TRAGEDY, traditionally, is a form of drama or narrative in which disaster overtakes the hero despite his noble defiance of fate or of the gods. The possibilities of tragedy exist in world in which man’s powers are limited and in which heroism and virtue do not guarantee moral victories. In traditional tragedy, fate, symbolically represented as the inexorable laws of cause and effect, and the gods, who represent transcendent power in the cosmos, combine to destroy the hero who transgresses established codes and natural laws, no matter how virtuous his intentions or mission. The result is an experience that evokes pity and fear for the hero and in which the doomed figure emerges as an affirmation of man’s moral potentialities and of his capacity for self-knowledge through suffering.

悲剧，传统上是一种戏剧或叙事形式，其中，尽管英雄对命运或诸神给予了高贵的蔑视，但灾难却压倒了他。世间悲剧存在的可能性就在于人的力量受到了限制，而其中的英雄主义和道德无法保证道义上的胜利。在传统的悲剧中，命运被象征性地表现为不可阻止的因果律和代表宇宙力量的诸神，无论英雄的意图或使命多么高尚，只要他违反了既定准则和自然法则，它们就会联合起来摧毁他。结果是一种唤起对英雄怜悯和恐惧的经历，而其中，注定要失败的人物成为了对人类道德潜能和对其通过苦难自我认知能力的肯定。

Critics of Aristotle have often pointed out that the Poetics cannot be taken as a set of rules or even as an accurate description of most tragedies. Aristotle’s primary intent was to defend tragedy against its condemnation by his former teacher, Plato (428?—347 B. C.). In The Republic and in other dialogues, Plato had attacked tragedy as an irrational depiction of mythological figures with whom an audience erroneously identifies. He held that fantasies in which great and essentially good men, such as Oedipus and Thyestes, are unwittingly destroyed can result only in moral debilitation with a correspondingly disastrous effect on the state. In answer, Aristotle insisted that Katharsis in tragedy would restore emotional balance to the Audience. He further contended that tragedy, by permitting human actions to be fully realized according to the “law of probability or necessity,” was more philosophical than history, since it dealt with general truths, not particulars. In short, Aristotle was concerned with providing a rational, philosophical defense, not a primer for dramatists or a yardstick with which to measure the success or failure of actual tragedies. See also POETICS OF ARISTOTLE, THE.

亚里士多德的批评者经常指出《诗学》不能被视为一套规则，甚至视为对大多数悲剧的准确描述。亚里士多德的主要意图是为悲剧辩护，来反对他以前的老师柏拉图（公元前428年？--347年）的谴责。在《理想国》和其它的对话中，柏拉图抨击悲剧是一种对神话人物的非理性描述，而观众对其产生了错误认同。他抱有幻想，其中如俄狄浦斯和堤厄斯忒斯这样伟大而本质上的好人，无意中被摧毁只会导致道德衰弱，给国家带来相应的灾难性影响。作为答复，亚里士多德坚持认为，悲剧中的陶冶会使观众恢复情感的平衡。他进一步主张，悲剧，根据“概率或必然性法则”，通过允许人的行为得到充分地实现，相比历史更具哲学意义，因为它涉及的是一般真理，而非细节。总之，亚里士多德关心的是提供一种理性、哲学的辩护，不是剧作家的入门指南或衡量真实悲剧成败的尺度。也可参阅亚里士多德的诗学词条。

Tragedy in the Middle Ages.  In the Middle Ages, tragedy became a moral narrative to warn man against the sin of pride. In such 14^th century works as Petrarch’s De viris illustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men) and Boccaccio’s De casibus vivorum illustrium (Concerning the Falls of Illustrious Men) and in John Lydgate’s 15^th century work Fall of Princes, the depiction of sudden disasters served as a reminder of God’s omnipotence and man’s original sin. Chaucer, in the Monk’s Tale (one of Canterbury Tales), employs the word “tragedie” to describe a simplified version of ancient drama:

中世纪的悲剧。在中世纪，悲剧成为了一种警示人类，抵御骄傲之罪的道德叙述。在14世纪这样的作品中，如彼特拉克的《名人传》（关于杰出的人物）和薄伽丘的《论名人的命运》（关于名人的沦落），以及约翰·利德盖特15世纪的作品《诸侯的沦落》中，对突如其来灾难的描述起到了对上帝的全能与人类原罪的提醒。乔叟，在《修道士故事》（《坎特伯雷故事集》之一）中，使用“悲剧”一词来描述古代戏剧的简化版本：

       Tragedie is to seyn a certyn storie,

       As olde books maken us memorie,

       Of hym that stood in greet prosperitee,

       And is y-fallen out of heigh degree

       Into myserie, and endeth wreccedly.

