pragmatic maxim: ‘To get a clear idea of what we mean by probability, we have to consider what real and sensible difference there is between one degree of probability and another’. The difference is a matter of fact: 'in the long run, there is a real fact which corresponds to the idea of probability, and it is that a given mode of inference sometimes proves successful and sometimes not, and that in a ratio ultimately fixed’. An occurrence is more or less probable because, were an agent to perform indefinitely many inferences concluding that relatively similar events would obtain on the basis of relatively similar evidence, he would ultimately discover that this sort of inference tended definitely to a certain degree of success. In the long run, the 'fluctuations become less and less; and if we continue long enough, the ratio will approximate toward a fixed limit'. This might today be called an agency theory of probability, in which probability is a matter of what inferences are good for the agent who is intervening in the world. Probability is analyzed in terms of the reliability of an agent's habit of inference.[주]34

But in another signature move, Peirce wants to ensure that his concept is also objective. Probability is grounded in fact. He adopts a kind of frequency theory of probability, applied to the success of inferences. The frequency theory has it that probability is the limit of the relative frequency with which an event occurs. What we mean when we say that 'the probability that this coin will land heas is 0.5' is that, were we to toss the coin very many times, independently and under as identical conditions as are possibe, the percentage of times that the coin lands heads would converge upon 50.

A big problem for the frequency theory is how to make sense of the single case. Peirce puts it thus:
An individual inference must be either true or false, and can show no effect of probability; and, therefore, in reference to a single case considered in itself, probability can have no meaning. Yet if a man had to choose between drawing a card from a pack containing 25 red cards and a black one, or from a pack containing 25 black cards and a red one, and if the drawing of a red card were destined to transport him to eternal felicity, and that of a black one to consign to everlasting woe, it would be folly to deny that he ought to prefer the pack containing the larger portion of red cards, although, from the nature of risk, it could not be repeated.  [W 3: 282-3, 1878]

We need not even imagine such dire single case risks. The fact that we will all die, Peirce says, means that each of us will take only a finite number of risks and make only a finite number of inferences. Since the ‘very idea of probability and of reasoning rests on the assumption that this number is indefinitely great’, we are always facing a version of the single case problem.

Peirce's solution coheres perfectly with the view that the truth is what we would eventually come to, were we able to experiment into the definite future:
logicality inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. They must not stop at our own fate, but must embrace the whole community. This community, again, must not be limited, but must extend to all races of beings with whom we can come into immediate or mediate intellectual relation. It must reach, however vaguely, beyond this geological epoch, beyond all bounds. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inference, collectively. Logic is rooted in the social principle.     [W 3: 284, 1878]

Peirce immediately makes his solution to the single case problem palatable by saying that we need not actually engage in ‘the heroism of self-sacrifice’. The requirement is merely that each of us should ‘perceive that only that man's inferences who has it are really logical, and should consequently regard his own as being only so far valid as they would be accepted by the hero’.

We can extract two important points from this argument. [:]

One is about the structure of knowledge. Science, inquiry, and rationality involve getting our beliefs in line with experience, evidence, and reasons in an ongoing project. Logic or rational inquiry is rooted in a ‘social principle’, for investigation into what is true is not a private interest but an interest ‘as wide as the community can turn out to be’.  Rationality is social in nature because it requires more evidence than what is before an individual or even before a community. A rational inquirer tries to get as much evidence as she can. In our effort to understand reality ‘each of us is an insurance company’ (W 2: 270, 1869). We make bets that will pay out (or not) later. If ‘the whole utility of probability is to insure us in the long run’, then to be fully insured, we need to collect, evaluate, and scrutinize as much evidence as we can. The more evidence one takes in, the more one is likely to have successful actions. Of course, short-cuts will have to be taken, as it would be absurd for each individual to try to gather all the evidence for herself--inquiry is a community project. The linkage between degrees of belief and their working in action is that if you fix your degrees of belief according to the (frequentist) objective chances, and if you take in a lot of experience, you will be more successful than if you had gone in for some other method of fixing your degrees of belief. The bets you would make on this method ought to be made with a ‘great confidence’.

The other point is about the structure of value. As Scheffler (2013) argues, if we knew that human beings would become extinct once everyone currently alive died a natural death, then our own lives, contributions, and practices would diminish in value. While Scheffler is not writing about pragmatism, his insight is a fundamental insight of that tradition. The concept of knowledge, rationality, and value make sense only within ongoing (although we do not have to believe them infinitely ongoing) practices of inrquiring, justifying, acting, and living.

( ... ... )

쉬운(?) 영어, 좋은 질문: If he is ______ of a gentleman, he will keep his promise.


