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
- 2016.12
- 수록면
- 627 - 649 (23page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the conversation of the plebeians in Shakespeare’s two roman plays Julius Caesar and Coriolanus in order to explore the underlying causes or social conflicts that their conversations deliver. Both Coriolanus and Julius Caesar begin with not politicians but the plebeians. It might mean that they are not just supporting role but one of the leading roles in the plays. Therefore, the writer also would like to regard them as one of the leading roles in the plays. But the character of the plebeians is quite different in comparison with two plays. The common people in Julius Caesar have no opinions of their own and are passive and insolent. In addition, they have the habit of being flattered. On the other hand, the plebeians of Coriolanus are people who can think for themselves so it could possibly be said that they have independent personalities. They seem to have generosity even to their opponent, Caius Martius that is to say Coriolanus.
At the beginning of Coriolanus, the plebeians started an riot against the patricians because of corn. Famine in Rome is triggering unrest between the plebeians and the patricians. The plebeians thought that the reason why they could not get corn at the price they want, it is because of that fact the patricians have been hoarding grain for no good reason. Besides, the common people resent the arrogant Martius who openly despised the plebeians so they chose him as a target to be removed for their goal. It is because they decided that Martius is responsible for the scarcity of grain. The dialogue between plebeians is also carrying out the function of revealing the tragic flaws of Martius. Consequently, in spite of his heroic and successful contribution to Rome, his tragic flaws lead to his ruin.
Through these facts, the writer surmises that there are two important social problems in Rome. Above all, there were some conflicts and distrust between the plebeians and the patricians. It might come from the plebeians’ expectation of being treated as a citizen supporting the country together with the aristocratic class. At the time, they were becoming aware of the importance of they held as members of Roman society. But It is probably why the plebeians thought that they are not respected by the patricians appreciatively. Historically, the common people’s rights of Roman republic were extended in accordance with the growing contributiveness on their nation such as England under the reign of King James I at that time. Secondly, there was also another problem; the distribution of grain did not work fairly. It means Roman society’s economic system was incomplete and biased against the common people.
The conversations of two tribunes are also exposing the weaknesses of the tribune system. Basically, the Roman Republic had three principal political institutions; the Senate, consuls and tribunes. Because tribunes were the representative of the plebeians, they had to protect the rights of citizens and try to mediate between the two sides. But they did not do their duties in the plays. Instead of, the most important concern for them is the maintenance of their tribune-ship. In connection with that, it seems that what Shakespeare emphasizes about the tribunes is not their service to the people but their concern for their own office. The tribunes in Coriolanus, they are vile villain who mislead an innocent common people. Their power depends on the people’s hostility toward the patricians and traditional order. In this sense, the writer wants to say their desire could be flourishing only on the soil of the conflicts between plebeians and patricians. As to prove my point of view, in order to use the conflicts between the plebeians and the patricians, the tribunes stir up prejudice and hatred against the aristocrats. Even though the plays are tragedies and the conflicts are serious, we should expect a positive future of their society. It is because the important thing is not the awareness of the conflict itself but the acceptance that an effort to resolve conflicts is needed for a future reconciliation between opponents.
At the beginning of Coriolanus, the plebeians started an riot against the patricians because of corn. Famine in Rome is triggering unrest between the plebeians and the patricians. The plebeians thought that the reason why they could not get corn at the price they want, it is because of that fact the patricians have been hoarding grain for no good reason. Besides, the common people resent the arrogant Martius who openly despised the plebeians so they chose him as a target to be removed for their goal. It is because they decided that Martius is responsible for the scarcity of grain. The dialogue between plebeians is also carrying out the function of revealing the tragic flaws of Martius. Consequently, in spite of his heroic and successful contribution to Rome, his tragic flaws lead to his ruin.
Through these facts, the writer surmises that there are two important social problems in Rome. Above all, there were some conflicts and distrust between the plebeians and the patricians. It might come from the plebeians’ expectation of being treated as a citizen supporting the country together with the aristocratic class. At the time, they were becoming aware of the importance of they held as members of Roman society. But It is probably why the plebeians thought that they are not respected by the patricians appreciatively. Historically, the common people’s rights of Roman republic were extended in accordance with the growing contributiveness on their nation such as England under the reign of King James I at that time. Secondly, there was also another problem; the distribution of grain did not work fairly. It means Roman society’s economic system was incomplete and biased against the common people.
