No Doubt a Tragic Hero, Research Paper Example

Aristotle defines the attributes of tragedy in his famous work Poetics. According to Aristotle, tragedy is a specific form of art with definable elements that work together harmoniously to produce an intended result. That intended result is an emotional catharsis, or purging, in the audience. In order to incite a true catharsis in an audience a tragedy must seamlessly unite a half dozen elements; among the most important of these elements are plot and character. In many ways, these two elements are interchangeable when it comes to applying Aristotle’s theories about the nature of tragedy. The definition of the tragic hero, as the following discussion will show is deeply associated with Aristotle’s understanding of the way plot functions. However, it is through the examination of the tragic hero, itself, that the fullest understanding of Aristotle’s ideas about the nature of tragedy can be gained. Obviously, the classical tragedy Oedipus Rex by Sophocles offers one of the most solid examples of an Aristotelian tragic hero in all of literature. Therefore, the Aristotle’s notion of a tragic hero can be neatly illustrated by the character of Oedipus, as will be evident in the following examination. To begin with, it is important to review exactly how Aristotle defined the tragic hero. Briefly, he defines the tragic hero as embodying three basic principles. These principles are: spoudaios, harmatia, and peripeteia. Each of these qualities plays a crucial role in helping the audience attain a sympathetic identification with the character that later, a feeling which combined with the excitation of pity and fear, results in the aforementioned emotional purging or catharsis that, as previously mentioned, is Aristotle’s conception of the “point” of all tragedy. In fact the emotional catharsis that Aristotle associates with art, and specifically with the construction and function of a tragic hero, is a basis for the way that all art impacts the observer. That said, a closer examination of the three basic characteristics of a tragic hero will help to define Aristotle’s overall definition of tragedy as well as indicating the ways in which Aristotle believed that the various elements of tragedy interacted in an harmonious whole. Any play or other work of art that lacked this exceptional unity was, for Aristotle, a substandard work.

The unity of elements is also present in three basic elements of a tragic hero. The first element, spoudaios, relates to the noble stature of the hero. As is indicated in Poetics, the term spoudaios “is an exalted but very substantial term […]It stands for the aristocratic flair for action and the heroic virtues of excellence, moral gravity, courage, decision, endurance.” (Aristotle, 1997, p. 50). These qualities in the tragic hero help to gain the audience’s respect and identification. The way that the hero is ultimately punished despite, or even because of their original stature of spoudaios is how tragedy and irony are generated through conflict, plot, and resolution. So, in simple terms, a true tragic hero, by Aristotle’s definition, is one who holds great social stature and power, as well as personal virtues.

The second element that is necessary for a tragic hero by Aristotle’s definition is harmartia. This quality is easiest to understand as a ‘fatal flaw” of character. in other words, the greatness of the hero is marred by a specific negative quality or lack of a quality that proves to be powerful enough to bring about a tragic result. The reason that this element is so significant is because it “explains” the purpose of the tragic events of a play in a way that resonates with a moral lesson. The concept of harmartia is deeply important to understanding Aristotle’s concept of the tragic hero. It is true that “ Most modern classical commentators take hamartia to be a ‘mistake’ or ‘error’ […] because that is what the word means” (Aristotle, 1997, p. 94). So the eventual downfall or ruin of tragic hero is rooted in the “flaw” that is present in their character.

This show immediately that action and character are nearly inseparable in Aristotle’s theory of tragedy. The third element specified by Aristotle in terms of the qualities of a tragic hero is peripeteia which indicates the reversal of fate that causes the character’s tragic downfall. The idea of peripeteia is that is both ironic and tragic, as well as being a logical, if surprising outgrowth of the rising action of a given play. The play between logic and illogic is important because “the element of surprise was associated with the illogical or paradoxical, and so with peripeteia and recognition in the complex tragic plot.” (Aristotle, 1997, p. 132). With this idea in mind it is easy to see that what Aristotle believed about tragedy was that it was a method for imposing order and meaning on human experience.

The idea that meaning can be extracted from the tragic event of life or fiction is crucial to Aristotle’s definition of tragedy and of the tragic hero. This is because “The fundamental principle of Aristotle’s theory of character development is that we become what we do, that our actions crystallize into character” (Aristotle, 1997, p. 50). There is a universal tendency in humanity to forget this simple “law” and when this happens the outcome is what we refer to as “tragic.” The reason that tragedy as an art-form is so profoundly important to people and to culture is that it teaches us again and again the way that character and destiny are related. When we identify closely with a character of stature who gains our sympathy and we are led through a vicarious reversal of fortune and downfall,we ultimately reconnect with our own human propensity for remaining blind to our own hamartia.

The gaining of audience identification and catharsis is accomplished primarily through the creation of the tragic hero which, in turn, solidifies the other elements of tragedy together. This demonstrates clearly that tragedy, “By its organic unity, and its implicit universality, […]works upon the feelings of the audience” (Barnes, 2000, p. 133) and that it does so through the basic process of character identification and the gaining of the audience’s emotional involvement (and investment) in the story. The emotional investment made by an audience in regard to a tragic hero is one that ultimately resolves in catharsis. Therefore the true role of the tragic hero is not only to embody the three principles outlined above, but to gain the sympathy and identification of an audience.

Al of these elements are evident in the title-character of Sophocles’ play Oedipus Rex. In all respects, the character of Oedipus embodies the qualities of a tragic hero that are enumerated and detailed by Aristotle in Poetics. To begin with the quality of spoudaios, Oedipus embodies this quality in the most obvious ways: he is royalty by birth, a Prince of Thebes. he is also royalty by virtue of being adopted by Polybus and Merope. Furthermore, he is elected King of Thebes. These formal titles reinforce his stature as a grand figure with enviable qualities. Also important to his spoudaios is that fact that Oedipus is a good leader and a righteous noble. He shows courage, compassion, honor, and rationality, so much that the people whoa re his subjects revere and honor him with love. Oedipus responds to the reverence and love of the people by being a concerned and loving ruler in return.

