Analysis of Greek Tragedies - Coursework Example

Greek Tragedy Much of Greek tragedy follows a consistent pattern that was once identified specifically by one eloquent orator. According to Aristotle, every tragedy is structured around three key events. These include hamartia, anagnorisis and peripeteia. Hamartia is commonly referred to today as a tragic flaw (“Aristotle”, 1998). It is the concept that a noble man will fall not as the result of a vengeful god or violation of the god’s laws per se, but rather as a result of some inherent flawed portion of his character that causes him to act in a specific way or make a particular mistake in judgment. This behavior or mistake will be the actual cause of his ruin. Although this mistake or behavior might not immediately appear as an error in judgement as it follows logically from one stage of the story to another, it will eventually become clear that without this, the tragedy would not have occurred. This eventual clarity of perception is what is referred to as anagnorisis. In Aristotelian terms, this word translates to mean recognition (“Aristotle”, 1998). For the audience, this is represented by the usually sudden realization on the part of the protagonist that he (or she) is the primary cause of the suffering or detrimental situation in which they find themselves. This epiphany can reveal not only the true role of the protagonist in the wrongs occurring, but also the true nature of the characters around them. This concept leads naturally into the third element, that of peripeteia. Literally translated, the word means something akin to a sudden reversal based upon logic and intellect (“Aristotle”, 1998). As Aristotle used it, it meant the sudden reversal of fortunes for the protagonist that was at once surprising to the audience, but that also followed naturally as the result of prior actions and events. Although this concept could be traced through the protagonist’s character, it was more often than not used to apply to external circumstances, such as when Oedipus the King learns he is truly the murderer of the old king and his father and is now his mother’s husband (anagnorisis), which results in his becoming a homeless, blind beggar rather than a respected, well-endowed king (peripeteia). Although Oedipus the King was identified by Aristotle himself as being the prime example of a complex tragedy containing all of these elements, they can also be found, to somewhat lesser extent, in the plays The Medea by Euripides and Antigone by Sophicles. A great deal of the tragedy apparent in The Medea has already taken place before the play opens, leaving the bulk of the play open to explore the anagnorisis and peripeteia. In a speech given to Jason upon his arrival at Medea’s home just before they part forever, Medea summarizes their relationship together, illustrating her own hamartia as a combination of pride and love. Blindly destroying all her bridges behind her in her passion for Jason, Medea enumerates the various places to which she cannot now flee as a result of the deeds she has committed on his behalf. “Whither can I turn me now? to my fathers house, to my own country, which I for thee deserted to come hither? to the hapless daughters of Pelias? A glad welcome, I trow, would they give me in their home, whose father’s death I compassed! My case stands even thus: I am become the bitter foe to those of mine own home, and those whom I need ne’er have wronged I have made mine enemies to pleasure thee” (Euripides, 431 B.C.). Even in these things, however, she continues to show her pride in this speech, as she carefully reiterates each mighty deed she performed for Jason that few other mortals could hope to achieve, such as slaying the dragon who guarded the golden fleece and beguiling the daughters of Pelias to commit the murder of their own father. She concludes this list, but not her speech, with the observation, “How short of my hopes I am fallen!”, once again illustrating her high opinion of herself. The majority of the play, however, is concerned with the concept of anagnorisis, or Medea’s realization of her own part in bringing about her destruction, and peripeteia, where Medea plans her revenge upon those she feels have wronged her fully realizing now the damage she is committing on herself. Although she has been planning to take revenge up to this point in the play, after relieving her mind to Jason regarding the many things she’s done for him to make him great, Medea seems to make the connection between her actions and her current state: “I am become the bitter foe to those of mind own home, and those whom I need ne’er have wronged I have made mine enemies to pleasure thee […] O woe is me, if indeed I am to be cast forth an exile from the land, without one friend; one lone woman with her babes forlorn!” By necessity, none of her vengeful plans are enumerated in this particular speech to Jason, yet it cannot be denied Medea eventually comes to peripeteia, going from the position of a happy wife and mother in a well-established home in Corinth to a grieving childless cast out woman with no home and no country. Her speech to Jason only confirms her own role in this reversal of fortune. While it can be easily determined that Antigone echoes her father’s pride and independence