Tragedy: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
* Courage and inevitable defeat: when we confront the great literature of tragedy from our everyday world, it is perhaps these two qualities that strike us most forcible, for the first in any society is rare and the second is a prospect most men find intolerable. Without courage or endurance, the exceptional action or commitment which characterize tragedy would not be undertaken or sustained; without defeat, it would not be placed in the perspective of the ordinary world. . . . Courage without an overpowering challenge can be mere bravado or foolishness (and thus comic). Defeat without a great attempt can be mere pathos. —G.B. Harrison, “Shakespearean Tragedy” (1968)
* Courage and inevitable defeat: when we confront the great literature of tragedy from our everyday world, it is perhaps these two qualities that strike us most forcible, for the first in any society is rare and the second is a prospect most men find intolerable. Without courage or endurance, the exceptional action or commitment which characterize tragedy would not be undertaken or sustained; without defeat, it would not be placed in the perspective of the ordinary world. . . . Courage without an overpowering challenge can be mere bravado or foolishness (and thus comic). Defeat without a great attempt can be mere pathos. —G.B. Harrison, “Shakespearean Tragedy” (1968)


* On a level quite above the immediate values of the play [Antony and Cleopatra] feeling is the quality most affirmed by it, indeed by all the tragedies. For this reason, Aristotelian categories seem to me quite irrelevant to Shakespeare — and even to Greek tragedy. A [[peripeteia | fall]], a [[hamartia | flaw]], a [[anagnorisis | recognition]]: the pattern must be stretched into a one-size-fits-all dimension to fit the plays. —Marilyn French, ''Shakespeare’s Division of Experience'' (1981)
* On a level quite above the immediate values of the play [''Antony and Cleopatra''] feeling is the quality most affirmed by it, indeed by all the tragedies. For this reason, Aristotelian categories seem to me quite irrelevant to Shakespeare — and even to Greek tragedy. A [[peripeteia | fall]], a [[hamartia | flaw]], a [[anagnorisis | recognition]]: the pattern must be stretched into a one-size-fits-all dimension to fit the plays. —Marilyn French, ''Shakespeare’s Division of Experience'' (1981)


* [[Anagnorisis]] is not simply an awareness by the hero of what has happened to him, but the recognition of the determined shape of the life he has created for himself, with an implicit comparison to the uncreated potential life he has forsaken. —Northrup Frye, ''Anatomy of Criticism''
* [[Anagnorisis]] is not simply an awareness by the hero of what has happened to him, but the recognition of the determined shape of the life he has created for himself, with an implicit comparison to the uncreated potential life he has forsaken. —Northrup Frye, ''Anatomy of Criticism''