Aristotelian Negotiations: Intertwining of the Theory of Tragedy and the History of Knowledge (Renewal Proposal)

在考察亚里士多德谈判的轨迹和结果的过程中，即在文艺复兴和启蒙运动之间的悲剧理论中，亚里士多德的《诗学》第13章和第14章之间明显矛盾的争议，可以清楚地看到，硬悲情诗学（第13章）的青睐和软悲情诗学（第14章）的边缘化是由以下原因造成的：除了具体与历史相关的理论外，也普遍根植于历史的知识。第14章论点的困难不仅在于它与第13章的“矛盾”，而且在更基本的层面上，它与传统权威知识的显著差异，可以被认为是悲剧中不幸结局的刻板印象。这种刻板印象与文字学事实公然背道而驰，其根源在于一种可以追溯到古代的知识传统，这种传统系统地塑造了中世纪的悲剧（和喜剧）观念，而与戏剧和戏剧没有任何联系，并继续对今天流行的悲剧观念产生强大的影响。鉴于这种刻板印象，第14章的论点已经成为一个问题，因为它显然优先考虑了幸福的结局。这些意见导致提出了一个问题，这个问题在最初建议的框架内没有设想到，但似乎对项目的最后质量具有决定性作用。亚里士多德理论与悲剧不幸结局的刻板印象影响的历史有着明显的密切联系，这就要求我们对悲剧理论史中基于事实的文字学知识、特殊的诗学知识和普遍的刻板印象知识之间不断变化的关系进行补充研究。亚里士多德式的谈判，只有在这种关系及其相互作用的要点被充分地纳入结论考虑时，才能得到全面而有意义的描述。因此，该项目面临着另一项任务，即在更广泛的知识历史背景下，调查悲剧中不幸结局的刻板印象对亚里士多德谈判的轨迹有多大影响，以及在多大程度上，提出的支持或反对软悲情诗学的单一论点从刻板印象的语言学质疑中获利，或者继续受到刻板印象制度的支配。有了这个更新的提议，该项目打算与之前的工作相结合，对悲剧的理解做出开创性的贡献，这种理解是意识到诗学史和知识史所带来的问题。

In the course of investigating the trajectory and outcomes of the Aristotelian negotiations, i.e. the controversies over the apparent contradiction between chapters 13 and 14 of Aristotle’s “Poetics” within the theory of tragedy between Renaissance and Enlightenment, it has become clear that the favoring of the poetics of hard pathos (chapter 13) and the marginalization of the poetics of soft pathos (chapter 14) result from causes that are, besides being specifically related to the history of theory, also generally rooted in the history of knowledge. The difficulty with the argument of chapter 14 lay not only in its ‘contradiction’ with that of chapter 13 but also, on a much more fundamental level, in its conspicuous discrepancy with a traditional authoritative knowledge that can be identified as the stereotype of the unhappy ending in tragedy. This stereotype, which runs blatantly counter to the philological facts, has its roots in a knowledge tradition reaching far back into the antiquity, a tradition that shaped systematically the mediaeval idea of tragedy (and comedy) without any connection to drama and theater and continues to have a powerful effect on the popular notion of tragedy to this day. The argument of chapter 14 had to become a problem already in view of this stereotype, for it clearly seemed to prioritize the happy ending. These observations lead to the formulation of a problem that was not envisaged in the framework of the initial proposal but appears to be decisive for the final quality of the project. The visibly close entanglement of the Aristotelian negotiations with the history of the impact of the stereotype of the unhappy ending in tragedy requires a complementary investigation of the changing relation between fact-based philological knowledge, special poetological knowledge, and popular stereotypical knowledge within the history of the theory of tragedy. The Aristotelian negotiations can only be comprehensively and meaningfully described if this relation and its important points of interaction are fully integrated into the concluding considerations. The project is therefore faced with the additional task of investigating, in a broader context of the history of knowledge, how significantly the stereotype of the unhappy ending in tragedy has affected the trajectory of the Aristotelian negotiations and to what extent the single arguments that are put forward for or against the poetics of soft pathos take profit from the philological questioning of the stereotype or continue to be dictated by the regime of the stereotype. With this renewal proposal the project intends, in conjunction with the previous work, to make a pioneering contribution to an understanding of tragedy that is aware of the problems posed by the history of poetology as well as the history of knowledge.