These elements of Oedipus’ character are shown not only by the direct characterization of him in the play, but through the lot and “spectacle” of the action on stage. The book Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond (1998) remarks that not only are the characters and plot of Oedipus essential toward creating the catharsis of tragedy, but the entire presentation of the play feeds into this dynamic. The basis of tragedy for Aristotle is in the tragic hero’s downfall and though much of the basis of tragic impact results from the audience perceiving “great men such as Oedipus fall from happiness to misery–Aristotle cannot deny that fear and pity arise as much from the spectacle itself as from the orchestration of the dramatic action.” (Silk, 1998, p. 19). this is an important quality to keep in mind when exploring spoudaios in relation to the character of Oedipus because so much of the information about his noble stature and later fall emerges from the spectacle and plot of the play.

The second quality of the tragic hero that is embodied by Oedipus is harmartia. As mentioned previously, this quality relates to the “mistake” or “flaw” in the tragic hero’s character that becomes an agent by which tragedy is experienced. In the case of Oedipus, his tragic flaw is difficult for some readers to understand because it is not an obvious character flaw such as greed or pride. Rather, the fatal flaw that plagues Oedipus is his intellectual one-sidedness. It is the part of his character that causes him to misinterpret the portents and omens around him. this kind of mental blindness is symbolized ironically both by Oedipus becoming blind at the conclusion of the play and by the blind prophet Tiresias, who can see the truth of the tragedy despite his physical lack of sight. The ironic contrast between the two kinds of blindness sheds a lot of light on just what kind of tragic flaw is at work in the case of Oedipus.

This central dynamic is shown in Oedipus’ address to Tiresisas, when he says “Tiresias, you are master of the hidden world. You can read earth and sky, you know what knowledge to reveal and what to hide. Though your eyes can’t see it, your mind is well aware of the plague that afflicts us.” (Sophocles, 2004, p. 46). This double-meaning of the words becomes apparent to the audience but remains tragically hidden from Oedipus himself. That basic inversion of knowledge and “sight” is the foundation of the intellectual blindness that incites the tragic events of the play. Although it is not an obvious “fatal flaw,” the intellectual blindness of Oedipus is of a profound thematic importance in the play as well as serving as an agent of the plot and character development. The intellectual blindness of Oedipus is important because it shows how difficult it is to lead and to be a true noble of substance because all of a person’s virtues can be nullified by a single flaw such as the type of intellectual narrowness that afflicts Oedipus.

This aspect is often forwarded not only by the characterization on the page, but by the actors’ portrayal of the part “an actor’s performance can clearly influence our perception of a tragedy. (Palmer, 1992, p. 126) One of the more interesting aspects of the play is that Sophocles uses Oedipus’ harmartia as a method to create a feeling of irony for the audience. The basis for this irony is that the audience knows key elements of the plot and reality of situation that Oedipus remains blind to, and therefore to some extent the audience is placed in a higher position of knowledge than Oedipus, which allows for a greater degree of pity and sympathy on behalf of the audience. The fact is that “the audience was put in the position of ironic observers as they grasped the mistaken assumptions that Oedipus made in his search for the truth. (Beer, 2004, p. 99). this device creates a great dal of emotional involvement from the audience and therefore heightens the potential for catharsis.

Finally, in regard to the “reversal of fortune” element of the tragic hero that Aristotle recognized as a crucial aspect of the creation of a tragic hero, the character of Oedipus embodies peripeteia in a singularly dramatic fashion. He goes from being an enlightened and beloved ruler who si viewed as being almost god-like to a blind and repentant murderer. The basis of his reversal of fortune is in his harmartia, but it is made all that much more painful by the fact that even after his downfall, Oedipus continues to embody many of the heroic virtues that originally made him king of Thebes. The audience, not fully sympathetic to Oedipus participates emotionally in his peripeteia , which ultimately leads to the purging or catharsis that Aristotle identified as the “purpose” of tragedy. When Oedipus at last faces the full impact of his downfall he tells Creon “May the gods guard you better than they did me.” (Sophocles, 2004, p. 81). This statement shows that Oedipus respects the fact that he bears responsibility for his own actions, but it also shows that he has become aware of the role of fate in human existence, a role which diminishes the intellectual certainty and pride that once contributed to his harmartia.

In this play, “Sophocles shows us, in concrete, emotional terms, a human being possessed of deep resources of spirit who is afflicted with an overwhelming disaster of unpredictable, irrational suffering but is not totally annihilated by it” (Segal, 2001, p. 113). the ultimate perseverance and humanity that is shown by Oedipus is not strictly speaking a part of Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero, but it forwards the idea of humanity as a noble species. In this respect, the character of Oedipus must be regarded as being both a quintessential example of Aristotle’s tragic hero, and a character of tremendous humanity and positivism.

References

Aristotle. (1997). Aristotle’s Poetics (G. Whalley, Trans.; J. Baxter & P. Atherton, Eds.). Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Barnes, J. (2000). Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beer, J. (2004). Sophocles and the Tragedy of Athenian Democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Palmer, R. H. (1992). Tragedy and Tragic Theory: An Analytical Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Segal, C. (2001). Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Silk, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sophocles. (2004). The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles: Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Kolonos, and Antigone (R. Bagg, Trans.). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.