지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2008.3
- 수록면
- 151 - 176 (26page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This thesis aims at proving firstly that characters in Troilus and Cressida such as Troilus and Achilles are not unified and fixed and secondly that the characteristics of the characters represent the situation and philosophy of the late Elizabethan period. The period was the age of uncertainty. The reign was unstable because the queen was aging and the country had no successor. Furthermore, England was becoming increasingly distant from 'universal' Catholicism and its loyalty to one ruler was gradually getting transferred to that of 'the notion of nation'. The medieval values that had been represented as unity and singleness were disappearing. And Magellan's achievement, Copernicus's study, and Columbus' discovery gave the period strong anxiety and confusion, because, with those new discoveries, everything that was once true and fixed could not get the same status any more. So these discoveries became a force that caused scepticism to emerge.
Therefore, the Elizabethan age experienced the emerging force of a new philosophy named Scepticism whose basis was on Pyrrhonism of the Greek period. Erasmus and Montaigne, the representative philosophers of the age, were the typical sceptics. The slogans of Pyrrhonism are 'I can't understand anything', or 'I can't determine anything'. The latter signifies that I(the speaking subject) am not in the state of mind to insist or deny anything, which is an attitude that delays the final judgement. This attitude makes it impossible to judge that anything is right or false. So everything in the world is in a state of indeterminacy.
Troilus insists that he is a true person and his loving mind to Cressida will never change. But against what he says earlier, he acts and says differently later. At first he was a unified person believing that his loving mind will be eternal, but when the situation shifts, he changes too, therefore the absolute value disappears in him. When Troilus sees Cressida give his gift to Diomedes, he experiences the denial of his senses, which is the attitude of scepticism. According to scepticism, the senses don't give any guidelines of judgement of events.
Achilles also shows the absence of absolute values. At first, he is indulged into his private world, not fighting in the battlefield, but enjoying mimicking games in his tent which is his closet. He does not do any heroic acts, on the contrary, what he does is all the time unheroic, diminishing his fame. However, when he encounters the hypothesis of Ulysses that present eyes praise only present heroic acts, not the past acts, he completely changes. He tries to be a heroic person to be praised by the people and to attain fame again. Ulysses' hypothesis denies the absolute value and affirms that all values change with the passing of time. Achilles succumbs to the idea that all things are changeable within the frame of time.
Not only Troilus and Achilles, but also many other main characters in the play such as Cressida, Ulysses, and Hector are neither fixed nor unified. The world in the play shows no certainty, because one conviction and one judgement are soon denied by the characters' next experiences and events. Troilus and Cressida as the most 'modern' work by Shakespeare reveals the idea that we, human beings, live in a constantly changing world which has no absolute values.
Therefore, the Elizabethan age experienced the emerging force of a new philosophy named Scepticism whose basis was on Pyrrhonism of the Greek period. Erasmus and Montaigne, the representative philosophers of the age, were the typical sceptics. The slogans of Pyrrhonism are 'I can't understand anything', or 'I can't determine anything'. The latter signifies that I(the speaking subject) am not in the state of mind to insist or deny anything, which is an attitude that delays the final judgement. This attitude makes it impossible to judge that anything is right or false. So everything in the world is in a state of indeterminacy.
Troilus insists that he is a true person and his loving mind to Cressida will never change. But against what he says earlier, he acts and says differently later. At first he was a unified person believing that his loving mind will be eternal, but when the situation shifts, he changes too, therefore the absolute value disappears in him. When Troilus sees Cressida give his gift to Diomedes, he experiences the denial of his senses, which is the attitude of scepticism. According to scepticism, the senses don't give any guidelines of judgement of events.
Achilles also shows the absence of absolute values. At first, he is indulged into his private world, not fighting in the battlefield, but enjoying mimicking games in his tent which is his closet. He does not do any heroic acts, on the contrary, what he does is all the time unheroic, diminishing his fame. However, when he encounters the hypothesis of Ulysses that present eyes praise only present heroic acts, not the past acts, he completely changes. He tries to be a heroic person to be praised by the people and to attain fame again. Ulysses' hypothesis denies the absolute value and affirms that all values change with the passing of time. Achilles succumbs to the idea that all things are changeable within the frame of time.
Not only Troilus and Achilles, but also many other main characters in the play such as Cressida, Ulysses, and Hector are neither fixed nor unified. The world in the play shows no certainty, because one conviction and one judgement are soon denied by the characters' next experiences and events. Troilus and Cressida as the most 'modern' work by Shakespeare reveals the idea that we, human beings, live in a constantly changing world which has no absolute values.
