Literary tragedy has roots that extend two and a half millennia into the past, but throughout this history the genre’s defining characteristics have remained the same. At the very core of tragedy lies an uncertainty over the cause of the tragic predicament. The leading candidate for an explanation of this cause often comes under the name of hamartia, a Greek word that translates into “a defect in character”, “an error” or “a mistake.” However, the most common conception (or misconception) of this notion is that it involves “a moral or intellectual weakness,” a view that often leads scholars to regard hamartia as the answer to questions of tragic flaw. Care must be taken in making this assumption since no element in tragedy bears easy explanation and since the exact nature of hamartia itself is impossible to pinpoint.
In this spirit of uncertainty and as Aristotle’s conception of the “ideal” tragedy, Oedipus the King revolves around just such an elusive “why”. This play, like all tragedies, defies our notions of cause and effect–no single action or fault of the hero could have rightly vaulted him into the intense shame of incest and patricide. In the incessant search for what could have created this downfall, one line of thought gives responsibility for Oedipus’ story to the heavy hand of destiny. If this theory is to be believed, his entire life can be viewed as a confirmation of a prophesized fate, much as a reading of the text is a fulfillment of the story we already know. Whether a prewritten destiny dictated the king’s actions, or whether he earned this destiny with the faulted life foreseen by the gods, an analysis of Oedipus’ behaviors may suggest why he was forced to f…
… middle of paper …
…sible to call Oedipus’ faults an object of Sophocles’ exploration. Perhaps, too, the great tragedian sought to illustrate the consequence of such behaviors by associating them with a doomed individual. Though it is difficult to imagine Sophocles offering an Aesop-like lesson, the Greek tragedies always served a civic function to the audience that gathered to view them. Thus it may be reasonable to believe that this drama meant to illuminate the faults that could lead to downfall in the ancient world, and even to caution against them. The unpredictable influences destiny and divinity surely played a role in Oedipus’ decline, but just as significant a contribution to the tragic predicament came from his own failings.
Works Cited:
Sophocles. “Oedipus the King.” The Bedford Introduction to Literature. 5th ed. Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston. Bedford/St. Martin’s. 1999.
Isolation as the Root of Hamlet’s Torment
Isolation as the Root of Hamlet’s Torment
Does Hamlet stand alone? Does this magnate of English literature hold any bond of fellowship with those around him, or does he forge through his quandaries of indecision, inaction and retribution in solitude? Though the young Dane interacts with Shakespeare’s entire slate of characters, most of his discourse lies beneath a cloud of sarcasm, double meaning and contempt. As each member of Claudius’ royal court offers their thickly veiled and highly motivated speech Hamlet retreats further and further into the muddled depths of his conflict-stricken mind. Death by a father, betrayal by a mother, scorn by a lover and abhorrence by an uncle leave the hero with no place to turn, perhaps creating a sense of isolation painful enough to push him towards the brink of madness.
With the supporting cast of detractors circled around him, Claudius clearly constitutes the core of Hamlet’s opposition. The king’s animosity towards Hamlet spreads to the rest of his entourage in the same way that his refusal to mourn his brother’s passing left only the prince in black attire and dark-eyed grief. Claudius and the others each make weakly shrouded attempts to gain Hamlet’s support, but the deafening falsity of their gestures leaves little doubt about their true sentiments. The first appearance of King and nephew together begins with the disingenuous greeting, “But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son-” (1.2, 64) to which Hamlet sardonically retorts, “A little more than kin, and less than kind!” (1.2, 65).
This initial encounter between the two men reveals a sea of mutual hostilities and as a broker of the king’s will, Polonius parallels such an antagonism. The advisor’s first meeting with Haml…
… middle of paper …
…is inaction. The tragic hero walks a very lonely role, and this seclusion probably deserves a mention in literature’s eternal search for the roots of his torment. With words more sage than he realizes, Polonius condenses Hamlet’s entire struggle into a single poignant idea: “The origin and commencement of his grief / Sprung from neglected love” (3.1, 180-181). Polonius and Laertes derail Ophelia’s tenderness, and Claudius’ persuasion steals the heart of Gertrude. A unanimous lack of mourning scoffs at Hamlet’s deep esteem for his fallen father and even the companionship of his childhood friends succumbs to Claudius’ menacing demands. The end result is a huge gulf between ally and adversary, a gulf that ultimately plummeted Hamlet to the depths of psychological torment.
Works Cited:
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman,1997.