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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
John Dryden and Alexander Pope have been considered as the representative critics of Shakespeare in the neoclassical period. They praised Shakespeare’s representation of nature, however, at the same time, they criticized his faults; they had a balanced critical point of view. In “An Essay of Dramatic Poesy,” published in 1668, Dryden wrote: “[Shakespeare] had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the images of nature were still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously but luckily.” This is Dryden’s praise of Shakespeare as a poet of nature, however, he did not ignore his faults: “He is many times flat, insipid; his comic wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast.”
Alexander Pope also criticized Shakespeare’s use of degenerating expressions, comic wit, puns, and bombast, but he never forgot to point out his merits. He praised Shakespeare, in the preface of The Works of Shakespeare, Collated and Corrected (1725), saying that “[Shakespeare’s] characters are so much Nature herself.” For Pope, the works of other poets were “the reflection of a reflection,” while Shakespeare’s works were original and his characters were “as much an Individual as those in Life itself.” The following praise of Pope is one of the most memorable paragraphs dedicated to Shakespeare. “The poetry of Shakespeare was Inspiration indeed: he is not so much an Imitator as an Instrument of Nature.” Dryden, Pope, and Samuel Johnson all praised Shakespeare as the poet of Nature who was original and represented “a faithful mirror” of a real life.
Dryden and Pope criticized such defects of Shakespeare as his excessive uses of pun and quibble, vulgar words, bombasts, exaggerate wits, furthermore, they criticized Shakespeare’s lack of moral instruction or poetic justice. They were not so much free from neoclassical rules in writing and to teach truths through delights had been the classical ideal since Horace emphasized it. Their criticisms of Shakespeare reflected the taste of the neoclassical period and their views of Shakespeare were limited by the neoclassical principles. Nevertheless, their criteria were not confined within the Aristotelian concept of the three unities, which was the most basic rule for the dramatic criticism in the period. They defended Shakespeare’s disregard of the unities of time and place and Shakespeare’s tragic-comedies.
Pope compared the plays of regular writers to “a neat modern building,” accurately formed, elegant, and glaring, and the irregular plays of Shakespeare to an ancient majestic piece of Gothic architecture, more solemn and more strong than a modern building. This is the praise for Shakespeare’s varieties and comprehensions, and it is a just view concerning Shakespeare’s originalities represented in his works.
Alexander Pope also criticized Shakespeare’s use of degenerating expressions, comic wit, puns, and bombast, but he never forgot to point out his merits. He praised Shakespeare, in the preface of The Works of Shakespeare, Collated and Corrected (1725), saying that “[Shakespeare’s] characters are so much Nature herself.” For Pope, the works of other poets were “the reflection of a reflection,” while Shakespeare’s works were original and his characters were “as much an Individual as those in Life itself.” The following praise of Pope is one of the most memorable paragraphs dedicated to Shakespeare. “The poetry of Shakespeare was Inspiration indeed: he is not so much an Imitator as an Instrument of Nature.” Dryden, Pope, and Samuel Johnson all praised Shakespeare as the poet of Nature who was original and represented “a faithful mirror” of a real life.
Dryden and Pope criticized such defects of Shakespeare as his excessive uses of pun and quibble, vulgar words, bombasts, exaggerate wits, furthermore, they criticized Shakespeare’s lack of moral instruction or poetic justice. They were not so much free from neoclassical rules in writing and to teach truths through delights had been the classical ideal since Horace emphasized it. Their criticisms of Shakespeare reflected the taste of the neoclassical period and their views of Shakespeare were limited by the neoclassical principles. Nevertheless, their criteria were not confined within the Aristotelian concept of the three unities, which was the most basic rule for the dramatic criticism in the period. They defended Shakespeare’s disregard of the unities of time and place and Shakespeare’s tragic-comedies.
Pope compared the plays of regular writers to “a neat modern building,” accurately formed, elegant, and glaring, and the irregular plays of Shakespeare to an ancient majestic piece of Gothic architecture, more solemn and more strong than a modern building. This is the praise for Shakespeare’s varieties and comprehensions, and it is a just view concerning Shakespeare’s originalities represented in his works.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Shakespeare In Korea
Shakespeare Review
2002 .09
-
Colonial Shakespeares : Shakespeare in Korea, 1906-1945
Shakespeare Review
1997 .12
-
Shakespeare연구의 성과
비평문학
1990 .09
-
한국에서의 Shakespeare 연구 조사(Ⅱ)
Shakespeare Review
1995 .06
-
Shakespeare in Japanese
Shakespeare Review
2002 .09
-
사뮤엘 존슨(Samuel Johnson)의 셰익스피어 비평
Shakespeare Review
2000 .12
-
19세기 아동 문학 풍토와 램 남매의 『셰익스피어 이야기』각색 연구
Shakespeare Review
2017 .03
-
셰익스피어 부흥과 여성 관객의 역할—“셰익스피어 레이디스 클럽”
영어영문학21
2012 .01
-
민족시인의 형성 : 왕정복고기와 18세기 영국의 셰익스피어
Shakespeare Review
2015 .09
-
Shakespeare극중 초자연적 요소의 고찰
비평문학
1991 .10
-
On Teaching Shakespeare
Shakespeare Review
2016 .09
-
Computer에 의한 Shakespeare연구와 국제협력
Shakespeare Review
1972 .04
-
셰익스피어와 1990년대 이후 미국 대중문화 : 『윌 파워!』에서 『햄릿의 블랙베리』까지 자기계발서를 중심으로
Shakespeare Review
2013 .03
-
셰익스피어 교수법에 대한 제언 : 학습자 중심 교육
Shakespeare Review
2007 .03
-
Shakespeare Translation in Korea
Shakespeare Review
1975 .04
-
Teaching Shakespeare in China
Shakespeare Review
2002 .09
-
셰익스피어의 극과 음악
새한영어영문학
2012 .02
-
Everybody's Shakespeare
Shakespeare Review
1998 .06
-
18세기 셰익스피어 : 영국 국가영웅 이미지
Shakespeare Review
2007 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-840-016410985