There are two theories that have been used to explain ancient and modern tragedy. Neither quite explains the complexity of the tragic process or the tragic hero, but each explains important elements of tragedy, and, because their conclusions are contradictory, they represent extreme views. The first theory states that all tragedy exhibits the workings of external fate. Of course, the overwhelming majority of tragedies do leave us with a sense of the supremacy of impersonal power and of the limitation of human effort. But this theory of tragedy is an oversimplification, primarily because it confuses the tragic condition with the tragic process: the theory does not acknowledge that fate, in a tragedy, normally becomes external to the hero only after the tragic process has been set in motion. Fate, as conceived in ancient Greek tragedy, is the internal balancing condition of life. It appears as external only after it has been violated, just as justice is an internal quality of an honest person, but the external antagonist of the criminal. Secondarily, this theory of tragedy does not distinguish tragedy from irony. Irony does not need an exceptional central figure: as a rule, the more ignoble the hero the sharper the irony, when irony alone is the objective. It is heroism that creates the splendor and exhilaration that is unique to tragedy. The tragic hero normally has an extraordinary, often a nearly divine, destiny almost within grasp, and the glory of that original destiny never quite fades out of the tragedy.
The second theory of tragedy states that the act that sets the tragic process in motion must be primarily a violation of moral law, whether human or divine; in short, that the tragic hero must have a flaw that has an essential connection with sin. Again it is true that the great majority of tragic heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind that seems to make the hero’s downfall morally explicable. But such hubris is only the precipitating agent of catastrophe, just as in comedy the cause of the happy ending is usually some act of humility, often performed by a noble character who is meanly disguised.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
compare and criticize two theories of tragedy
develop a new theory of tragedy
summarize the thematic content of tragedy
reject one theory of tragedy and offer another theory in its place
distinguish between tragedy and irony
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 A。阅读材料中,作者比较和批判了两种解释古代和现代悲剧的理论。他们论述了悲剧过程的复杂性以及悲剧英雄的内容,但由于他们的结论是相互矛盾的,因此它们代表了极端的观点。文章还指出,悲剧通常不仅仅是外部命运对英雄的影响,而且经常伴随着英雄的勇敢和出色的表现,并且悲剧英雄通常有一个几乎神圣的命运,以及必须遵守人类或神圣的道德法则才能避免悲剧结局。因此,选 A 为正确答案。
这篇是不是Advanced里最简单的。。
就只有这篇错的不是那么惨烈……
应该是……
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论