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.
In the author’s opinion, an act of humility in comedy is most analogous to
a catastrophe in tragedy
an ironic action in tragedy
a tragic hero’s pride and passion
a tragic hero’s aversion to sin
a tragic hero’s pursuit of an unusual destiny
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D。因为文章提到第二个理论认为,引发悲剧进程的行为主要是违反道德法则,无论是人类还是神圣,也就是说悲剧英雄必须有一个与罪孽有重要关系的缺点。因此,正确答案是D,即悲剧英雄对罪孽的厌恶。
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.
Hubris引起catastrophe,就如同喜剧中happy ending的起因是some act of humility。some act of humility对应hubris。precipitating引发,引起。理解两个对应因果关系是关键
Again it is true that the great majority of tragic heroes do possess hubris, or a proud and passionate mind
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.
同样,大多数悲剧英雄确实有狂妄自大,或者是一种骄傲和热情的头脑,这似乎使英雄的垮台在道德上是可以解释的。但这种狂妄自大只是灾难的诱因,就像喜剧中,幸福结局的起因通常是一些谦卑的行为,通常是由一个卑鄙的伪装的高尚人物来表现的。