Fitting the Mold of Aristotle Tragic Hero - Research Paper Example

? Oedipus: Fitting the Mold of Aristotle’s Tragic Hero OEDIPUS: FITTING THE MOLD OF ARISTOTLE’S TRAGIC HERO Thesis: Sophocles’ Oedipus exemplifies Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero because it follows the latter’s elements of a tragic plot, the character’s flaws, and the diction includes irony and images of human flaws, where despite this weaknesses, the greatest tragedy is that Oedipus does not deserve his fate since the gods controlled his destiny from the beginning, and therefore, he is inherently innocent, and yet he falls to complete disgrace. I. Introduction A. Oedipus is paradoxically a hero and a villain. B. This essay analyzes Sophocles’ Oedipus, exploring if it fits Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero. C. Sophocles’ Oedipus exemplifies Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero because it follows the latter’s elements of a tragic plot, the character’s flaws, and diction includes irony and images of human flaws, where despite this weaknesses, the greatest tragedy is that Oedipus does not deserve his fate since the gods controlled his destiny from the beginning, and therefore, he is inherently innocent, and yet he falls to complete disgrace. II. Oedipus follows Aristotle’s description of a tragedy. A. The plot is not an ordinary tragedy. B. The plot is whole, complete and has unity of action. C. The plot considers serious dramatic action around a person of high social status. D. The plot is more important than the characters. E. The hamartia represents the mistake of a hero. F. Oedipus has a complex plot because of “reversal of intention” (peripeteia) and “recognition” (anagnorisis), which is related to the hero’s catastrophe. III. Oedipus has some tragic flaws. A. He manifests hubris. 1. He disrespects Teiresias. 2. He misjudges Creon. B. He conducted impure deeds. 1. He killed his father. 2. He slept with his mother. 3. He brought a curse to his homeland. IV. The play has diction that illustrates that Oedipus suffered a fate he could not change; thus, his tragedy is his helplessness and hopelessness. A. Oedipus moira is sealed. B. He started with outstanding reputation and good fortune. C. Sophocles described the “catharsis of pity and fear.” D. Hamartia is action, not character. V. Conclusion A. Oedipus is a tragedy in Aristotle’s terms because of its dramatic complex plot. B. It shows the tragedy of an upright man who cannot change his ill fortune. C. The action in the plot is the tragedy, not the character. D. Oedipus does not deserve a tragic life, which makes his downfall a great Aristotelian tragedy. Oedipus is paradoxically a hero and a villain. He initially saves a whole city from the Sphinx, but because of his real identity, he brings a deadly curse to it later on, and most especially, to his family and himself. This essay analyzes Sophocles’ Oedipus, determining if it fits Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero. In Poetics, Sophocles’ Oedipus exemplifies Aristotle’s definition of a tragic hero because it follows the latter’s elements of a tragic plot, explores the character’s flaws, and narrates with a compelling diction that includes irony and images of human flaws, where despite this weaknesses, the greatest tragedy is that Oedipus does not deserve his fate since the gods controlled his destiny from the beginning, and therefore, he is inherently innocent, and yet he falls to complete disgrace. Oedipus follows Aristotle’s description of a tragedy, where Aristotle defined a tragedy as not a mere imitation of a good man suffering a misfortune. A tragedy is not historical but is an account of what might be true. Scheepers (2005) described what Aristotle meant by a tragic plot: “Aristotle refutes the ‘simplistically’ structured tragic plot, which involves a good man coming to misfortune, as completely immoral, and rejects the simple moral plot, in which a bad man succumbs to hardship, as utterly untragic” (p.137). Instead, Aristotle uses the notion of hamartia, which can be defined as an account or action of error (Scheepers, 2005, p.137). The plot of Oedipus arises from the flaws in actions of Oedipus’ parents, who tried to defy their twisted fates. Laius only wants to avoid being murdered by his son. He does not want to lose his wife and throne to his killer son. Jocasta, although unwilling as a mother, seeks to avoid an incestuous relationship and the death of her husband. They cannot be morally blamed for their actions of seeking to get rid of their infant child. The audience cannot easily censure them for their actions, in light of their atrocious destiny. The play is also a tragedy, compared to other forms of literature, because it is whole, complete, and has unity of action. The plot is complete because it consists of a beginning, middle, and an end. The beginning pertains to the “incentive moment,” where a series of cause-and-effect events transpire to set the story in motion (McManus, 1999, par.5). The pure causes are not highlighted in Oedipus, but the effects are clear. The plague compels Oedipus to promise that he will find the murderer of Laius and put him to justice. He even curses the murderer for destroying the peace and development of his people. Oedipus becomes so intent