文学批评of Aristotle

ByNasrullah MambrolonMay 1, 2017•(7)

亚里士多德（公元前384-322）

柏拉图门徒
亚历山大大帝的老师。
Major Works:诗学，修辞
诗论, incomplete, 26 chapters
Mainly concerned with tragedy, which was in his day, the most development form of poetry.
Disagreeing with much else that柏拉图said, Aristotle agreed that art was essentially Mimesis
But, he maintained, (good) art was neither useless nor dangerous, but rather natural and beneficial.

对亚里士多德的艺术辩护至关重要的是他的

拒绝柏拉图的二元论

人不是一个“体现”的智力，渴望死亡的精神释放，而是在所有其他能力中具有理性和创造能力的动物

拒绝柏拉图的理性主义
我们必须像研究其他动物一样研究人类，以发现它们的“性质”是什么。在物种中看；看看谁是繁荣和成功的人，他们从事什么活动？对于亚里士多德来说，这是确定什么和不适合人类和人类社会的方法
Rejection that Mimesis= Mirroring Nature

亚里士多德: Art is not useless

这很自然：

人类模仿是很自然的
Any human society which is healthy will be a society where there is imitative art
没有什么比孩子假装更自然了

艺术生产和培训是任何教育的必要组成部分，因为它使用并鼓励对想法的想象力操纵

Nothing is more natural than for human beings to create using their imagination
Since art is imitation, it is an imaginative use of concepts; at its heart art is “conceptual,” “intellectual”

亚里士多德: good art is not dangerous

A) Art is not deceptive:

艺术家必须准确地描绘心理现实，以使角色可信，并且他们的行为可以理解
它有效地教授，教导真相
Convincing and powerful drama is convincing and powerful because it reveals some truth of human nature
介绍了“有机统一”的概念 - 在任何出色的艺术品中，每个部分都必须有助于整体的整体成功
就像在生物生物体中，每个部分都为生物的整体健康和福祉做出了贡献，在好的艺术品中也反映了或模仿现实
统一的行动，“及其几起事件如此紧密地联系在一起，以至于任何一个人的转移或撤回将使整体脱离和脱位”

b）感官艺术不是一件坏事：

亚里士多德不相信思想是一回事，身体是另一回事，因此亚里士多德没有偏见柏拉图的偏见
The only way of acquiring knowledge at all, according to Aristotle, was through the senses and so developing, exercising and sharpening those senses through art was a healthy thing to do
艺术不仅关注感官的乐趣，而是/应该是智力，概念上的事。

C) (Good) Art is tied to Morality and Truth

(Successful Tragic) Drama always teaches morality. When trying to understand how tragedies achieve their peculiar effect (Pathos), he notes the psychology and morality on which they must be based
NB：亚里士多德认为，戏剧不仅模仿了“ Evens”，还模仿了行动。因此，他们模仿了预期的行为，心理力量和人的看不见的“内在生活”
他不知不觉地设置了两个功能，以实现艺术品。模仿大自然的感知细节，并模仿大自然的“有机统一”。

亚里士多德一致认为，艺术确实激起了负面情绪，但他声称它以无害，健康的方式清除了这些情绪。这导致了宣泄的原则

Doctrine of Catharsis

Art is neither psychologically destabilizing nor politically destructive
Art is a therapeutic part of the healthy life of not only the individual, but of the nation

亚里士多德: Mimesis is not equal to imitation

模仿is more like

渲染
Depicting
解释
理想化
Representing

亚里士多德的关键回应

诗歌比历史更哲学
“Poetry is sometimes more philosophic and of graver importance than history (He means a mere chronicle of events here), since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars”
诗歌describes “not the thing that has happened” as Aristotle imagines history does “but a种类可能发生的事情（即可能）是可能的或必要的”
因此，历史仅仅是“镜子”，而不是艺术。艺术必然是概念 /认知。

亚里士多德在悲剧中

In the诗论，亚里士多德将悲剧与喜剧和史诗般的其他度量形式进行了比较。他确定与所有诗歌一样，悲剧是一种模仿（模仿），但补充说，它具有严重的目的，并使用直接行动而不是叙事来实现其目的。他说那个诗意模仿是对事物的模仿，而不是像普遍性和理想一样，因此，诗歌比历史更哲学和崇高的媒介，这只是记录实际发生的事情。

亚里士多德写道，悲剧的目的是引起观众的“宣泄” - 激发他们的怜悯和恐惧感，并向他们清除这些情绪，以使他们让剧院感到清洁和振奋，并带有一种振奋人心对神和人的方式有了更高的了解。这种宣泄是通过见证了这部戏剧主角的命运的一些灾难性和运动的变化而引起的（亚里士多德认识到这种变化可能不会灾难性，但觉得这是最好的悲剧中所显示的那种 -Oedipus at Colonus,for example, was considered a tragedy by the Greeks but does not have an unhappy ending).

根据亚里士多德的说法，悲剧有six main elements: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle (scenic effect), and song (music), of which the first two are primary. Most of the诗论is devoted to analysis of the scope and proper use of these elements, with illustrative examples selected from many tragic dramas, especially those of Sophocles, although Aeschylus, Euripides, and some playwrights whose works no longer survive are also cited.

