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，即关于亚里士多德的《诗学》第13章和第14章之间在文艺复兴和启蒙运动之间的悲剧理论之间的明显矛盾的争论的过程中，我们清楚地发现，对硬悲情诗学的青睐(第13章)和软悲情诗学的边缘化(第14章)，除了具体地与理论史有关外，还普遍植根于知识史。第14章的论证的困难不仅在于它与第13章的论证是矛盾的，而且在更根本的层面上，它与可以被认为是悲剧中不幸结局的刻板印象的传统权威知识存在明显的差异。这种刻板印象公然与文献学事实背道而驰，其根源在于一种可以追溯到古代的知识传统，这一传统系统地塑造了中世纪的悲剧(和喜剧)思想，与戏剧和戏剧没有任何联系，并继续对流行的悲剧概念产生强大影响，直到今天。鉴于这种刻板印象，第14章的论点不得不成为一个问题，因为它显然似乎优先考虑大团圆结局。这些意见导致提出了一个最初提案框架中没有预见到的问题，但似乎对项目的最终质量具有决定性作用。亚里士多德的谈判显然与悲剧中不幸结局的刻板印象的影响的历史紧密纠缠在一起，需要对悲剧理论历史中基于事实的语言学知识、特殊的诗学知识和流行的刻板印象知识之间不断变化的关系进行补充调查。只有将这种关系及其相互作用的要点完全纳入结论考虑，才能全面和有意义地描述亚里士多德式的谈判。因此，该项目面临着另一项任务，即在更广泛的知识史背景下，调查悲剧中不幸结局的刻板印象如何显著影响亚里士多德式谈判的轨迹，以及提出的支持或反对柔情诗学的单一论点在多大程度上从对刻板印象的语言学质疑中获利，或继续受到刻板印象制度的支配。通过这项更新建议，该项目打算结合以前的工作，为理解悲剧作出开创性的贡献，使人们认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.