No description available.

Ο Αριστοτέλης μετά την πραγμάτευση της ποίησης και του έπους στην Ποιητική του, προσθέτει ένα κεφάλαιο – το 25ο – όπου πραγματεύεται το ειδικό θέμα των αντιρρήσεων που εκδήλωσαν ορισμένοι κριτικοί ενάντια στην ποίηση την ομηρική και το θέμα των αρχών πάνω στις οποίες θα βασισθούν οι απαντήσεις προς τους κριτικούς του Ομήρου. Η ύπαρξη ενός τέτοιου κεφαλαίου κρίνεται ως χρήσιμη καθώς αντικείμενο της ποίησης δεν αποτελεί μόνο η διδαχή της φύσης της ποίησης, αλλά, επίσης, η ορθή κριτική των ποιητικών έργων. Οι λανθασμένες ερμηνείες πολλών αμφίβολων αποσπασμάτων αυτού του κεφαλαίου οφείλονται στo ότι δεν λαμβάνονται υπόψη από τους κριτικούς του Ομήρου τα Πορφύρια ζητήματα (σχόλια), τα οποία περιλαμβάνουν τα ομηρικά προβλήματα του Αριστοτέλη και των μεταγενέστερων Περιπατητικών. / Aristotle interpretating Homer defends him from Homer's opponents and accusers.

This dissertation explores the relevance of recent studies of Aristotle’s comic theory to the central dramatists of early modern England, Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare. Applications of the Poetics to Renaissance English drama tend to treat Aristotle’s theory historically, as a set of concepts mediated to England by continental redactions. But these often conflated the Poetics’ focus on literary form with the Renaissance’s predominant interest in literature’s rhetorical effect, reducing Aristotle’s genuinely speculative theory to a series of often pedantic literary prescriptions. Recent scholarship has both undone these misinterpretations and developed the comic theory latent in the Poetics. Ironically, these studies make Jonson’s and Shakespeare’s comedy look much more Aristotelian than do Renaissance ones. So rather than taking the Poetics simply as a possible source for each dramatist, I read it primarily as a literary theory that, when reinvigorated by modern scholarship, can explain structures and effects arrived at practically by these dramatists. Three recent hypotheses are especially pertinent to Jonson and Shakespeare: that comic hoaxes aim to expose comic error, which is for Aristotle a deviation from the mean of virtue; that “righteous indignation” is the comic emotion equivalent to the “pity and fear” of tragedy; and that catharsis is a clarification, rather than purgation, of reason and emotion. In light of these, I offer detailed readings of four plays that demonstrate these authors’ comic range: from Jonson’s satirical Every Man Out of His Humour to the almost farcical Epicoene, and from Shakespeare’s romantic Much Ado About Nothing to the tragicomic Measure for Measure. These plays demonstrate a variety of ways in which catharsis, the end of drama, results directly from the comic hoax and involves both the audience’s and characters’ experience of indignation and their comprehension of its relationship to the emotions of envy and pity. In each case, Aristotle’s incisive but flexible theoretical framework enables an explanation of the emotional pain present in the these “comedies of affliction” and reveals remarkable similarities between dramatists usually described as direct opposites.

214 Abstract Conceptualization of Mores in Seventeenth-Century French Tragedy This thesis is devoted to the study of interpretations of how tragic characters should be portrayed ("mores", "ethos", "mœurs") in French seventeenth-century theories on Tragedy. The theoretical writings of Jean Chapelain, La Mesnardière, Pierre Corneille, d'Aubignac, René Le Bossu, Rapin, Saint-Évremond, Jean Racine and André Dacier are examined in detail. Their findings are compared with the Latin and Italian commentaries on how the Aristotelian notion "character" ("éthé", "éthos") ought to be perceived and understood and what its impact is on dramatic action. The main focus is paid to the detailed analysis of very divergent and often incompatible interpretations of the four Aristotelian conditions outlined briefly in Chapter XV of Poetics and on how the French theorists and dramatists responded to Aristotle's requirements. The first condition requires dramatic character to be "good of its kind" ("chrestos", "ethos" "chreston", "ethe chresta"). The detailed study of contemporary criticism draws us to a conclusion that there are schematically two approaches on how the French theorists conceptualized this very elusive criterion. Whereas Chapelain in his Préface à l'Adone explicitely rejects the moral meaning of "chrestos" and thus...