in hastening her own end, the character that demonstrates the three elements of Aristotle’s formula for a complex tragedy most within the context of the play remains Creon. This is established early in the play as he utters the words that will eventually doom him to his advisors. As he summarizes the recent history of the state, having gone through Laius, then Oedipus and finally to himself and as the princes of the house of Oedipus become each other’s killer, he suggests that his own reign will be guided by a more careful hand, one that will take into consideration the good of the state over and above the pride of its ruler and guided by the wise counselors available. Discussing the appropriate characteristics of a good ruler, Creon tells his advisors “[…] if any, being supreme guide of the State, cleaves not to the best counsels, but, through some fear, keeps his lips locked, I hold, and have ever held, him most base […] For I […] would not be silent if I saw ruin, instead of safety, coming to the citizens” (Sophocles, 442 BC). This statement hints at the hamartia of Creon in his automatic assumption that he will make a better leader than those who have gone before him. This idea is especially emphasized as Creon immediately determines, without hint of any counsel being sought beforehand his decision regarding the remains of Oedipus’ sons. He decries that the body of Eteocles, the son of Oedipus who died defending the city, should be buried “in all renown of arms, shall be entombed, and crowned with every rite that follows the noblest dead to their rest”, while the body of Polyneices, the son of Oedipus “who came back from exile and sought to consume utterly with fire the city of his fathers and the shrines of his father’s gods – sought to taste of kindred blood and to lead the remnant into slavery”, should remain untouched and unburied, “a corpse for birds and dogs to eat, a ghastly sight of shame” (Sophocles, 442 BC). Later in the play, Antigone herself outlines how this directive goes directly against the wishes of the gods, who set down laws long ago that required burials be performed, illustrating the fact that any reasonable advisor would have suggested, upon being consulted, some sort of burial be performed on both brothers. Those who were experienced with the story of Oedipus, which Euripides had reasonable expectation they would be, would have also realized the depth of Creon’s hubris in this decision. “Eteocles and Polyneices, Antigone’s brothers, fought over alternating turns to rule Thebes after their father’s death. Polyneices attacked Thebes after Eteocles’ refusal to step down after his year of rule” (Uzoigwe, 2004). In this sense, Eteocles was the brother who wronged the city through his dishonorable actions rather than Polyneices who was simply standing up for his rights. It isn’t until near the end of the play that Creon finally realizes his error in enforcing this rule and suffers the consequences, fulfilling Aristotle’s three requirements. He resists changing his mind throughout Antigone’s arguments, had held firm against the counsel of his lead advisors and has even resisted the pleas of his son for the life of his betrothed, but it isn’t until Teiresias informs him of the threat to his own house if he does not repent that Creon begins to see the error of his stubborn and prideful insistence upon full obedience to his laws, rather than those of the gods. Immediately following his anagnorisis, Creon and his people hurry to the site of Antigone’s interment only to find not only the daughter of Oedipus dead, but to witness the death, also, of Creon’s own son. While neither of these two plays features the easily identified structure of Oedipus the King in working to illustrate the three elements of tragedy as identified by Aristotle, they each contain enough suggestion of these elements to fit smoothly under this classic definition. As has been shown, the elements can be identified chiefly with the main character of the drama, but can also often be traced within the other characters surrounding this character as well. In The Medea, Medea is definitely a tragic heroine, but other tragic characters can also include Jason and Creon. In Antigone, Creon also makes a very tragic character even though he is not the principle one. In each case, the character can be seen to have a serious flaw in their character, typically pride or stubbornness, but also including passion and compassion. In each case as well, each character comes to a sudden realization of their own responsibility for the condition in which they find themselves, often followed almost immediately by a sudden reversal of fortunes, typically for the worse. References “Aristotle.” (1998). Critica Links. The University of Hawaii. Retrieved November 5, 2006 < http://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/aristotle/terms/hamartia.html> Euripedes. (431 BC). The Medea. The Internet Classics. E. P. Coleridge (Trans.). Retrieved November 5, 2006 Sophocles. (442 BC). Antigone. The University of Adelaide Library. R.C. Jebb (Trans.). Retrieved November 5, 2006 Uzoigwe, Chioma. (2004). “Private Experience vs. Public Good.” The Scientific Aesthetic Quarterly. Retrieved November 5, 2006 < http://scientificaesthetic.com/publications/chioma2.html> Read More