King Laius and Queen Jocasta in Hamlet - Essay Example

?CHARACTER IS FATE The intellectual debate on the topic of the role of destiny on man’s life has been in vogue for the last several centuries. The writers, scholars and philosophers appear to be at divergence regarding the very notion whether it is destiny that determines the character of the individuals or it is character, which is responsible in making or destroying man’s fate at the end. Literary pieces have been created, discussions have been launched, evidences have been deployed and analyses have been drawn in order to determine the position and influence of both character and fate on each another. The scholars have also sought inspiration from the books of history as well as from the Biblical stories and themes, which aptly support the very idea that man’s destiny has already been decided by the Creator; The cite the prophecies regarding the arrival of Moses, Christ and Paraclete, and the spread of virtue, peace and liberty in the world in the aftermath of their arrival, which had been made hundreds of years before their arrival on the earth. Moreover, renowned soothsayers, seers, astrologists and numerologists also used to augur about the life and glorious deeds would be performed by the outstanding personalities and charismatic spiritual, political, military and religious leaders, belonging to various societies of the globe, many years before their birth even. The present study aims to discuss the theory character is fate in the light of the classical plays Oedipus the King and Hamlet produced by Sophocles and William Shakespeare respectively. Celebrated poet and distinguished playwright of ancient Greece Sophocles has described the role of fate in the life and character of humans in his magnum opus Oedipus the King. “Sophocles’ Oedipus the King is a classic work of literature that opens our minds to the possibility of preordained destiny, which is a timeless theory that holds as much importance in our lives today is it did for those who lived in Sophocles’ time.” (associatedcontent.com) The remarkable tragic play vehemently declares destiny as the regulatory authority that controls every important event and incident taking place in human life in such a way that man startles at the silent entrance of both blessings and calamities in his life, where neither any triumph is the outcome of his character, nor any intentional performance or misdeed committed by him is the only cause to invite the misfortunes. As a result, humans appear to be powerless to combat with the misfortunes had been predetermined by Nature for their life. Thus, the entire struggle made by them to escape the most obnoxious incidents of life end in utter fiasco subsequently. Though, the critics also disagree with the notion incurred while interpreting the play that the control of fate over character has been expressed by the author. They are of the opinion that the author has reflected upon the flaws and faults of character, which pave the way towards the fateful end of the protagonist character Oedipus. Since it were Oedipus’s parents, King Laius and Queen Jocasta, who acted upon the piece of advice made by the soothsayer regarding their son’s life by ordering decree to kill Oedipus by throwing him from the hill, they themselves invited the wrath of Nature for their misdeed and malafide intention of killing their innocence infant Oedipus. In addition, Oedipus also displayed unnecessary aggression during his encounter with King Laius, and challenged him to fight and killed him subsequently. Moreover, he also showed extraordinary valour and gallantry while killing the monster, which reveals the impatience and lack of prudence in him. However, these were not the great faults enough for the ruination of the family. However, the blunder mistake made by the King and the Queen by ordering the killing of their innocence child reflected their ruthlessness and caused the fateful end of the family eventually. The plays reveals that the soothsayer had warned the King and Queen that their newly born child would, on growing young, murder his father, and would marry his mother. In order to avoid the calamity and humiliation in the form of the crimes of patricide and incest, the royal couple ordered the killing of the child at the age of three days only. King Laius pierced and pinned his ankles together and gave it to be cast away by others on the trackless mountain side, in order to falsify the prophecy. However, the fate could not be altered at any cost, and the same happened as had been revealed by the soothsayer. Hence, the theme of the tragedy is that humans are absolutely vulnerable in the hands of their fate, and cannot overcome it by devising strategies or playing tricks. It is particularly true while going through the susceptible doom of Queen Jocasta, the ill-fated wife and mother in the tragedy. As the chorus (Lines 1203-1212) enquires the name of the most wretched mother, who has given birth to such an ill-fated child, which would be the murderer of his father and the spouse of his mother in his grown years. Thus, the royal family appeared to be