in finding the killer that he calls Teiresias for help. The blind man accuses Oedipus, which enrages the latter enough to ridicule the blindness of the former. Oedipus also charges Creon for setting the former up for the fall because of political rivalry. The two inevitably quarrel. Jocasta narrates the story of where Laius was killed, which unsettles Oedipus, for he killed a man on the same road. The middle of the story is the climax of the tragedy, where the account of the Herdsman confirms Oedipus’ worst fears. Catastrophe happens when Jocasta commits suicide, and Oedipus blinds himself. The ending is a fitting resolution to the tragic hero’s actions. He goes to self-exile and leaves his daughters and kingdom behind to Creon. Aristotle described the “rapid cause-and-effect chain from the climax to the resolution the ‘unravelling’ (lusis), in modern terminology the denouement (context)” (McManus, 1999, par.5). Indeed, the unraveling establishes several shocking events, from the death of Jocasta to the self-blinding of Oedipus. Furthermore, the play is complete with unity of action. Aristotle believed that a well-written play is self-contained (McManus, 1999, par.6). All events are connected to one another. The unity of action neglects episodic storytelling, and instead, Oedipus flows from a series of causes and effects, with the effects more pronounced than the last. Aside from completeness and coherence, Oedipus fits the notion of Aristotelian tragedy because it considers serious dramatic action around a person of high social status. A serious tragedy is long enough and has universal significance. McManus (1999) described the length of a good tragedy: “Aristotle argues that plots should not be too brief; the more incidents and themes that the playwright can bring together in an organic unity, the greater the artistic value and richness of the play” (par.7). Oedipus is not too brief because it shows diverse events, including the discussions of the Chorus on the events and Oedipus’ fate. The events are also related to one another, without any strand proving to be too much for the story. Furthermore, Oedipus is considered a serious tragedy. McManus (1999) accentuated the quality of good tragic plays: “Also, the more universal and significant the meaning of the play, the more the playwright can catch and hold the emotions of the audience, the better the play will be” (par.7). Oedipus has universal themes: free will versus fate and the difference between hubris and wisdom. Though scholars disagree in their arguments whether Oedipus did have fatal flaws that led to his downfall, or he is merely a victim of his god-given fate, they agree that Oedipus presents meaningful themes across cultures and societies (Adade-Yeboah, Ahenkora, & Amankwah, 2012; Scheepers, 2005). Aristotle defined a tragedy that must surround a person of high reputation. Adkins (1966) noted that Aristotle was not referring to a perfect man as a tragic hero but someone who is actually a mixture of integrity and human frailty (p.78). However, the hero must be prominent and belong to high social class. Indeed, Oedipus is a high-status character. He is not only wealthy but also powerful, and before his downfall, he is shown as a benevolent and fair ruler and a loving family man. His solid reputation goes beyond his home and resonates in his entire kingdom. The plot of a tragedy for Aristotle is more important than the characters. Aristotle is not saying that characters are wholly unimportant, but they are secondary to the plot. Woodruff (2009) explained that Aristotle wanted to focus on the actions of the characters (p.302). He says: “Aristotle works with an implicit theory of agents that is plot based, rather than character based. Character makes agents interesting and plausible, but it does not make them the particular agents that they are” (Woodruff, 2009, p.302). The plot is not simply based on an imitation of reality, which makes tragedy more plot-driven than character-driven. Indeed, Oedipus is plot-compelled. Actions happen from one point to another without fully highlighting the roles and functions of the characters. In addition, the plot is so important that hamartia is not interpreted as inner fatal flaws, but mistakes in action. Scheepers (2005) argued that Oedipus is innocent: “Oedipus, his heroic temperament notwithstanding, is inherently innocent and undeserving of his fate, which, as such, renders Oedipus Rex a tragedy par excellence” (p.137). He asserted that Oedipus did not deserve to fall from his glory at all because the actions around him ensured his destiny. Adade-Yeboah et al. (2012) agreed and stated that hamartia represents “a going wrong” (p.10). They emphasized that “the genuine tragic situation” relies on an “impetuous act which has no element of malice” (Adade-Yeboah et al., 2010, p.10). Oedipus does not intend to do all his wrongs. He is a victim of the gods’ decisions for his fate. Oedipus is also a tragedy in Aristotelian terms because it has a complex plot that includes “reversal of intention” (peripeteia) and “recognition” (anagnorisis), which is related to the hero’s catastrophe (McManus, 1999, par.7). The reversal of intention happens when Oedipus changes his fortune, not because he is evil or arrogant but because of his ignorance of his