       悲剧就这样一种故事，

如同古籍供我们回忆，

其主人翁原先盛极一时，

后来从高处跌落，

坠入苦难，悲惨地了此残生。

Renaissance Concepts.  During the Italian renaissance, new translations of and commentaries on Aristotle’s Poetics—unknown in antiquity and neglected in the Middle Ages—gave rise to a neoclassical conception of tragedy. However, the Italians often misinterpreted Aristotle’s observations and at times even mistranslated them.

文艺复兴时期的概念。在意大利文艺复兴时期，对亚里士多德《诗学》的新译本和评述产生了一种新古典主义的悲剧概念---而它在古代，却不为人知，在中世纪被人忽视。然而，意大利人常常误解亚里士多德的言论，有时甚至出现误译。

One of the most influential of Italian commentaries, Poetices libri septem (1561; Poetics) by Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484—1558), argued that the action of tragedy should be more consistent with our understanding of reality. The Trojan War, for example, cannot be presented within two hours on a stage; hence, drawing inspiration from Aristotle. Scaliger suggests that tragedy confine itself to actions that can be presented more realistically within the time and space limitations of the stage.

意大利最有影响的评注之一是由尤利乌斯·凯撒·斯卡利杰（1484年至1558年）撰写的《Poetices libri septem》（1561年；《诗学》），他认为悲剧行为应该更符合我们对现实的理解。例如，特洛伊战争不可能在舞台上用两个小时来呈现；因此，从亚里士多德那里汲取灵感。斯卡利格认为，悲剧是将其自身局限在舞台的时间和空间限制内能够更真实地呈现的那些行为。

Following Scaliger, Lodovico Castelvetro (1505—1571) formulated the famous unities of time, place, and action—the “Weird Sisters” of neoclassic tragedy—which were, like neoclassical theory in general, to influence dramatists and critics through the 18^th century. In his Poetca d’ Aristotele (1570), he stipulated that unity of action could be achieved by depicting “one action of one person, or two actions, which by their interdependence can be counted one”; the unity of time requires that “the time of action ought not to exceed the limit of twelve hours”; and the unity of place should be achieved by setting the action in “a very limited extent of place.” But Castelvetro had mistranslated and augmented Aristotle’s Poetics, for nowhere do we see the unities of time and place in the ancient work. Aristotle merely observes that many tragedies confine their action to one revolution of the sun. Of place he says nothing.

继斯卡利杰之后，洛多维科·卡斯泰尔韦特罗（1505年至1571年）阐述了著名的时间、空间和行为的统一性---新古典主义悲剧的“命运三女神”，像一般的古典主义理论一样，它影响了整个18世纪的戏剧家和评论家。在他的《诗人亚里士多德》（1570年）中，他规定，行动的统一可通过描述“一个人的一个行动，或两个行动，而由它们相互依赖的行动可算作一个行动”；时间的统一性要求“行动的时间不应超过12个小时”；而空间的统一性应该通过将行动设置在“一个非常有限的空间范围”。但卡斯泰尔韦特罗误译并扩充了亚里士多德的《诗学》，因为在古老的作品中我们确实没有看到时间和空间的统一。亚里士多德只是观察到许多悲剧将它们的行动局限在太阳旋转一周。不恰当的，他什么也没有说。

18^th Century Theories.  Debates over neoclassical theories continued on the Continent and in England for two centuries. By the 18^th century, resistance to the rigidity of neoclassical rules had increased considerably. Though a neoclassicist himself, Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709—1784), in the preface of his edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765), rejected the unities of time and place as invalid rules, for they confused representation with reality: “The truth is, that the spectators are always in their senses, and know, from the first act to the last, that the stage is only a stage, and that the players are only players.” Nor did Johnson believe Shakespeare’s mingling of the comic and tragic a grave error, as neoclassical critics had insisted, for “there is always an appeal open from criticism to nature.”

