Filho D A
Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 1996;3(3):409-24.
Using the essential elements of tragic action described in Aristotles Poetics, the text compares João Cabral de Melo Neto's Morte e vida severina to Sophocles Oedipus rex with the purpose of bringing to light the tension that exists between human necessity and human action. It is an eminently epidemiological fact that draws a link between these two works. In Morte e vida severina, the causa efficiens behind Severino's decision to migrate is a famine; in Oedipus rex, a plague afflicting the inhabitants of Thebes is the event that hastens discovery of king Laiuss true assassin. It is a reflection on the finalis and formalis causes behind Severino's and Oedipus's movements and on the essential elements of tragic action that allows a transitory falsification or, better put, a rejection of the hypothesis that Morte e vida severina is a tragedy, at least not in Aristotelian terms.
本文运用亚里士多德《诗学》中所描述的悲剧行动的基本要素,将若昂·卡布拉尔·德·梅洛·内托的《塞维里娜的生与死》与索福克勒斯的《俄狄浦斯王》进行比较,目的是揭示人类必然性与人类行动之间存在的张力。正是一个极为典型的流行病学事实将这两部作品联系了起来。在《塞维里娜的生与死》中,塞维里诺决定迁徙背后的动力因是一场饥荒;在《俄狄浦斯王》中,一场折磨底比斯居民的瘟疫是促使发现拉伊俄斯国王真正刺客的事件。对塞维里诺和俄狄浦斯行动背后的目的因和形式因以及悲剧行动的基本要素进行反思后发现,至少从亚里士多德的角度来看,《塞维里娜的生与死》是悲剧这一假设存在暂时的证伪,或者更确切地说,是被否定了。