identity. This dramatic irony fits Aristotle’s idea of a tragedy, where a man falls to disgrace without his full complicity and free will. Oedipus’ only mistake is that he wanted to know the truth, even if as he inched nearer it, it became more and more evident that he is Laius’ murderer. At the same time, Oedipus does not want to know the truth for his own sake only but because of his good intentions for his people. As a noble leader, he intends to bring back happiness and life to his kingdom. McManus (1999) argued that “Oedipus is not morally guilty, but he is radically ignorant, and Sophocles does not present him as a unique case but rather as a paradigm of the human condition” (par. 8). The Chorus states: What man, what man on earth wins more of happiness than a seeming and after that turning away? Oedipus, you are my pattern of this, Oedipus, you and your fate! (Sophocles, n.d., stasimon 5) Oedipus cannot escape his fate. The anagnorisis happens in the middle, when the climax reveals the true identity of Oedipus. His destiny is etched in stone, a true tragedy of his existence. Because of the complexity of a tragic plot, hamartia can be interpreted as flaws, too, where Oedipus has some tragic weaknesses. Oedipus manifests hubris; he disrespects Teiresias. He chides his oracle without understanding its implications, its vestiges of truth. Blindness and darkness are images of Oedipus’ hidden identity. Oedipus is also metaphorically blind to the truth, while Teiresias is only physically blind, but he sees the truth. Furthermore, Oedipus misjudges Creon. He charges him for plotting a political ploy to oust him. Politics became central to Oedipus, making it look like he is a paranoid despotic king. But this paper asserts that his reactions to these events in his life were not immoral, but normal. Oedipus is confused because it seems that he has grown up with lies, not the truth. Only near the middle of the play does he learn that he is an adopted son. From here, the events swiftly unfurl. Oedipus realizes that he conducted impure deeds. He killed his father, slept with his mother, and impregnated her. As if he did not shame his family enough, he brought a curse to his homeland. These actions, however, are not his deliberate doing. If he knew who he was, maybe his fortune changed. His inner weaknesses remain as not the causes of the tragedy of the play. The play also fits the Aristotelian view of a tragedy because it has diction that illustrates that Oedipus suffered a fate he could not change; thus, his tragedy is his helplessness and hopelessness. Oedipus “moira” is sealed. His parents’ fate is intertwined with his. They tried to change it, but they only set the course of that fate rolling closer to their lives. Oedipus started with outstanding reputation and good fortune. He is the ideal man to some extent because of his good intentions for Thebes and his family. Sophocles described the “catharsis of pity and fear,” when Oedipus learns his true identity (Battin, 1974, p.80) and realizes his impurity. The audience pities him for his unintentional malice. Oedipus fears for his children. He fears for his people. He tears out his eyes as a symbol of being blind to the truth, being blind to the knowledge of his forlorn destiny. This paper asserts, nevertheless, that “hamartia” is action, not character. The greatest tragedy is not inside Oedipus. He does not deserve his ruined family and kingdom. The most innocent of all suffers the worst ending. Oedipus – loveless, powerless, and dehumanized – banishes himself. He takes accountability for actions that he did not willfully commit. His tragedy is a human tragedy of universal value because he takes responsibility for his fate, no matter how unjust and shocking it is. Oedipus is a tragedy in Aristotle’s terms because of its dramatic complex plot. Sophocles narrated a coherent complex narrative of a great man who falls down so hard from a high social pedestal. Oedipus shows the tragedy of an upright man who cannot change his ill fortune. He might be a good man, even an exemplary Greek leader. However, Oedipus is just a mortal being. The gods hold his fate, and he has no free will to change it. The action in the plot is the tragedy, not the character flaws of Oedipus. Oedipus does not deserve a turbulent, tragic life, which makes his downfall one of the greatest Aristotelian tragedies. References Adade-Yeboah, A., Ahenkora, K., & Amankwah, A.S. (2012). The tragic hero of the classical period. English Language & Literature Studies, 2(3), 10-17. Adkins, A.W.H. (1966). Aristotle and the best kind of tragedy. The Classical Quarterly, 16(1), 78-102. Battin, M. P. (1974). Aristotle's definition of tragedy in the Poetics. Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 33(2), 155-170. McManus, B.F. (1999). Outline of Aristotle's theory of tragedy in the Poetics. Retrieved from http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html Scheepers, I. (2005). Fate and divine working in Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. Akroterion, 50, 137-144. Sophocles. (n.d.). Oedipus the King. Retrieved from http://www.bartleby.com/8/5/ Woodruff, P. (2009). Aristotle on character in tragedy, or, who is Creon? What is he? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67(3), 301-309. Read More