helpless in escaping death and humiliation afflicted upon them because of their fateful destiny. “Shepherd: I had it from another, 'twas not mine. Oedipus: From whom of these our townsmen, and what house? Shepherd: Forbear for God's sake, master, ask no more. Oedipus: If I must question thee again, thou'rt lost. Shepherd: Well then--it was a child of Laius' house. Oedipus: Slave-born or one of Laius' own race? Shepherd: Ah me! I stand upon the perilous edge of speech. Oedipus: And I of hearing, but I still must hear. Shepherd: Know then the child was by repute his own, But she within, thy consort best could tell. Oedipus: What! she, she gave it thee? Shepherd: 'Tis so, my king. Oedipus: With what intent? Shepherd: To make away with it.” (Lines 1202-1212) Queen Jocasta was quite unaware of the fact that such disaster would certainly come in her life. Though being a mother, she resisted the augurs made by the soothsayer, yet her attachment with her consort overcame her maternal affection, and she looked ready for the killing of the newly born for the sake of the King. In the beginning, she persuaded the King not to believe in such prophecies and predictions regarding the fate of the child; however, she was so fearful of the happening of the terrible event to be taken place in future that insisted on the killing of the child in order to avoid any mishap in his future years to come. In the play, Jocasta says “Listen to me and learn some peace of mind—no more murdered his father than Laius suffered” (lines 780-795). The play reveals that Oedipus left no stone unturned to escape the condemnable happenings. He was also well acquainted with the prophecy, and left Corinth city after the death of King Polybus, whom Oedipus regarded as his real father. King Polybus, an issueless ruler of Corinth, had adopted Oedipus as son and had saved his life. In order to avoid the happening of the sad event, Oedipus left Corinth to stay far from Queen Merope, the consort of Polybus. It was also reality that Oedipus saved the entire city of Thebes when the population was undergoing severe calamity. He killed the monster by putting his life in jeopardy, and as a reward the city offered him the Queen Jocasta’s hand quite unknowingly. Since Jocasta was also ignorant of this bitter fact; however, there existed some fear and anxiety in the corner of her mind, which forced her pray to God for the immediate removal of the calamity: “Lord of the realm, it occurred to me—Look at us, passengers in the grip of fear, watching the pilot of the vessel go to pieces” (lines 998-1011). Oedipus was so disturbed by the disclosure of the Oracle that he requested the Queen to call for the servant had been assigned the task of killing the child for enquiry. Oedipus says “I began to see a herald—he brings down his prod, two prongs straight at my head!” (Lines 885-892) Though King Laius and Queen Jocasta intentionally tried to kill their infant child to escape the tragedy, and Oedipus left Corinth city for the same purpose, yet the family could not manage to fall the victim to circumstances. Hence, they had to undergo the loss of the life of King Laius and Queen Jocasta on the one hand, and the tragic ruination of Oedipus Rex on the other. The entire circumstances took place because of the weakness of the characters of the King and Queen, and their son also had to pay ransom amount for the crime committed by his parents. The same state of affairs could be observed by going through Shakespearean tragedy Hamlet. Shakespeare’s Hamlet is viewed as one of the greatest tragic hero among the literatures of the world at large. “Shakespearean tragedies define goodness in an eloquent mode, where slightest weakness of character annihilates the great ambitions of the hero.” (Daiches, 2003, p. 775) The play describes how weaknesses and flaws present in a character leads towards the destruction and tragic end of the possessor at large. The play begins with the state of mystery, where the protagonist Prince Hamlet is informed regarding the conspiracy behind the sudden and awful death of his father through the ghost of the deceased. (Act I, Scene V) Instead of taking immediate action against the offenders, the protagonist started pretending insanity in order to detect the validity of the truth, and delays the revenge. In addition, his unnecessary laziness and delays turn the courtiers too against him, where Hamlet develops enmity with the King’s cat’s paw and influential figures of the royal court including Polonius, his son Laertes and others. It is therefore Laertes warns his sister Ophelia of the “low-man” Hamlet, and forbids her from getting involved with the prince. Her father, Polonius, also warns her in the same lines and tone as Laertes has applied to alert her of the Prince’s fake feelings for Ophelia. (Act I, Scene III) Hamlet even puts a deaf ear to Ophelia’s pure love and commitment with him, and creates such an environment that she undergoes madness and subsequently takes her life by committing suicide out of the feelings of utter disappointment and dejection. (Act IV, Scene VII) The weakness of character can be explored by looking into the developments being made in the play. Hamlet at first blamed his mother, Queen Gertrude as his very first soliloquy points out his antipathy towards his mother’s second marriage with his uncle, to which Hamlet states as incest. He criticizes this act of his mother in his following soliloquy. “…………………….Heaven and earth!     Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,     As if increase of appetite had grown     By what it fed on: and yet, within a month--     Let me not think on't--Frailty, thy name is woman!--     A little month, or ere those shoes were old     With which she follow'd my poor father's body,     Like Niobe, all tears:--why she, even she--     O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,     Would have mourn'd longer—” (Act I, Scene II, Lines 142-151) Hamlet also humiliates his mother through the words delivered by the player queen at the offer of marriage made by the player king: “A second time I kill my husband dead,     When second husband kisses me in bed.” (Act III, Scene II) In addition, Hamlet also looks suspicious of every character around him. Although some of these suspicions are justified, but reveal his imbalance personality, where he consumes his precious time and energies in destroying the puppets like Polonius and the clowns instead of combating with the real culprit and the murderer of his father i.e. King Claudius. His lack of decision power and inability to take quick actions also cause his personal ruination in the long run. He observes many opportunities of killing Claudius, but hesitated lest killing him during offering his prayers may invite the wrath of God. “Now might I do it pat, now he is praying; And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven, And so am I reveng'd. That would be scann'd. A villain kills my father; and for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send To heaven.” (Act III, Scene III, Lines 2355-2361) Moreover, hamlet wages undue fight against Laertes at the eve of Ophelia’s funeral services and burial. Instead of comprehending with the emotional collapse of the brother on the death of his sister, he claims to be having greater right on Ophelia. It was the turning point that infuriates Laertes to such an extent that he challenges the duel to Hamlet. Claudius took full advantage of Hamlet’s emotional situation and prepared the nefarious plan of killing him at the hands of Laertes. Hamlet has already made delays particularly after “checking the conscious of the King by arranging for the performing of the play disclosing the death scene of his father according to the instructions made by the ghost. As Hamlet says: “The play is the thing; Wherein, I’ll catch the conscious of the king.” (Act II, Scene II, Lines 603-605) Since Hamlet has already detected the King’s crime, he must have taken his revenge without making negligence altogether. However, he was not quick enough to take action accordingly. As a result, he provided his enemy the opportunity for devising the successful plan of killing Hamlet. Furthermore, Hamlet’s imprudent act of developing enmity with Laertes proved too fatal to take his life. His lack of decision, negligence and absence of promptness caused the ruination of the entire family eventually. To sum up the above discussion, it becomes evident that it is the drawbacks and faults of human character that often become their destiny and lead towards the fateful end of human beings. While discussing Sophocles’ play, one comes to know that the protagonist Oedipus was somewhat faultless and free from criminal acts, though he unintentionally killed his father because of the unavoidable circumstances. However, the crimes committed by his parents bring the news of the ruination of the entire nation. On the other hand, in Shakespearean tragedy, Hamlet could not resist himself from postponing his revenge plans to teach the offender a remarkable lesson. The negative characters and villains including King Claudius, Polonius and Laertes also became victim to circumstances because of their crimes, conspiracies and haughtiness respectively. On the contrary, the hero tasted the death in a magnificent manner by killing his rival and the murderer of his father at the cost of his own life. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Daiches, David. (2005) A Critical History of English Literature Secker & Warburg London pp. 126- 697 2. Evans, Ifor. (2004) A Short History of English Literature Penguin Books Sixth Edition pp. 141- 209 3. Power of the Gods: A Literary Analysis of Oedipus 4. Responding to one’s Destiny with Arrogance May Lead to Disaster Retrieved from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1657096/power_of_the_gods_a_literary_analysis.html?cat=38 5. Shakespeare, Sir William (2003) Hamlet Edited by Richard Andrews and Rex Gibson Second Edition, Cambridge University Press pp. 1-254 Retrieved from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/18748/frontmatter/9780521618748_frontmatter.pdf 6. Sophocles, Tyrannus (1970) Oedipus the King Translated and edited by Luci Berkowitz and Theodore F. Brunner Read More

 

Read More