18世纪的理论。有关新古典主义理论的争论在欧洲大陆和英格兰一直持续了2个世纪。到18世纪，对僵化的古典主义规则的抵制大大增加了。尽管塞缪尔·约翰逊博士（1709年至1784年）本身为一名新古典主义者，但在他的《威廉·莎士比亚的戏剧》（1765年）前言中，拒绝了时间和空间的统一性作为无效规则，因为它们混淆了表象与现实：“实际情况是，观众总是清醒的，并且知道，从第一个幕到最后一幕，舞台只是舞台，而演员也只是演员”。约翰逊不像新古典主义评论家坚持的那样，认为莎士比亚将喜剧和悲剧混合是个严重错误，因为“总是有一个从批评到自然的公开上诉”。

In Germany, Gotthold Lessing (1729—1781), in his Hamburgische Dramaturgie (1769; Hamburg Dramaturgy), agreed with Johnson that Shakespeare had truly understood the unity of action, which involves “change of circumstances, recognition, and suffering.” The other so-called “unities” are to be regarded not as rigid laws but as natural consequences of the primary unity regarding action. Indeed, Lessing urged his fellow dramatists to reject the rigidities of French tragedy and adopt the more versatile English forms.

在德国，戈特霍尔德·莱辛（1729年至1781年），在他的《Hamburgische Dramaturgie》（1769年；《汉堡戏剧学》中，赞同约翰逊认为莎士比亚真正理解了行动的统一性，它包含“对环境、认可和痛苦的变化”。其它所谓的“统一性”不应被看作是严格的法则，而应视为有关行动的最基本统一的自然结果。的确，莱辛力促他的戏剧家同行们拒绝法国悲剧的僵化，并采用更为多样化的英国形式。

With the growing number of bourgeois tragedies—Lessing was the leading author of such plays in Germany—the older notion of the inevitable destruction of the hero gave way to the romantic belief in redemption and “poetic justice,” which rewarded the good and punished the wicked. Thus, audiences in the 18^th century became accustomed to drama adapted to their middle-class assumptions and responses. As the French playwright Beaumarchais (1732—1799) remarked in his Essai sur le genre dramatique serieux (1767; Essay on the Serious Drama): “The nearer the suffering man is to my station in life, the greater is his claim upon my sympathy.”

随着中产阶级悲剧的不断增多---莱辛成为了德国这类戏剧的主要作者---英雄不可避免毁灭的旧观念让位给奖善惩恶的救赎和“诗意正义”的浪漫信念。因此，18世纪的观众变成了习惯于适应他们中产阶级假设和反应的戏剧。正如法国剧作家博马舍（1732年至1799年）在其《Essai sur le genre dramatique serieux》（1767年；《试论严肃戏剧》）中评述的那样：“苦难中的人越是接近我的生活状况，他就是越需要我的同情”。

19^th Century Theories.  A major challenge to such plays was made by Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770—1831) in his Vorlesungen uber die Asthetik (1835—1838; Lectures on Aesthetics), which attacked bourgeois morality as a basis for tragedy. As in Sophocles’ Antigone, which provided Hegel with his argument, tragedy involves “a conflict of ethical substance,” of good against good, both of them partial claims urged as absolutes. Thus, Antigone, who wished to bury her brother’s body, and Creon, who denies that wish because the brother’s rebellion against the state prohibits it, are convinced of their absolute duties. This is a conflict of “thesis” and “antithesis,” both manifestations of Geist, or “spirit,” which EXPRESSES itself rationally in the cosmos. Tragedy reconciles such a conflict by revealing that neither claim is absolute—the “synthesis.” Tragedy, therefore, manifests a dialectical development in human history.

19世纪的理论。格奥尔格·威廉·黑格尔（1770年至1831年）在其《Vorlesungen uber die Asthetik》（1835年至1838年；《美学讲演录》）中对这类戏剧提出了重大挑战，抨击中产阶级道德作为悲剧的基础。正如索福克勒斯的《安提戈涅》为黑格尔提供的依据那样，悲剧包含了“善针对善的伦理实体的冲突”，两者都宣称各自的主张是绝对的。因此，安提戈涅，希望埋葬她兄弟的尸体，而克瑞翁却拒绝了这一愿望，因为兄弟反抗国家，禁止埋葬，她们都确信自己的绝对责任。这是一个“正题”与“反题”的冲突，两者都是感性或“精神”的表现，它在完整和谐的一体系统中理性地表达了自身。悲剧通过揭示两种主张都不是绝对的---“综合”来调和这类冲突。因此，悲剧在人类历史中表现出一种辩证的发展。

One of the greatest philosophical treatises on tragedy in the 19^th century, Die Geburt der Tragedie (1872; The Birth of Tragedy), by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844—1900), rejects the traditional conception of Greek tragedy as an EXPRESSION of the Apollonian elements of classicism—order, harmony, and restraint. Nietzsche asserts that such qualities were only the externals, whereas the Dionysian elements of wildness and frenzy, associated with primitive celebrations from which tragedy emerged, provided the emotional experience or inspiration. The “fraternal union” of the two divine elements is the “highest goal of tragedy and of art in general.” Nietzsche’s view of tragedy is clearly an accommodation between the demands of man’s deeper, wilder self to be free of restraint and his need for a form to contain and EXPRESS those urges.