출처: https://www.englishforums.com/English/GentlemanAnythingGentlemen/hhvzc/post.htm


※ 발췌 (excerpt):

QUESTION: Here i got a multiple choice.

If he is ______ of a gentleman, he will keep his promise.

 a. anything
 b. something
 c. nothing
 d. everything

I chose B "something of a gentleman" which I intent to understand it as "he is a gentleman to some degree." However, the Answer Book says its A, " anything of." I'm puzzled, could anyone help me?

AN ANSWER:

Given the choice between some and any, use some in assertive contexts only (affirmative statements), any for all others (negatives, questions, if clauses). You'll almost always be correct.

I have some money.
I don't have any money.
Do you have any money?
If I had any money, I would spend it.

The answer book wanted anything there because of the if.

* * *

Another Question:

Pragmatism is the opposite of navel-gazing; in pragmatism, truths are only valuable to the degree they can inform actions, and actions are only valuable if they confirm a truth. Peirce often talks about experience with the statistical term “sampling.” Only by sampling what the universe has to offer can we learn ________ of value.

(source: The Wisdom of Finance, by Mihir Desai. p. 31.)

 a. anything
 b. something
 c. nothing
 d. everything

2017년 11월 17일 금요일

[메모] 베니스의 상인


출처 1: 『베니스의 상인』에 재현된 중상주의 메타포 (조재희 지음. 신영어영문학. 61집. 2015.8. 203-224).


출처 2: 법, 셰익스피어를 입다 (연합, 2012.03.07)

※ 발췌: ( ... ... ) '베니스의 상인', '햄릿', '리어왕' 등 셰익스피어의 대표 희곡들 저변에 깔린 법과 법률가를 곱씹어 써내려간 법 에세이. '베니스의 상인'에서 이자 대신 살점을 요구하는 샤일록의 '인육담보계약'을 '사적 계약의 자유의 한계' 문제로 읽는 등 법학자의 눈에 비친 셰익스피어 해석이 돋보인다.


발췌 3: <베니스의 상인>에서 usance와 usury의 의미


출처 4: 셰익스피어와 정의: <베니스의 상인>을 중심으로 (서길수 지음. 신영어영문학. 59집. 2014.11. 107~123쪽.

※ 발췌:

( ... ... ) 그러나 등장 인물들이 취하는 액션의 모호함은 이 작품의 주제를 혼란스럽게 만들기도 한다. 비평가들조차 셰익스피어가 의도하는 주제적 의도에 대해 의견의 일치를 보지 못하고 있으며, 이 극의 복잡하고 매혹적인 주인공들, 특히 샤일록에 대해 명쾌한 해석을 내리지 못하고 있다. ( ... ... )

( ... ... ) 그러나 재판관 포오샤로부터 한 방울의 출혈도 없이 살만 베어내어라는 실현 불가능한 판결로 사태가 역전되고 오히려 샤일록의 목숨이 경각에 달리게 된다. 샤일록은 바사니오에게 빌려준 돈의 원금을 못 받게 됨은 물론이요, 자기 재산의 반을 빼앗기고 기독교 개종까지 강요받기에 이른다. 셰익스피어가 무슨 의도로 이 재판 장면을 썼든지 간에, 이 기묘한 재판은 신스하이머가 지적했듯이 "문학의 역사상 정의와 법정에 관한 가장 독창적인 풍자"임에 틀림없다. 기독교적 자비를 통해 공동선을 추구하는 포오샤와 유대교적 법의 원칙을 주장하는 율법주의자 샤일록은 각자가 주장하는 정의의 개념을 상대방에게 적용시키고자 한다. ( ... ) 본 논문에서는 '정의는 국가 아래에서의 인간들의 유대'라고 주장하는 아리스토텔레스적 관점을 토대로 <베니스의 상인>에서 사회적 정의가 실현되는 과정을 살펴보고자 한다.

( ... ... ) 샤일록은 안토니오에 대한 해묵은 감정을 다음과 같이 밝히고 있다.

저자가 기독교라는 사실 때문에도 밉지만
겸손한 척 비열하고 순박한 척 우매하게 무이자로 존을
빌려줘서 여기 베니스에서 우리 대금업자의 금리를
낮추기 때문에 더욱 밉다. 그놈의 덜미만 잡았다 하면
나는 내가 그놈에게 품고 있던 해묵은 원한을
마음껏 풀고야 말테다. 그놈은 신성한 우리 민족을
증오하고, 심지어 대다수의 상인들이 운집해 있는
곳에서까지도 나와 나의 상거래, 그리고 애써 모은
내 재산을 고리대금이라고 부르면서 마구 비난을
퍼붓는다. 낵 만일 저런 놈을 용서한다면 내 종족에
저주가 내릴지어다!

