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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Hamlet and Troilus and Cressida have been known to be written in about 1601, and the basic mechanism of conflicts in both of the two plays is the disillusionment of the ideal values of the 1590s, that is, Renaissance humanism of the new aristocracy. Hamlet is a tragedy, but Troilus and Cressida has been variously classified such as comedy, tragedy, satirical comedy, comical satire, tragical satire, grotesque etc.
There can be two kinds of disillusionments, that is, tragic disillusionment and comic disillusionment. The tragic disillusionment originates with the loss of harmonious view on human being and its world. With the tragic disillusionment we loses religious or philosophical ground in explaining raison d’etre. The comic disillusionment comes from the recognition of the limitations of the value or norm in a society. In this sense Hamlet can said to be an embodiment of tragic disillusionment, while Troilus and Cressida an embodiment of comic disillusionment.
The action of Troilus and Cressida develops and concludes in the scepticism of all the values in Troy and Greece, that is, in England in 1600s. Troilus’s disillusionment on the ideal of love makes him a war-mania. He thinks he falls in love with Cressida, but what he seeks in Cressida proves to be only the satisfaction of his sensual desire through a pimp, Pandarus, while Cressida is not the ideal object of love, but only a sensual and practical woman like Helen. Cressida has no ideal value to keep at the risk of her life. She is only a war trophy just like Helen.
Just as the absence of ideal love makes lovers only pleasure-seekers, the absence of ideal value makes war only a massacre. The love of Troilus and Cressida representing the Renaissance humanism of neo-aristocracy proves to be only a pleasure-seekers’ game. The rational theory on cosmic and social order of Ulysses fails to support the authority of Agamemnon, while feudal idealism represented by Hector loses its practicality. Thersites exposes the fallacy of Ulysses’s rational theory and Pandarus reveals the fallacy of the ideal love. The impracticality of Hector’s feudal idealism exposes itself through Hector’s inconsistent behaviour. In Troilus and Cressida all the values and ideals reveal their fallacy or limitations. Renaissance is the great transitional era from medieval feudalism to bourgeois rationalism through Renaissance humanism. In Hamlet these values confront each other fatally in a tragic world, while in Troilus and Cressida they confront each other socially in a comic world and reveal their own fallacy and limitations.
There can be two kinds of disillusionments, that is, tragic disillusionment and comic disillusionment. The tragic disillusionment originates with the loss of harmonious view on human being and its world. With the tragic disillusionment we loses religious or philosophical ground in explaining raison d’etre. The comic disillusionment comes from the recognition of the limitations of the value or norm in a society. In this sense Hamlet can said to be an embodiment of tragic disillusionment, while Troilus and Cressida an embodiment of comic disillusionment.
The action of Troilus and Cressida develops and concludes in the scepticism of all the values in Troy and Greece, that is, in England in 1600s. Troilus’s disillusionment on the ideal of love makes him a war-mania. He thinks he falls in love with Cressida, but what he seeks in Cressida proves to be only the satisfaction of his sensual desire through a pimp, Pandarus, while Cressida is not the ideal object of love, but only a sensual and practical woman like Helen. Cressida has no ideal value to keep at the risk of her life. She is only a war trophy just like Helen.
Just as the absence of ideal love makes lovers only pleasure-seekers, the absence of ideal value makes war only a massacre. The love of Troilus and Cressida representing the Renaissance humanism of neo-aristocracy proves to be only a pleasure-seekers’ game. The rational theory on cosmic and social order of Ulysses fails to support the authority of Agamemnon, while feudal idealism represented by Hector loses its practicality. Thersites exposes the fallacy of Ulysses’s rational theory and Pandarus reveals the fallacy of the ideal love. The impracticality of Hector’s feudal idealism exposes itself through Hector’s inconsistent behaviour. In Troilus and Cressida all the values and ideals reveal their fallacy or limitations. Renaissance is the great transitional era from medieval feudalism to bourgeois rationalism through Renaissance humanism. In Hamlet these values confront each other fatally in a tragic world, while in Troilus and Cressida they confront each other socially in a comic world and reveal their own fallacy and limitations.
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
-
"This is and is not Cressida" : Troilus And Cressida에 나타난 여성의 아이덴터티의 문제
Shakespeare Review
1995 .12
-
Troilus and Cressida : 여성의 이중적 죽음
Shakespeare Review
1997 .06
-
Troilus and Cressida 에 나타난 명예의 추구
Shakespeare Review
1995 .12
-
Body Politics and Commerce of Desire in Troilus and Cressida
영미문학페미니즘
1998 .01
-
Troilus and Cressida : 황무지의 한계상황
Shakespeare Review
1994 .06
-
가치의 상대화, 언어적 단절, 정체성의 혼돈 : 『트로일러스와 크레시다』와 비극의 몰락
Shakespeare Review
2000 .09
-
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
-
문제극의 문제 : 셰익스피어의 『트러일러스와 크레시다』 연구
신영어영문학
2001 .02
-
『트로이러스와 크레시다』에 나타난 시간의 메타포
신영어영문학
2002 .08
-
『트로일러스와 크레시다』 : 확실성과 절대성의 상실
Shakespeare Review
2008 .03
-
『트로일러스와 크렛시다』 : 모험 이데올로기의 부재
Shakespeare Review
2001 .12
-
『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
-
드라이든의 셰익스피어 다시 쓰기 : 『트로일로스와 크레시다; 또는 너무 늦게 알려진 진실』을 중심으로
Shakespeare Review
2008 .06
-
Re-reading of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida through Bill Brown’s ‘Thing Theory'
Shakespeare Review
2019 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-840-016411033