Contrast Analysis of Oedipus Rex and Hamlet - Essay Example

Oedipus Rex and Hamlet William Shakespeare and Sophocles have produced their monumental works, Hamlet and Oedipus Rex respectively, by studying and focusing on the psychological perspective of the main characters and the mythical elements related to the collective psyche of their times. Oedipus belongs to the Greek culture which operated on the pragmatic aspects of life which included action at the expense of introspection though the element of piety was a major element in their day-to-day existence. Hamlet, on the other hand represents the predicament of an individual who is shaped by the strict moralistic norms of Catholic faith and the logical influence of University education. In a broad analysis, the protagonists in both the plays can be seen as representing the Dionysian and Apollonian concepts. Even as both characters depict these two elements in various amounts, Oedipus seems to exhibit more of the Dionysian element in his actions at the spur of the moment, while Hamlet can be considered Apollonian in his contemplative self. Terry Eagleton, in his Holy Terror (2005) observes how in Sophocles’s Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus “is transformed into a tutelary deity, protecting the citizens of Athens from assault” (15) and states that the Dionysian impulse for violence is normally a reaction to “lack of piety” (16). In Oedipus Rex, the question of morality is not strictly the concern of its protagonist, a man of action. He kills Laius where the three roads meet, because he was denied his freedom to proceed further. Even as he was troubled by the need to discover his identity, Oedipus does not try to find out the identity of the people whom he attacked and killed. He did not exhibit any sense of guilt even as he had to narrate this incident to Tiresias, after many years. Even though Oedipus has committed his sins unknowingly, the thoughtless actions from his side are not to be discounted, especially as he was not sure about his identity. He failed to enquire about the people he had to kill or even about the person he married. Tiresias aims his incriminatory remarks at the misdeeds of Oedipus, namely, murdering his father, wedding his mother and having children in her, as follows: …have you eyes And do not see your own damnation? Eyes, And cannot see what company you keep? Whose son you are? I tell you, you have sinned. The Dionysian element of sudden action, excesses, violence, ruthlessness, and so on are reflected in Oedipus’s life, while he is not someone who would have the intention to commit the sins he had to commit unwittingly. However, the fact that the marital relationship with his mother Jocasta is consummated and he had children in her is the stark reality that the psychoanalysts have to deal with in connection with the idea of repressed libidinal urges and their manifestations. The impulsive actions of Oedipus, much in conformity with the Dionysian attributes, can also be interpreted as the external manifestation of the Oedipus complex. The archetypal elements in the play also confirm to the moral didactic purpose of the play. Hamlet is a freshly educated youth faced with the harsh realities of life. However, his contemplative nature stops him from committing the murder of his villainous uncle Claudius, which in turn generates the whole lot of troubles that leas to the Senecan end of the tragedy, which leaves many dead bodies piled on the stage. The lack of action and too much contemplation makes the play a cerebral and emotional, even as the action at the end may leave the audiences shocked. Hamlet is presented as a person with strong convictions, averse to mass social acts like drinking. For him, the mourning period that he follows is not sheer observance, and he condemns the drinking, associated with the hurried marriage of his mother to Claudius. He is not someone who believes in the power of actions as much as he is convinced of the unknown courses life is apt to take, as he tell Horatio: There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet can be accused of being a situation where he has the clear knowledge of the events and people, unlike Oedipus. The incestuous element in Hamlet is intentional and explicit than in Oedipus Rex. However, the psychological trauma prior to the final act of murders is more logically coherent and dealt with on a personal level in Hamlet. Whereas Oedipus faces the consequences of his impulsive acts and undergoes helpless suffering, Hamlet takes every opportunity to find out the truth and to confirm it. A major contrast in the intuitive bision can be found in the words of Ophelia about Hamlet, though mentioned in a different context: “He seemed to find his way without his eyes”. The time which he takes for the long contemplations before the action which leaves the scene tragic anyway, were perhaps due to the fact that he realized the ultimate tragic condition of human life. For him “Denmark” like the entire world, “is a prison”, and “one o’ th’ worst” at that. And the “piece of work” man is, is nothing but a “quintessence of dust” Hamlet’s ruminative self-reflections are much affected by the education that he gained, and they exhibit his analytical, argumentative stance on the events that overshadow his life. In contrast to the impulsive acts that lead Oedipus forward in the ignorant bliss of the unknown reality, the time-consuming yet insightful thoughts that Hamlet indulges in reveals the reality to him slowly but in all its clarity. Oedipus undergoes the ultimate suffering which seemed the only way to compensate for the unthinkable horror of his sins, but Hamlet, by refraining from hurried action, comprehends the full weight of the essential tragedy that human life is, and is able to end his suffering abruptly with his final decisive act. The action is set in similar scenarios in both the plays. Thebes and Denmark are seen as suffering from the misdeeds of their kings and are longing for a sacrificial scapegoat and purgation through catastrophe. The characters are similar too, except for the presence of the meek Ophelia in Hamlet, posed against the strong presence of Gertrude. The presence of the King and subjects is represented through various dialogues between the protagonists and individuals who represent various sects of the subjects. The expectations from the part of the subjects and the action, and the lack of it, from the main protagonists bring in the comparison of Apollonian and Dionysian elements in Oedipus Rex and Hamlet. The possibility of using critical approaches related to Formalism, New Criticism Myth and Archetypal Criticism, Feminism, Gender Studies, New Historicism/Cultural Materialism, and Post-Colonial Studies make these plays relevant in the mental and social spheres of human existence across time and space. The fact that human beings carry both the discriminatory and impulsive aspects of the Greek concept of Apollonian and Dionysian myths is also relevant in analyzing the psychological realm of the protagonists and the collective will of the masses that surround them. The various studies related to the two plays and their relevance even at the present times make them more than just two masterpieces that confirm to the ideal concept of a tragedy in the Aristotelian or other classical precepts. They transcend the norms of time and space because they have succeeded in penetrating and representing the individual psyche and social constructs of human togetherness. Remaining truthful to the Dionysian and Apollonian traditions that can be traced in the individual and collective psyche of even the contemporary human existence, Hamlet and Oedipus Rex presents a set of interesting reflections and theories on the basic condition of life. References Eagleton, Terry. Holy Terror. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Read More