Does King Lear Play the Tragic Hero, or the Autocrat?
It is quite possible to make an argument in favour of either answer, an argument that would prove to be quite a debate, although one answer would weigh in favour of the other. To prove this, certain elements would have to be analysed thoroughly, all aspects taken into context and sufficient research done into the matter. This is the only method in which a fair debate of the argument can be taken into consideration.
We can only find the answer to this question if we know what the two arguments mean; this will provide a solid base onto which the rest of the debate can rest, a foundation of fact. Aristotle, a great founder of the definition of tragedy used the word catharsis to describe the effects of true tragedy on the spectator. Aristotle stated that the purpose of tragedy was to invoke pity and terror, and thereby effect the catharsis of these emotions. Other critics see tragedy as a moral lesson in which fear and pity are excited by the tragic hero’s fate serve to warn the spectator not to similarly tempt providence. This interpretation is generally accepted that through experiencing fear vicariously in a controlled situation, the spectators own anxieties are directed outward, and, through sympathetic identification was the protagonist, his insight and outlook are enlarged.
Also, as importantly and significantly, Aristotle introduced the term hamartia, the tragic flaw, or an inherent defect or shortcoming in the hero of a tragedy. Aristotle casually described the tragic hero as a man of noble rank and nature whose misfortune is not brought upon him by villainy or corruption, but by some error of judgement. This imperfection later became known, or interpreted as a moral flaw, although most great tragedies defy such a simple distinction of the term. We could say that in many cases of tragedy the hero is never passive, but struggles to resolve his tragic difficulty with an obsessive dedication, that he is guilty of presuming that he is godlike, attempting to surpass his own human limitations.
The need, or lack of order in a society, could be a reason why the tragedy came to be, and is known in Greek terms as hubris. This ethical and religious thought portrays the resulting implications of impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe. It is the sin to which the great and the gifted are most susceptible, and in Greek tragedy is usually the hero’s tragic flaw.
According to Aristotle, tragedy requires an admirable hero with power and in a high state, but more importantly, he or she possesses a tragic flaw that leads to their downfall. This tragic flaw most closely relates to a character’s hubris, excessive pride in themselves or their judgment. But sometimes a character cannot be categorized as tragic, and one can argue whether or not the tragic character violates the requirements. In Sophocles’ Antigone Creon and Antigone serve as tragic characters in the play; however, Creon’s character exemplifies Aristotle’s theory of tragedy.
In in the plays Oedipus Rex and Death of a Salesman, the concept of hamartia is evident within each protagonist. The tragic characters Oedipus and Willy Loman inherent flaws that ultimately lead to their downfalls. Aristotle describes tragic heroes and hamartia:
The three elements of the tragic hero we incorporated into our play are hamartia, hubris, and catharsis. A tragic hero is a character who makes an error in judgment which ultimately leads to his or her downfall. Hamartia is the tragic flaw or error of judgment which
If we seek to justify Shakespeare's King Lear as a tragedy by applying Arthur Miller's theory of tragedy and the tragic hero, then we might find Lear is not a great tragedy, and the character Lear is hardly passable for a tragic hero. However, if we take Aristotle's theory of tragedy to examine this play, it would fit much more neatly and easily. This is not because Aristotle prescribes using nobility for the subject of a tragedy, but, more importantly, because he emphasizes the purpose of tragedy -- to arouse pity and fear in the audience, and thus purge them of such emotions.
Love can guide people to make crazy decisions, and therefore it can possibly lead to ones fate. Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare is a tragedy in which two lovers took their lives to settle an ancient feud. In contrast, Oedipus the King, written by Sophocles, is where the protagonist is blind to the truth, and therefore gouged his eyes out to deal with his flaw. Although both tragedies are somewhat similar, the difference between them is much greater. Oedipus the King better fits Aristotle’s definition of a tragedy because it demonstrates that the protagonist: endured uncommon suffering, that the tragic hero recognized the consequences of their actions, and that the audience experienced catharsis from the play.
King Lear is at once the most highly praised and intensely criticized of all Shakespeare's works. Samuel Johnson said it is "deservedly celebrated among the dramas of Shakespeare" yet at the same time he supported the changes made in the text by Tate in which Cordelia is allowed to retire with victory and felicity. "Shakespeare has suffered the virtue of Cordelia to perish in a just cause, contrary to the natural ideas of justice, to the hope of the reader, and, what is yet more strange, to the faith of chronicles."1 A.C. Bradley's judgement is that King Lear is "Shakespare's greatest work, but it is not...the best of his plays."2 He would wish that "the deaths of Edmund, Goneril, Regan and Gloucester should be followed by the escape of Lear and Cordelia from death," and even goes so far as to say: "I believe Shakespeare would have ended his play thus had he taken the subject in hand a few years later...."3
In order for a play to be considered a tragedy it must achieve the purgation of fear and pity. In the play “Antigone”, Sophocles does a great job of bringing out these two emotions in a reader. At the beginning of the play there is a conversation between Antigone and her sister Ismene. During the conversation the reader learns the two girls lost their father in battle and both of their brothers at the hands of one another. Then the reader learns that one of the brothers, Polynices, has been left out to die without a proper burial. At this time the reader begins to feel pity for the two sisters. They have lost their father and their two brothers all at the same time.
A tragedy is defined as a dramatic composition, often in verse, dealing with a serious or somber theme, typically that of a great person destined through a flaw of character or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or society, to downfall or destruction. The play Antigone by Sophocles displays many qualities that prove to form into the epitome of a tragedy. Tragedy is usually marked with a person of great standing—in this case, a King—who falls because of hubris, or extreme pride. Antigone proves to live up to both of these definitions which is proven through its themes. Sophocles uses many techniques in this tragedy to contribute to the overall theme. This theme is accomplished by creating emotions in the readers to evoke the understanding of the theme. In the play Antigone, Sophocles uses the themes of pride, power, and femininity to convey his overall theme of tragedy.