亚里士多德的几个要点对于了解希腊悲剧戏剧具有很大的价值。他特别重要的是，该情节是悲剧的最重要要素：

悲剧是一种模仿，不是男人，而是动作和生活，幸福和痛苦。生活包括行动，其结束是一种活动方式，而不是一种质量。现在角色决定了男人的素质，但是正是他们的行动使他们感到高兴或悲惨。因此，悲剧中的行动目的不是角色的代表：角色是为了促进行动。因此，事件和情节是悲剧的终结。结局是所有人的主要事情。没有行动就不可能发生悲剧。可能有一个没有性格的人。。。 . The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: character holds the second place.

亚里士多德继续讨论理想悲剧情节的结构，并在其要求上花了几章。他说，该情节必须是一个完整的整体 - 具有明确的开始，中间和结尾 - 其长度应该使观众可以在其单独的部分和整体统一的情况下毫无困难地理解。此外，该情节需要一个单一的中心主题，其中所有元素在逻辑上都相关以证明主角的命运的变化，重点是事件的戏剧性因果关系和概率。

亚里士多德对悲剧英雄的说法相对较少，因为悲剧的事件通常超出了英雄的控制范围，或与他的个性无关。该情节旨在说明宇宙的事物而不是个人意义，而主角主要被视为经历发生变化的角色。希腊悲剧者对情节和行动的发展给以牺牲性格为代价，他们普遍缺乏探索心理动机的兴趣是古代戏剧和现代戏剧之间的主要区别之一。

由于悲剧的目的是通过改变中心人物的地位来引起怜悯和恐惧，因此他必须成为观众可以识别的人物，谁能触发这些情绪。亚里士多德说：“可惜是由于不幸的不幸而引起的，因为一个像我们这样的人的不幸而恐惧。”

In addition, the hero should not offend the moral sensibilities of the spectators, and as a character he must be true to type, true to life, and consistent.

The hero’s error or frailty (harmartia) is often misleadingly explained as his “tragic flaw,” in the sense of that personal quality which inevitably causes his downfall or subjects him to retribution. However, overemphasis on a search for the decisive flaw in the protagonist as the key factor for understanding the tragedy can lead to superficial or false interpretations. It gives more attention to personality than the dramatists intended and ignores the broader philosophical implications of the typical plot’s denouement. It is true that the hero frequently takes a step that initiates the events of the tragedy and, owing to his own ignorance or poor judgment, acts in such a way as to bring about his own downfall. In a more sophisticated philosophical sense though, the hero’s fate, despite its immediate cause in his finite act, comes about because of the nature of the cosmic moral order and the role played by chance or destiny in human affairs. Unless the conclusions of most tragedies are interpreted on this level, the reader is forced to credit the Greeks with the most primitive of moral systems.

值得注意的是，一些学者认为，亚里士多德的“缺陷”是他要求英雄不应该是一个完全令人钦佩的人的必要推论。Harmartiawould thus be the factor that delimits the protagonist’s imperfection and keeps him on a human plane, making it possible for the audience to sympathize with him. This view tends to give the “flaw” an ethical definition but relates it only to the spectators’ reactions to the hero and does not increase its importance for interpreting the tragedies.

其余的诗论为了检查悲剧的其他要素，并讨论各种技术，设备和风格原则。亚里士多德提到了情节的两个特征，这两种特征都与harmartia，作为任何精心制作的悲剧的关键组成部分。这些是“逆转”（peripeteia），与主角计划或期望的相反的情况发生在俄狄浦斯对劳斯谋杀案的调查导致灾难性和意外结论时；和“认可”（Anagnorisis），当主角认识到局势的真理，发现另一个角色的身份或意识到自己的意义。英雄对知识或洞察力的突然获得引起了观众中所需的强烈情感反应，就像俄狄浦斯发现了他的真实父母并意识到他所负责的罪行一样。

亚里士多德写了诗论nearly a century after the greatest Greek tragedians had already died, in a period when there had been radical transformations in nearly all aspects of Athenian society and culture. The tragic drama of his day was not the same as that of the fifth century, and to a certain extent his work must be construed as a historical study of a genre that no longer existed rather than as a description of a living art form.

In the诗论,亚里士多德used the same analytical methods that he had successfully applied in studies of politics, ethics, and the natural sciences in order to determine tragedy’s fundamental principles of composition and content. This approach is not completely suited to a literary study and is sometimes too artificial or formula-prone in its conclusions.

Nonetheless, the诗论is the only critical study of Greek drama to have been made by a near-contemporary. It contains much valuable information about the origins, methods, and purposes of tragedy, and to a degree shows us how the Greeks themselves reacted to their theater. In addition, Aristotle’s work had an overwhelming influence on the development of drama long after it was compiled. The ideas and principles of the诗论在罗马帝国的戏剧中反映了，并在十七世纪和十九世纪的西欧中占据了西欧的悲剧构成。