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
- 2012.12
- 수록면
- 839 - 863 (25page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Male characters’ condemnations of Cressida in Act IV of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida dramatize the problem of the relationship between Shakespeare’s heroine and Chaucer’s. The two women are artistic realization of the same legendary figure. But their personalities are so dissimilar that some scholars deny that Chaucer’s Criseyde had a significant influence on Shakespeare’s Cressida. Owing to the narrator’s adoration and sympathy toward Chaucer’s Criseyde, Criseyde unlike Shakespeare’s Cressida is characterized as a woman of almost mythological feminity. However, Criseyde’s basic qualities are undeniably reflected in Cressida in spite of the superficial differences between them.
Shakespeare emphasizes two aspects of Cressida which distinguish her from Chaucer’s Criseyde: her lack of security and her high sexuality. The latter aspect has provided some critics with the ammunition to attack Cressida as a slut. However, considering her situation in a man’s world which may be even more precarious than Criseyde’s, Shakespeare’s Cressida is no more a wanton or a strumpet than Chaucer’s Criseyde. Rather than a two-dimensional figure of anti-feminist tradition, she is the complex product who reacts to the demands and expectations of the society at war which she belongs to.
Together with Shakespeare’s emphasis on her precarious situation, his descriptions of Troilus enable a reader to interpret Cressida’s high sexuality not as definite proof of sluttishness but as a way of self-defense. Shakespeare’s Troilus is, not sexually innocent, not reverential toward Cressida, cares little about her honor. Furthermore, in her overall condition of tremendous vulnerability and helplessness in a Greek camp, Cressida’s opportunism can hardly be very surprising or disillusioning. Rather her futile reactions to man"s desire and helplessness deserves more pity and sympathy than blame.
Shakespeare emphasizes two aspects of Cressida which distinguish her from Chaucer’s Criseyde: her lack of security and her high sexuality. The latter aspect has provided some critics with the ammunition to attack Cressida as a slut. However, considering her situation in a man’s world which may be even more precarious than Criseyde’s, Shakespeare’s Cressida is no more a wanton or a strumpet than Chaucer’s Criseyde. Rather than a two-dimensional figure of anti-feminist tradition, she is the complex product who reacts to the demands and expectations of the society at war which she belongs to.
Together with Shakespeare’s emphasis on her precarious situation, his descriptions of Troilus enable a reader to interpret Cressida’s high sexuality not as definite proof of sluttishness but as a way of self-defense. Shakespeare’s Troilus is, not sexually innocent, not reverential toward Cressida, cares little about her honor. Furthermore, in her overall condition of tremendous vulnerability and helplessness in a Greek camp, Cressida’s opportunism can hardly be very surprising or disillusioning. Rather her futile reactions to man"s desire and helplessness deserves more pity and sympathy than blame.
목차
I. 장르에서 비롯되는 크레시더와 크리세이더의 차이
II. 트로이의 상황과 배경 그리고 크레시더의 운명
III. 크레시더 vs 트로일러스: “배신”의 상징으로 비난받아 마땅한가?
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-840-000511409