Tragic events can happen as a result of accidents, misunderstandings, or specific situations, hence, they relate little to others. However, tragedy is rooted in the order of our universe because it reveals hypothetical situations that can occur at any time or place. This feeling of uncertainty arouses feelings of pity and fear because we can imagine ourselves having to face tragedy. In Aristotle's Poetics, Aristotle defines tragedy as, “a representation of an action of serious stature and complete, having magnitude, in language made pleasing in distinct forms in its separate parts, imitating people acting and not using narration, accomplishing by means of pity and fear the cleansing of these states of feeling” (Aristotle, 26). A dramatic composition that captures the true essence of suffering and awakens our senses is one that Aristotle would call a tragedy worthy of our praise. He notes, “It is clear first that decent men ought not to be shown changing from good to bad fortune (since this is neither frightening nor pitiable but repellent) and people of bad character ought not to be shown changing from bad to good fortune (since this is the most untragic thing of all, for it has none of the things a tragedy needs, since it neither arouses love for humanity nor is it pitiable or frightening)” (Aristotle, 36).
Courageous and admirable with noble qualities defines a heroine. In Aristotle’s Poetics he describes a tragic hero as a character who is larger than life and through fate and a flaw they destroy themselves. Additionally, Aristotle states excessive pride is the hubris of a tragic hero. The hero is very self-involved; they are blind to their surroundings and commit a tragic action. A tragedy describes a story that evokes sadness and awe, something larger than life. Furthermore, a tragedy of a play results in the destruction of a hero, evoking catharsis and feelings of pity and fear among the audience. Aristotle states, "It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation." (18) For a tragedy to arouse fear, the audience believes similar fate might happen to them and the sight of the suffering of others arouses pity. A tragedy's plot includes peripeteia, anagnorisis, hamartia and catharsis. Using Aristotle’s criteria, both characters in Oedipus The King and The Medea share similar qualities that define a tragic hero such as being of noble birth, having excessive pride, and making poor choices. They both gain recognition through their downfall and the audience feels pity and fear.
According to the Aristotelian characteristics of good tragedy, the tragic character should not fall due to either excessive virtue or excessive wickedness, but due to what Aristotle called hamartia. Hamartia may be interpreted as either a flaw in character or an error in judgement. Oedipus, the tragic character in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, certainly makes several such mistakes; however, the pervasive pattern of his judgemental errors seems to indicate a basic character flaw that precipitates them.
The genre of tragedy has captivated audiences for centuries. Despite rather macabre subject matter, tragedies are amongst the most revered and elevated pieces of art. Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed the idea of hamartia, a phrase that captures the ideal element of a tragedy. Aristotle believed that a flaw or error could be found in the hero’s actions that set into place the tragic events to befall the hero. Aristotle’s concept is useful in trying to understand Hamlet and Othello, two Shakespearean tragedies. While the heroes of the plays face great conflict from their enemies, it is ultimately their own selves that causes them to take drastic actions that creates the course
. . . From the thirteenth chapter of the Poetics we learn that the best sort of tragic hero is a man highly esteemed and prosperous who falls into misfortune because of some serious hamartia: examples, Oedipus and Thyestes. In Aristotle’s view, then, Oedipus’ misfortune was directly ocasioned by some serious hamartia. . . . The word hamartia is ambiguous: in ordinary usage it is sometimes applied to false moral judgments, sometimes to purely intellectual error - the average Greek did not make our sharp distinction between the two(18-19). This view of a tragic flaw, moral or intellectual in nature, within the protagonist is not shared by all literary critics. Robert D. Murray, Jr. in “Thought and Structure in Sophoclean Tragedy” gives a formalist’sperspective on the issue: For the formalists, A. J. A. Waldock answers the moralists with appealing indigantion, in his discussion of the Oedipus Tyranus: We know little of Sophocles’ religion. . . . He believed that there are ups and downs in fortune, and that men are never secure. . . . There is no meaning in the Oedipus Tyrannus. There is merely the terror of coincidence, and then, at the end of it all, our impression of man’s power to suffer, and of his greatness because of this power. Now Waldock’s reaction is surely a needed response to the ultramoralistic notion that Sophocles was driven by an urge to warn his contemporaries that they should not be rash or proud lest a vengeful
A modern tragedy of today and a tragedy of ancient Greece are two very different concepts, but ironically, both are linked by many similarities. In “Poetics”, Aristotle defines and outlines tragedy for theatre in a way that displays his genius, but raises questions and creates controversy. Aristotle’s famous definition of tragedy states:
Oedipus is a magnificent man. He is also the perfect example of a tragic hero. He solves the riddle of the great sphinx, which leads him to become the king of Thebes. This success suggests both good morals and the intelligence to put these morals to help those he now rules over. This event and morals cause the reader to develop an understanding or connection to Oedipus as a man more than a fictional character. This love for the protagonist is necessary for a tragedy to exist and in Aristotle’s The Poetics it states, “ In order for the audience to experience catharsis, they must believe in the character and be able to identify with him/her. Only then can the fate of that character cause the readers to experience pity, fear, sorrow, and—finally—purging”(Aristotle’s Poetics Summarize). Catharsis is necessary for a true tragedy to exist; these moments can be emotional or even spiritual for the reader. Aristotle is trying to portray that the reader must be able to connect with the protagonist or the catharsis will not be as great. A tragedy characterizes humans as having godl...