What Was Tragedy? The World We Have Lost, 1550–1795

Abstract

We owe our idea of tragedy and our tragic repertoire to a generation of romantic critics who, writing in the shadow of Kant, demanded that tragedies display organic form, express the spirit of a nation, and stage a collision between freedom and necessity. Their formula obscures aspects of Attic tragedy and hinders our ability to interpret most tragedies written from 1550 to 1795. These works were supported by a poetics of tragedy that identifies pathos as the essence of tragedy. In order to read this repertoire anew, we must entertain five propositions: (1) that great drama need not be the drama of a nation; (2) that organic form is not superior to mechanic beauty; (3) that tragedy is a theatrical rather than a poetic art; (4) that not only the naïve but the sophisticated aspects of ancient theater have value; and (5) that the passions are dramatic units of crucial significance to early modern tragedy, a theatrical form that cannot be read only for plot, character, and imagery.

[Retracted] Reflections on the Discipline Construction Environment of World Literature and Comparative Literature in the Era of Big Data Analysis

“…Briceo said, “When we re-examine the term comparative literature, we will find that it is a history of intense debate, which has lasted from the beginning of the century when the term appeared until today [ 8 ]. At the end of the century, the problems considered by the discipline theory of comparative literature “are still the same as those raised more than a century ago”, and they are still the fundamental problems and the “old” problems [ 9 ]. Larsen deepened his understanding of literature in general, while the unique perspective and methodology of comparative literature refreshed the traditional thinking of literary research, and also provided a new reference for other humanities and social disciplines [ 10 ].…”

What James Boswell tells us about 18th‐century acting theory

“…Williams (2017) and others (e.g., Jajdelska, 2010) interested in what she calls the ‘history of sociable reading’ (p. 2) make a similar point. Burgh's (1761) Art of Speaking , a book whose careful annotation of the passions in famous stage scenes and other texts is often cited as evidence for the priority of emotion in this period's stage aesthetics (e.g., Hoxby, 2012), is, in Williams's eyes, in fact typical of ‘home guides on reading’ (pp. 26–27).…”