두 사촌 귀족에서 좌절과 상충의 생성 역학

This essay explores the widespread sense of frustration represented by a broad range of opposing images within The Two Noble Kinsmen and attempts to interpret how repeated human will to overcome it sets up an atmosphere of new creative dynamics. Such a sense of frustration dominates the entire play....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Shakespeare Review, 52(3) 2016, 52(3), , pp.353-376
1. Verfasser: 남장현
Format: Artikel
Sprache:kor
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This essay explores the widespread sense of frustration represented by a broad range of opposing images within The Two Noble Kinsmen and attempts to interpret how repeated human will to overcome it sets up an atmosphere of new creative dynamics. Such a sense of frustration dominates the entire play. At the beginning, the hymen is full of contrary images that possibly taint the symbolic meaning of marriage as new life. When the three queens of Thebes appear onstage to appeal to Theseus, thereby interrupting his marriage to Hippolyta, that sense realizes as a solid fact within the domain of the play. In the scenes that follow, main characters reveal their wills and desires that are to be frustrated by an incomprehensible power of reality. Arcite and Palamon wish to escape from Thebes, detesting its corruption, but the imminent war saps their will. The Jailor’s Daughter feels entirely frustrated due to the unrewarded love from Palamon and Emilia cannot uphold her faith in chastity when she becomes the main prize for the tournament in which Arcite and Palamon fight for their beloved lady. Under the duress of all this vexation, Arcite, Palamon, the Jailor’s Daughter and even Emilia become mad, or reach near a state of madness in the course of their desperate attempts to overcome the power of forces beyond their control. Their respective endeavors ultimately generate a circular structure in which they mirror each other. Such circularity manifests the reality that repeats and differs with its singularity. The reality is also an arena of clashing, fighting and coexisting contrarieties that cannot be grasped by reason alone. Indeed, it is a world of reason and unreason, of life and death, and of tragedy and comedy. In such a chaotic coexistence of opposing elements, the creative dynamics appear as the primary propelling force in the play, in the same manner the two playwrights exhibited their artistic rivalry. KCI Citation Count: 0
ISSN:1226-2668
DOI:10.17009/shakes.2016.52.3.004