19世纪对悲剧最重要的哲学论述是由弗里德里希·尼采撰写的《Die Geburt der Tragedie》（1872年；《悲剧的诞生》），它摈弃了希腊悲剧作为古典主义的阿波罗元素表现的传统概念—秩序、和谐与克制。尼采断言，这种品质只是外在的，而酒神的野性和狂热的元素与原始的庆典有关，悲剧由此而生，提供了情感体验或灵感。这两种神圣元素“兄弟般的结合”是“悲剧的最高目标，而一般艺术也是如此”。尼采的悲剧观在人类更深层、更狂野的不受约束的自我与其需要一种形式来包含和表达这些冲动之间显然是一种调和。

20^th century Theories.  In the 20^th century, much critical writing on tragedy has been concerned with its decline and death. Joseph Wood Krutch (1893—1970), in the Modern Temper (1929), asserts that tragedy, like religion, provides “a rationality, a meaning, and a justification to the universe” and that it is not “an EXPRESSION of despair but the means by which [the great ages] saved themselves from it.” In the modern world, however, loss of faith in God and man has resulted in a corresponding inability to create tragic experiences comparable to those in past ages. So-called “modern tragedy,” Krutch contends, presents the miseries of men who lack exalted spirit and whose disasters are merely depressing. A notable voice in defense of modern tragedy was raised by Arthur Miller, who, in his essay Tragedy and the Common Man (1949), argued that the common man may acquire tragic status by “his willingness to throw all he has into the contest, the battle to secure his rightful place in the world.”

20世纪的理论。在20世纪，许多对悲剧的评论文章一直在关注它的衰退和死亡。约瑟夫·伍德·克鲁奇（1893年至1970年），在《现代的特征》中断言，悲剧，像宗教一样，为宇宙提供了“一种合理性、意义和正当理由”，它不是“一种绝望的表达，而是[伟大时代]通过它拯救它们自身的手段”。然而，在现代世界，对上帝和人类信仰的缺失导致了在相应的情况下，无法创造出与过去的时代相当的悲剧经历。克鲁奇认为，“现代悲剧”呈现了那些缺乏高尚精神的人的灾难，而他们的灾难仅仅是令人沮丧的。一个著名的，为现代悲剧辩护的声音是由阿瑟·米勒发出的，他在其论文《悲剧与普通人》（1949年）中,认为普通人可能会通过“愿意将自己的一切投入到竞争之中，为确保他在世界中应有的地位而战”来获得悲剧的地位。

In the Death of Tragedy (1906), George Steiner presided at the interment by tracing the decline of the “organic world view” and the resulting loss of the values and beliefs essential to traditional tragedy. Some critics, such as John Gassner (1903—1967), have provided themselves with new sets of terms to characterize modern plays that depict human disaster—“low tragedy,” such as Miller’s Death of a Salesman, and “high tragedy,” such as Hamlet. Symbolically, these terms suggest the nature of man’s aspirations as well as his achievements.

在《悲剧之死》（1906年）中，乔治·斯坦纳通过追溯“自然世界观”的衰落以及导致传统悲剧必不可少的价值和信仰的丧失主持了一场葬礼。一些评论家，诸如约翰·加斯纳（1903年至1967年），为他们自己提供了一套新术语来刻画现代的描述人类灾难的戏剧---“低调悲剧”，比如米勒的《推销员之死》，以及“高调悲剧”，比如《哈姆雷特》。这些术语象征性地表明了人类的渴望和其成就的性质。

                                 KARL BECKSON, Editor of

                            “Great Theories of Literary criticism”

                                    卡尔·贝克森

                             “文学批评的重要理论”的编辑

                                            2023年9月23日译

（译者注：该词条位列《大美百科全书》1985年版，第26卷，第921页至923页）