论文部分内容阅读
对于勉力结合狄奥尼索斯酒神崇拜的背景来理解亚里士多德“悲剧起源论(一)”的研读者们来说,亚里士多德对悲剧起源所作的解析显然是“解”狄奥尼索斯的。这里还以晚近莱昂哈特、比尔勒所作解读为契机,指出要想结合狄奥尼索斯酒神崇拜来理解希腊悲剧,就必须回到狄奥尼索斯酒神崇拜在悲剧自起源到“成熟悲剧”的演变过程中所起的作用,而通过摸索20世纪初的迪特里希、尼尔松等重要研究,则可知“狄奥尼索斯背景的悲剧起源”话题所涵括的“变化”的“狄奥尼索斯背景”意味在亚里士多德《诗学》里也遭遇被消解的命运。亚里士多德在悲剧起源话题上的“解”狄奥尼索斯倾向,对不愿意相信希腊悲剧“跟狄奥尼索斯无关”的研究者来说,也就不是只能自逻辑层面才可被判定的,还有具体实例可供佐证。
Aristotle’s analysis of the origins of the tragedy is obviously for those who have come to understand Aristotle’s The Origins of Tragedy (a) in an attempt to comprehend the background of the cult of Dionysus “Solution ” Dionysus’s. Here also with the recent Lyon Hart, Biller interpreted as an opportunity to point out that in order to combine Greek Dionysus worship to understand the Greek tragedy, it is necessary to return to Dionysus worship of wine in the tragedy from its origins to “Mature tragedy ” evolution of the role of the process, and by exploring the early twentieth Century Dietrich, Nelson and other important studies, we can see “Dionysos background tragedy ” topic The “Dionysian Background” of “Change ” implied in the meaning of “Aristotle ” poetics also encountered in the digested fate. Aristotle’s “Dionysian” tendencies on the origins of the tragedy are not only for researchers who are unwilling to believe the Greek tragedy “not related to Dionysos” From the logic level can only be judged, as well as specific examples to support.