No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
The nature of tragedy has always been felt to be a problem, not only by the philosopher, but also, and perhaps even more, by the ordinary man. The question so often asked is: why, if there is so much suffering already in the world, do we want to go to a theatre or read a story describing more suffering? Why indeed should the spectacle of suffering ever be pleasing to us? Yet it is obvious that olarge numbers of ordinary people do like reading or seeing tragedies; and that there are some tragedies which are generally judged to be the most valuable works of literary art ever produced. What then is the nature of the value which we extract from these works? That is the question to which I would like to address myself.
page 146 note 1 Dryden, Astraea Redux.
page 146 note 2 Bradley, F. H., “Pleasure, Pain, Desire and Volition,” in Mind, 01 1888, p 5Google Scholar.
page 147 note 1 Browning, Rabbi ben Ezra.
page 149 note 1 Browning, The Ring and the Book—Guido's last speech, ll. 2375, etc.
page 150 note 1 Marston, Prologue to Antonio's Revenge.
page 151 note 1 Schiller, Wallenstein's Lager, concluding lines.
page 153 note 1 Bradley, A. C., Shakespearean Tragedy, pp. 19–23Google Scholar.
page 157 note 1 Job iv. 17.
page 158 note 1 Aristotle, , Ethics, X, 4, 8Google Scholar.
page 158 note 2 Wundt, , Physiologische Psychologie, 6th ed., III, pp. 764–6Google Scholar.