목차
Ⅰ.
Ⅱ. This Is, and Is Not Troilus
Ⅲ. This Is, and Is Not Achilles
Ⅳ
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (28)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - 롱, 앤소니 / 2000 / 헬레니즘 철학: 스토아 철학자, 에피쿠로스주의 철학자, 회의주의 철학자 / 서광사
2. [단행본] - 이환 / 2004 / 몽테뉴의 엣세 / 서울대학교 출판부
3. [단행본] - 츠바이크, 슈테판 / 2006 / 에라스무스 평전 / 아롬 미디어
4. [단행본] - 호이징하 / 1981 / 호모 루덴스: 놀이와 문화에 관한 한 연구 / 까치
5. [단행본] - Asp, Carolyn / 1971 / Th' Expense of Spirit in a Waste of Shame / Shakespeare Quarterly : 345 ~ 357
2. [단행본] - 이환 / 2004 / 몽테뉴의 엣세 / 서울대학교 출판부
3. [단행본] - 츠바이크, 슈테판 / 2006 / 에라스무스 평전 / 아롬 미디어
4. [단행본] - 호이징하 / 1981 / 호모 루덴스: 놀이와 문화에 관한 한 연구 / 까치
5. [단행본] - Asp, Carolyn / 1971 / Th' Expense of Spirit in a Waste of Shame / Shakespeare Quarterly : 345 ~ 357
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Troilus and Cressida에 나타난 사랑
Shakespeare Review
1991 .06
-
Troilus and Cressida : 여성의 이중적 죽음
Shakespeare Review
1997 .06
-
"This is and is not Cressida" : Troilus And Cressida에 나타난 여성의 아이덴터티의 문제
Shakespeare Review
1995 .12
-
Troilus and Cressida 에 나타난 명예의 추구
Shakespeare Review
1995 .12
-
가치의 상대화, 언어적 단절, 정체성의 혼돈 : 『트로일러스와 크레시다』와 비극의 몰락
Shakespeare Review
2000 .09
-
Body Politics and Commerce of Desire in Troilus and Cressida
영미문학페미니즘
1998 .01
-
Troilus and Cressida : 황무지의 한계상황
Shakespeare Review
1994 .06
-
환멸의 희극적 수용 : 『트로일러스와 크레시더』(Troilus and Cressida)의 경우
신영어영문학
2002 .08
-
『트로이러스와 크레시다』에 나타난 시간의 메타포
신영어영문학
2002 .08
-
문제극의 문제 : 셰익스피어의 『트러일러스와 크레시다』 연구
신영어영문학
2001 .02
-
The "Naked" Antifeminist Text and Male Heroism: Cressida's Laugh in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida
영미문학페미니즘
1996 .01
-
Troilus and Cressida: 차이를 통한 위장(僞裝) : 대상관계 정신분석 이론을 중심으로
Shakespeare Review
1995 .06
-
"War and lechery confound all" : Troilus and Cressida 硏究
Shakespeare Review
1973 .04
-
『트로일러스와 크레시다』와 시간, 가치, 재현의 문제
영어영문학연구
2003 .01
-
“이것은 크레시더(Cressid)인 동시에 크레시더가 아니다” : 초서의 크리세이더(Criseyde)와 비교를 통하여
Shakespeare Review
2012 .12
-
Re-reading of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida through Bill Brown’s ‘Thing Theory'
Shakespeare Review
2019 .06
-
『트로일러스와 크렛시다』 : 모험 이데올로기의 부재
Shakespeare Review
2001 .12
-
드라이든의 셰익스피어 다시 쓰기 : 『트로일로스와 크레시다; 또는 너무 늦게 알려진 진실』을 중심으로
Shakespeare Review
2008 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
가치의 상대화, 언어적 단절, 정체성의 혼돈 : 『트로일러스와 크레시다』와 비극의 몰락
박우수
Shakespeare Review
2000
.09
환멸의 희극적 수용 : 『트로일러스와 크레시더』(Troilus and Cressida)의 경우
이덕수
신영어영문학
2002
.08
“이것은 크레시더(Cressid)인 동시에 크레시더가 아니다” : 초서의 크리세이더(Criseyde)와 비교를 통하여
이동춘
Shakespeare Review
2012
.12
문제극의 문제 : 셰익스피어의 『트러일러스와 크레시다』 연구
박윤희
신영어영문학
2001
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-840-002476390