Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 34

A TALE OF TWO NATIONS: CHAUCER, HENRYSON, SHAKESPEARE, TROILUS AND CRISEYDE

İKİ ULUSUN HİKAYESİ: CHAUCER, HENRYSON, SHAKESPEARE, TROİLUS VE CRİSEYDE

Pages
183–191
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, this paper will compare and contrast Chaucer’s, Henryson’s and Shakespeare’s dealing of Troilus and Criseyde.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The matter of Troilus and Criseyde had been dealt in both England and Scotland in similar yet different ways from the late 14th to the early 17th century.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (ca. 1385), the conflict between worldly and heavenly love is depicted in a controversial way.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, this paper will compare and contrast Chaucer’s, Henryson’s and Shakespeare’s dealing of Troilus and Criseyde.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Chaucer · Henryson · Shakespeare

Abstract

The matter of Troilus and Criseyde had been dealt in both England and Scotland in similar yet different ways from the late 14th to the early 17th century. In Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (ca. 1385), the conflict between worldly and heavenly love is depicted in a controversial way. Henryson’s Testament of Cresseid (ca. 1480) seems to give a Scottish, or rather Catholic, answer and after thought to the loose ends he inherited from Chaucer. However, a new twist in the literary relation between England and Scotland occurs when the Matter of Troy is put on stage. Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida (ca. 1602) combines Chaucer and Henryson’s versions. In the former, Shakespeare merely continues the English tradition, yet in the latter, Shakespeare seems to deviate from that tradition in embracing Scottish literature at a time when England was ruled by Elizabeth I and James VI of Scotland was a strong candidate for the succession to the English throne. Thus, through the work, the unification of the two countries is maintained on a literary level, which would be maintained later also practically under the future James I of England. Thus, the Troilus and Criseyde story sheds light into the Anglo-Scottish relations and the reciprocal influence of each side on the other reflected in literature. Therefore, this paper will compare and contrast Chaucer’s, Henryson’s and Shakespeare’s dealing of Troilus and Criseyde.

Özet

14. yüzyılın sonlarından 17. yüzyılın başlarına kadar, Troilus ve Criseyde konusu hem İngiltere hem de İskoçya’da benzer ama birbirinden farklı olarak ele alınmıştı. Chaucer’ın Troilus ve Criseyde (1385 civarı) adlı eserinde dünyevi ve ilahi aşkın çatışması tartışmalı biçimde tasvir edilmektedir. Henryson’ın Cresseid’in İfadesi (1480 civarı) adlı eseri ise Chaucer’dan kendisine intikal eden boşlukları doldurmak için bir İskoç veya daha doğrusu bir Katolik bakış açısıyla cevap verdiği ve fikrini beyan ettiği görülmektedir. Ancak, İngiltere ve İskoçya ilişkilerinde yeni bir dönemeç Truva konusunun sahneye taşınmasıyla görülecektir. Shakespeare’in Troilus ve Cressida (1602 civarı) adlı eseri Chaucer ve Henryson’un yorumlarını birleştirmektedir. Chaucer’ı kullanarak sadece İngiliz geleneğini devam ettirdiği düşünülse de, Henryson’u kullanarak bu gelenekten uzaklaştığı ve I. Elizabeth tarafından yönetilip İskoçya Kralı VI. James’in İngiliz tahtının en güçlü varislerinden olduğu bir dönemde İskoç geleneğini benimsediği görülmektedir. Böylece eser sayesinde iki ülke edebi anlamda birleşmektedir, ki bu birleşme siyasi olarak İngiltere Kralı I. James sayesinde de gerçekleşecektir. Böylece, Troilus ve Criseyde konusu İskoç-İngiliz ilişkilerini ve karşılıklı edebi etkileşimleri aydınlatmaktadır. Bundan dolayı bu makalenin amacı Chaucer, Henryson ve Shakespeare’in Troilus ve Criseyde konusunu ele alışlarını karşılaştırmaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖĞÜTCÜ, M. (2022). A TALE OF TWO NATIONS: CHAUCER, HENRYSON, SHAKESPEARE, TROILUS AND CRISEYDE. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 34, 183–191. https://ajindex.com/articles/587587

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Apfelbaum, Roger (2004). Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida: Textual Problems and Performance Solutions, University of Delaware Press,
  2. Newark. Baugh, A. C., ed (1948). A Literary History of England, 4 Vols., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Bellamy, Elizabeth J. (1992). Translations of Power: Narcissism and the Unconscious in Epic History, Cornell University Press,
  3. Ithaca. Bennett, J. A. W. (1982). The Humane Medievalist and Other Essays in English Literature and Learning from Chaucer to Eliot, (Ed: Piero Boitani), Edizioni Di Storia E Letteratura, Rome. The Bible Tranſlated according to the Ebrew and Greeke (1581), Chriſtopher Barker, London. Black, John Bennet (1959). The Reign of Elizabeth: 1558-1603, 2nd ed., Clarendon, Oxford. Boccaccio, Giovanni (1967). The Filostrato of Giovanni Boccaccio, (Trans.: Nathaniel Edward Griffin and Arthur Beckwith Myrick), Biblo and Tannen, New York. Bruce, John, ed (1861). Correspondence of King James VI. of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others in England, During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Camden Society, Westminster. Carney, Cliodhna (2009). “Chaucer’s ‘litel bok’, Plotinus, and the Ending of Troilus and Criseyde.” Neophilologus 93/2, 357–368.
  4. Carruthers, Gerard (2009).
  5. Scottish Literature, Edinburgh University Press,
  6. Edinburgh. Chapman, George (Trans.) (1598). Seauen Bookes of the Iliades of Homere, Iohn Windet, London. Chaucer, Geoffrey (1988). The Riverside Chaucer, (Ed: L. D. Benson), 3rd ed., Oxford University Press,
  7. Suffolk. Devereux, Walter B (Ed.) (1853). Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex in the Reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I.: 1540-1646, Vol. 1, John Murray, London. Doğan Adanur, Evrim. (2017). “The Uses of Anachronism in Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida.” Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 16/4, 1048-1056.
  8. Donaldson, Talbot E. (1970).
  9. Speaking of Chaucer, University of London The Athlone Press,
  10. London. Dryden, John (1928). Preface to the Fables, (Ed: W. P. Ker and M. G. Lloyd Thomas), Clarendon, Oxford. Dunbar, William (1863). “The Thistle and the Rose.” (Ed. James Paterson), The Works of William Dunbar, Including His Life, 1465-1536, with Notes, and Glossarial Explanations, James Stillie, Edinburgh, 118-126.
  11. Ege, Ufuk (2000). “The Portrayals of the Universe in Medieval Literature.” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 40/3-4, 255-274.
  12. Forni, Kathleen (2001). The Chaucerian Apocrypha: A Counterfeit Canon, University Press of Florida, Gaine