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 author objects to the theory that all tragedy exhibits the workings of external fate primarily because
fate in tragedies is not as important a cause of action as is the violation of a moral law
fate in tragedies does not appear to be something that is external to the tragic hero until after the tragic process has begun
the theory is based solely on an understanding of ancient Greek tragedy
the theory does not seem to be a plausible explanation of tragedy’s ability to exhilarate an audience
the theory does not seem applicable to the large number of tragedies in which the hero overcomes fate
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 B。因为文章中的第一句就说到,这两种理论都不能完全解释悲剧的复杂过程或悲剧英雄。作者反对这个理论,主要原因是该理论混淆了悲剧情况和悲剧过程。在悲剧中,命运只有在悲剧过程开始后才表现为外在的,也就是说,对悲剧英雄来说,命运是外在的,只有在悲剧过程开始后才成为外在的。因此,选择 B 选项作为正确答案是最佳选择。
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.
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论