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
- 2000.9
- 수록면
- 491 - 513 (23page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Troilus and Cressida is a very experimental work putting into question the problem of value, be it intrinsic or subjective. In this work, Shakespeare never allows any stable point of view and judgement of characters and situations. As time is a voracious mouth devouring everything, all human actions and merits are thrown into the flux of time, consuming themselves immediately as soon as they are achieved; just like a blind mole progressing forward lineally toward the enlightenment of Modernity. Because there is no gauge to be measured against, any value judgement is private and inter-subjective at most. This relativism of values reflects the collapse of the traditional, hierarchical society and the emergence of the capitalistic society. As Marx puts it, all that is solid melts into air in the capitalistic society of free trade and cash nexus. The lack of religious dimension in the play reflects this progress of the societal secularization. Even love is goods to be bought and sold.
The relativism of values develops into madness of discourse. The metaphor of glass in the play implies self-reflexive words shut up in the prison of a vicious circle. If Agamemnon is Achilles' commander, Achilles Thersites' lord, Thersites Patroclus's knower and so on, linguistic definitions and social relations are deferred ad infinitum. As every value judgement is biased by the jaundiced eye of personal desires, language is also a property to be privatized for one's personal needs. As a word defines itself by its exclusive difference from other words, there is no fixed, pre-given meaning out of the context. That's why Troilus's romantic and ideal view of language unifying the signified with the signifier fails. There are two Cressidas, Troilus's Cressida and Diomed's Cressida. There is no autonomous self standing alone. Every figure in this play is a composite being fabricated out of oppositional and sometimes contradictory descriptions by others. Troilus, Cressida, and Pandarus are translated out of the dramatic characters into literary metaphors in the love game of the play. Here Shakespeare plays with fire of scepticism, but fortunately he doesn't burn himself to any substantial degree. Troilus and Cressida keeps its delicate balance on the brink of chaos, but it is not a tragedy proper because it doesn't show any positive measure in value judgement, language and characterization.
The relativism of values develops into madness of discourse. The metaphor of glass in the play implies self-reflexive words shut up in the prison of a vicious circle. If Agamemnon is Achilles' commander, Achilles Thersites' lord, Thersites Patroclus's knower and so on, linguistic definitions and social relations are deferred ad infinitum. As every value judgement is biased by the jaundiced eye of personal desires, language is also a property to be privatized for one's personal needs. As a word defines itself by its exclusive difference from other words, there is no fixed, pre-given meaning out of the context. That's why Troilus's romantic and ideal view of language unifying the signified with the signifier fails. There are two Cressidas, Troilus's Cressida and Diomed's Cressida. There is no autonomous self standing alone. Every figure in this play is a composite being fabricated out of oppositional and sometimes contradictory descriptions by others. Troilus, Cressida, and Pandarus are translated out of the dramatic characters into literary metaphors in the love game of the play. Here Shakespeare plays with fire of scepticism, but fortunately he doesn't burn himself to any substantial degree. Troilus and Cressida keeps its delicate balance on the brink of chaos, but it is not a tragedy proper because it doesn't show any positive measure in value judgement, language and characterization.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 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
-
Body Politics and Commerce of Desire in Troilus and Cressida
영미문학페미니즘
1998 .01
-
환멸의 희극적 수용 : 『트로일러스와 크레시더』(Troilus and Cressida)의 경우
신영어영문학
2002 .08
-
Troilus and Cressida : 황무지의 한계상황
Shakespeare Review
1994 .06
-
『트로이러스와 크레시다』에 나타난 시간의 메타포
신영어영문학
2002 .08
-
『트로일러스와 크레시다』 : 확실성과 절대성의 상실
Shakespeare Review
2008 .03
-
The "Naked" Antifeminist Text and Male Heroism: Cressida's Laugh in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida
영미문학페미니즘
1996 .01
-
문제극의 문제 : 셰익스피어의 『트러일러스와 크레시다』 연구
신영어영문학
2001 .02
-
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
-
드라이든의 셰익스피어 다시 쓰기 : 『트로일로스와 크레시다; 또는 너무 늦게 알려진 진실』을 중심으로
Shakespeare Review
2008 .06
-
『트로일러스와 크렛시다』 : 모험 이데올로기의 부재
Shakespeare Review
2001 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-840-003147910