설득과 기만: 『 필록테테스』 의 대조적 인물
Deception and Persuasion in Sophocles’ Philoctetes
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
After ten years of the Trojan War, the Greeks learn that they cannot win the war without Philoctetes and the bow which he received from Heracles. Sophocles’ Philoctetes is a study on the nature of deception and persuasion, and the bow is the center of intense debate among the play’s characters. Odysseus and Neoptolemus are at odds over how to obtain the bow. Odysseus, who abandoned Philoctetes on the deserted island of Lemnos, tries to convince Neoptolemus that deception is the best way to get the bow. However, Neoptolemus uses persuasion in an attempt to secure the bow. This article discusses the contrasting natures of Odysseus, who represents deception, and Neoptolemus, who represents persuasion. The concept of justice in the Greek political context is also a focus of the discussion. Neoptolemus is an honorable man who hates to use trickery to achieve an end; Odysseus is a politician who employs Machiavellian tactics. Odysseus reveals the negative aspects of a political opportunist and deception, but he is not a completely selfish man. He is a “proto-utilitarian” who is concerned with the common good, the victory of the Greeks, regardless of his self-interest and personal glory.
Abstract
After ten years of the Trojan War, the Greeks learn that they cannot win the war without Philoctetes and the bow which he received from Heracles. Sophocles’ Philoctetes is a study on the nature of deception and persuasion, and the bow is the center of intense debate among the play’s characters. Odysseus and Neoptolemus are at odds over how to obtain the bow. Odysseus, who abandoned Philoctetes on the deserted island of Lemnos, tries to convince Neoptolemus that deception is the best way to get the bow. However, Neoptolemus uses persuasion in an attempt to secure the bow. This article discusses the contrasting natures of Odysseus, who represents deception, and Neoptolemus, who represents persuasion. The concept of justice in the Greek political context is also a focus of the discussion. Neoptolemus is an honorable man who hates to use trickery to achieve an end; Odysseus is a politician who employs Machiavellian tactics. Odysseus reveals the negative aspects of a political opportunist and deception, but he is not a completely selfish man. He is a “proto-utilitarian” who is concerned with the common good, the victory of the Greeks, regardless of his self-interest and personal glory.
참고문헌 (16)
- Bowra, C. M, "Sophoclean Tragedy" (1944), UP
- Blundell, Mary, "The Moral Character of Odysseus in Philoctetes", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 28(3), pp.307~329 (1987)
- Easterling, P. E, "Philoctetes and Modern Criticism", Illinois Classical Studies, 3, pp.27~39 (1978)
- Garvie, A. F, "Deceit, violence and persuasion in the Philoctetes", Studiin onore di Quintino Cataudella, 1, pp.213~226 (1972)
- Gill, Christopher, "Bow, Oracle, and Epiphany in Sophocles’ Philoctetes", Greece and Rome, 27(2), pp.137~146 (1980)
- Knox, Bernard, "The Heroic Temper: Studies in Sophoclean Tragedy" (1964), U of California P
- Kott, Jan, "The Eating of the Gods: A Interpretation of Greek Tragedy" (1987), Northwestern UP
- Nussbaum, Martha, "Consequences and Character in Sophocles’ Philoctetes", Philosophy and Literature, 1(1), pp.25~53 (1976)
- Robinson, David B, "Topics in Sophocles’ Philoctetes", Classical Quarterly, 19, pp.34~56 (1969)
- Roisman, Hannah, "The Appropriation of a Son: Sophocles’ Philoctetes", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 38(2), pp.127~171 (1997)
- Rose, Peter, "Sophocles’ Philoctetes and the Teachings of the Sophists", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 80, pp.49~105 (1976)
- Segal, Charles, "Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles" (1981), U of Oklahoma P
- "Philoctetes"[URL]
- Taplin, Oliver, "Significant Actions in Sophocles’ Philoctetes", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 12(1), pp.25~44 (1971)
- Tessitore, Aristide, "Justice, Politics, and Piety in Sophocles’ Philoctetes", Review of Politics, 65(1), pp.61~88 (2003)
- Zerba, Michelle L, "Modalities of Tragic Doubt in Homer’s Iliad, Sophocles’ Philoctetes, and Shakespeare’s Othello", Comparative Literature, 61(1), pp.1~25 (2009)