“이것은 크레시더(Cressid)인 동시에 크레시더가 아니다”: 초서의 크리세이더(Criseyde)와 비교를 통하여
“this is, and is not, Cressid”: Comparing with Chaucer's Criseyde
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
“this is, and is not, Cressid”: Comparing with Chaucer's Criseyde Abstract Dongchoon Lee 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.
Abstract
“this is, and is not, Cressid”: Comparing with Chaucer's Criseyde Abstract Dongchoon Lee 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.
참고문헌 (28)
- Aers, David, "Chaucer, Langland and the Creative Imagination" (1980), Routledge & Kegan Paul
- Bradbook, M. C, "What Shakespeare Did to Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde", Shakespeare Quarterly, 9, pp.311~319 (1958)
- Bullough, Geoffrey, "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare VI" (1966), Columbia UP
- Capellanus, Andreas, "The Art of Courtly Love" (1969), Norton
- Chaucer, Geoffrey, "Troilus and Criseyde in The Riverside Chaucer" (1987), Houghton Mifflin
- Coghill, Nevill, "Shakespeare’s Reading in Chaucer, In Elizabethan and Jacobean Studies", pp.86~99 (1959), Oxford UP
- David, Collins, "The Story of Diomede and Criseyde: Changing Relationships in an Evolving Legend", Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association, 7, pp.9~30 (1981)
- Donaldson, Talbot, "Briseis, Briseida, Criseyde, Cresseid, Cressid: Progress of a Heroine, In Chaucerian Problems and Perspectives", pp.3~12 (1979), U of Notre Dame P
- Donaldson, Talbot, "Chaucer in the Twentieth Century, In Studies in the Age of Chaucer 2", Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 2, pp.7~13 (1980)
- Donaldson, Talbot, "Cressid False, Criseyde Untrue: An Ambiguity Revisited, In Poetic Traditions of the English Renaissance", pp.67~83 (1982), Yale UP
- Donaldson, Talbot, "Criseyde Becoming Cressida: Troilus and Criseyde and Troilus and Cressida, In The Swan at the Well: Shakespeare Reading Chaucer", pp.74~94 (1985), Yale UP
- Donaldson, Talbot, "The Masculine Narrator and Four Women of Style and Criseide and Her Narrator, In Speaking of Chaucer", pp.46~83 (1970), Athlone
- Dorrit, Einersen, "Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida: Tragedy, Comedy, Satire, History or Problem Play", Angles on the English-Speaking World, 5, pp.45~55 (2005)
- Douglas B. Wilson, "The Commerce of Desire: Freudian Narcissism in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde And Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida", English Language Notes, 21, pp.11~22 (1983)
- Henryson, Robert, "The Testament of Cresseid" (1968), Nelson
- Kott,Jan, "Shakespeare Our Contemporary" (1964), Methuen
- Kris, Davis-Brown, "Shakespeare’s Use of Chaucer in Troilus and Cressida: ‘That the will is infinite, and the execution confined", pp.15~34 (1988), South Central Review
- Lawrence, W. W, "Troilus, Cressida, and Thersites", MLR, 37 (1942)
- Lewis,C.S, "The Allegory of Love" (1936), Oxford UP
- Mieszkowski, Gretchen, "The Reputation of Criseyde 1155-1500", Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 43, pp.71~153 (1971)
- Muir, Kenneth, "The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays", pp.141~142 (1978), Yale UP
- Papp, Joseph, "Directing Troilus and Cressida, In The Festival Shakespeare Troilus and Cressida" (1967), Macmillan
- Shakespeare, William, "The Riverside Shakespeare" (1974), Houghton Mifflin
- Small, R. A, "The Stage Quarrel between Ben Jonson and the So-Called Poetasters" (1989), M & H Marcus
- Spearing.A.C, "Troilus and Criseyde" (1976), Edward Arnold
- Tatlock, J. S. P, "Troilus and Cressida", Macmillan
- Thompson,Ann, "Shakespeare’s Chaucer: A Study in Literary Origins" (1978), Liverpool UP
- Yoder, R. A, "Sons and Daughters of the Game: An Essay on Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, In Aspects of Shakespeare’s Problem Plays", pp.120~121, Cambridge UP