The conversations of two tribunes are also exposing the weaknesses of the tribune system. Basically, the Roman Republic had three principal political institutions; the Senate, consuls and tribunes. Because tribunes were the representative of the plebeians, they had to protect the rights of citizens and try to mediate between the two sides. But they did not do their duties in the plays. Instead of, the most important concern for them is the maintenance of their tribune-ship. In connection with that, it seems that what Shakespeare emphasizes about the tribunes is not their service to the people but their concern for their own office. The tribunes in Coriolanus, they are vile villain who mislead an innocent common people. Their power depends on the people’s hostility toward the patricians and traditional order. In this sense, the writer wants to say their desire could be flourishing only on the soil of the conflicts between plebeians and patricians. As to prove my point of view, in order to use the conflicts between the plebeians and the patricians, the tribunes stir up prejudice and hatred against the aristocrats. Even though the plays are tragedies and the conflicts are serious, we should expect a positive future of their society. It is because the important thing is not the awareness of the conflict itself but the acceptance that an effort to resolve conflicts is needed for a future reconciliation between opponents.
목차
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (16)
참고문헌 신청
[단행본] - 하이켈하임, 프리츠 / 1999 / 로마사 / 현대지성사
[단행본] - Barton, Anne / 1994 / Essays, Mainly Shakespeare / Cambridge UP
[단행본] - Bate, Jonathan / 2007 / The RSC William Shakespeare Complete Works / Macmillan
[단행본] - Bloom, Allan / 1964 / Shakespeare’s Politics / U of Chicago P
[단행본] - Brockbank, Philip / 1976 / Coriolanus : The Arden Shakespeare / Routledge
[단행본] - Barton, Anne / 1994 / Essays, Mainly Shakespeare / Cambridge UP
[단행본] - Bate, Jonathan / 2007 / The RSC William Shakespeare Complete Works / Macmillan
[단행본] - Bloom, Allan / 1964 / Shakespeare’s Politics / U of Chicago P
[단행본] - Brockbank, Philip / 1976 / Coriolanus : The Arden Shakespeare / Routledge
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
『줄리어스 시저』의 프로이드적 읽기 : 원시부족과 그룹정치
Shakespeare Review
2015 .12
-
로마 공화정 초기 호민관의 기원과 발전
서양고전학연구
2018 .09
-
이광수의 영시(극) 번역 전략과 양상
한국민족문화
2022 .11
-
『줄리어스 시이저』(Julius Caesar)에서 찾아볼 수 있는 숫자 4와 숫자 8의 의미
Shakespeare Review
2020 .03
-
줄리어스 시이저의 이중적 자아 이미지
영어영문학
2016 .05
-
합리적 개인주의 : 『줄리어스 시저』와 『햄릿』에 나타난 주체 형성하기
동서비교문학저널
2018 .09
-
『코리오레이너스』에 나타난 정치적 대립과 갈등의 문제
영어영문학
2019 .05
-
셰익스피어와 수감자들: 『줄리어스 시저』를 중심으로
Shakespeare Review
2019 .09
-
정치심리학에서 본 『줄리어스 시저』
영어영문학연구
2015 .01
-
Auctoritas and Sovereignty in Julius Caesar
영어영문학
2019 .01
-
Rhetoric of Brutus and Mark Antony in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
영미어문학
2024 .06
-
‘Fashion it thus’ —Construal in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar—
서양고전학연구
2023 .03
-
A Consideration on the Plebeian Assembly System in Mid-Republican Rome
史叢(사총)
2016 .01
-
『줄리어스 시이저』에 나타난 브루터스의 정치적 실천전략의 부재
영어영문학
2018 .02
-
테오도르 몸젠의 자유주의 문제와 역사교육 : 율리우스 카이사르 관련 서술을 중심으로
역사교육
2018 .03
-
Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and His Skepticism
영어영문학
2018 .01
-
셰익스피어 작품의 언어 표현에서 본 뇌의 역할 : <줄리어스 시저> <맥베스> <헨리 4세> <템페스트> 작품을 중심으로
언어과학연구
2015 .03
-
Shakespeare’s Political Skepticism in His Roman Plays
Shakespeare Review
2017 .09
-
한국 우화와 이솝우화의 서사 구조와 담론 비교 –동물우화를 중심으로–
어문연구(語文硏究)
2023 .06
-
『줄리어스 시저』: 아이러니
Shakespeare Review
2016 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
『코리오레이너스』 다시 읽기 : "인간혐오"의 주제를 중심으로
공성욱
Shakespeare Review
2000
.12
코리오레이너스 - 정치적 관계 속의 개인
이환태
Shakespeare Review
2004
.09
로마 사극에 나타난 셰익스피어의 민중관 : 『줄리어스 시저』와 『코리오레이너스』
김종환
Shakespeare Review
2006
.09
『코리오레이너스』(Coriolanus): 코리오레이너스의 자아의 제국주의와 볼럼니아의 모성성
윤희억
Shakespeare Review
2017
.06
『코리오레이너스』에 나타난 책임의 문제
한용재
Shakespeare Review
2014
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-840-002168202