I hate him for he is a Christian;
But more, for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis, and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,
Even there where merchants most do congregate,
On me, mey bargains, and my well-won thrift,
Which he calls interest: cursed be my tribe
If I forgive him! (1..3.41-6)

( ... ... ) 4막 1장의 위대한 법정 장면 ( ... )

( ... ... ) 이글턴(Terry Eagleton)은 "양으로 평가하는 부르조아가 안토니오라면, 증서와 가치의 전통적인 개념을 옹호하는 사람이 샤일록이며, 샤일록의 행동은 이 두 가지 상반되는 방식으로 베니스의 부르조아에 대항한다"고 주장한다.

( ... ... ) 이 때문에 그는 "야만적인 흉악한 살인자"나 "동화 속의 인육을 먹고 사는 귀신"으로 비판받기도 한다. 그러나 안토니오에 대한 샤일록의 잔인성은 비판받아 마땅하지만, 안토니오와 기독교인들이 그에게 퍼부은 욕성에 대한 반응으로 이해할 수도 있을 것이다. 샤일록은 기독교인에 대한 증오자로, 사악한 고리대금업자로, 그리고 비정한 아버지로 보이기도 하지만, 한편으로는 기독교인들로부터 온갖 비판을 받는 불쌍한 희생자이기도 하기 때문에 "햄릿 이후 가장 이해하기 어려운 인물(Wilson 105)로 지적되기도 한다.  ( ... ... )

( ... ) 포오샤는 샤일록에게 근육을 달아볼 저울 준비와 출혈했을 경우 안토니오가 죽지 않도록 외과 인사가 입회했는지 묻는다. 안토니오가 피를 흘려 죽기를 바라던 샤일록은 "증서에 그렇게 명시되어 있사옵니까?" "증서에는 없사옵니다"라고 채무 증서를 강조하는 순간 자신의 몰락을 자초하고 마는 셈이 된다.

포오샤가 샤일록을 향해 안토니오의 가슴에서 살을 잘라내도 좋으며, 법정이 이를 인정한다고 말하자마자 샤일록은 환희에 찬 모습으로 안토니오의 가슴에 칼을 대려고 한다. 그 순간 포오샥 샤일록의 행동을 제지한다. "잠깜 멈춰라, 아직 더 할 말이 있다. 여기 이 증서에 의하면 단 한 방울의 피도 그대에게 주도록 되어 있지 않다. 이 글에는 '살 1 파운드'라고 분명히 명시되어 있다. 그러니 그대의 증서대로 시행하라." ( ... ... ) 뭔가 잘못되어 가고 있다는 사실을 직감한 샤일록은 원금만 되돌려 줄 것을 요구한다. 샤일록은 법정의 자비심에 호소해 볼 생각도 해보았지만 이미 때가 너무 늦었음을 깨닫는다. 포오샤는 즉시 샤일록이 안토니오의 생명에 위협을 가했음을 증명하면서 공정한 재판의 중요성을 강조한다.

피는 한 방울도 흘리지 말 것이며, 살을 잘라 내되
더도 덜도 말고 정확하게 1 파운드를 잘라 내라. 만일
그대가 정확하게 1 파운드보다 많거나 적게 잘래 내어서
그 무게가 조금이라도 가볍거나 무거우면, 또 보잘 것
없는 한 푼 중의 이십분의 일만큼이라도 더 무겁거나
가벼우면, 아니 저울이 한 쪽으로 머리카락 한 오라기
만큼이라고 기울어지면, 그대는 사형에 처해질 것이고,
그대의 전 재산을 몰수당하게 될 것이니라.

Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more
But just a pound of flesh: if thou tak'st more
Or less than a just pound, be it but so much
AS makes it light or heavy in the substance,
Or the division of the twentieth part
Of one poor scruple, nay i the scale do turn
But in the estimation of a hair,
Thou diest, and all thy goods are confiscate.

( ... ) 이어서 포오샤는 샤일록에게 적용해야 할 또 다른 법조항이 있음을 아려 준다. "직접적으로든 간접적으로든 베니스 시민의 생명을 빼앗으려는 시도를 했다는 사실이 밝혀지게 되면, 그 외국인이 생명을 노리고 음모를 꾸몄던 상대편 시민은 그 외국인의 재산의 반을 차지하게 되고 나머지 반은 국고에 귀속된다. 그리고 그 범인의 생명은 오직 공작 전하의 처사에 달려 있고, 다른 어떤 사람도 거기에 관여할 수 없다."     재산의 절반을 국가에 헌납하고 목숨만 겨우 부지함으로써 샤일록과 안토니오의 운명이 한 순간에 뒤바뀌게 된다.