Aristotles Tragic Hero - Research Paper Example

How Oedipus is exemplified and Refuted in the Aristotle’s Tragic Hero Definition and Semester of Enrollment ID APA How Oedipus is exemplified or refuted in Aristotle’s Tragic Hero Definition Oedipus is one of the popular compositions of the time. The composition is about Oedipus, the king who experienced a tragedy that would see him fall. It does not serve fairness to simply dismiss Oedipus as an immoral man who had an incestuous relationship with his mother. In the actual sense, the relationship emerged out of innocence. In the beginning of the play, it is discernable that Oedipus was never morally perverted. As a matter of fact, it is agreeable that Oedipus was a man driven by high moral standards. Moreover, it was his moral standard that saw him engage in events that would see him engage in a spousal relationship with his mother. The crucial question is whether Oedipus could be considered as a tragic hero based on the Aristotle’s delineations. Before examining ways in which Aristotle’s definition of a hero is exemplified or refuted by Oedipus, it is crucial to look at Aristotle definition and description of a what adds up to a tragic hero. It is worth noting that the definition, as well as classification of tragedy, is among the various elements that are well disputed in the world of literature. One of the dominant approaches to the definition and description of the tragedy and the tragic hero is offered by Aristotle, yet his interpretation of not without ambiguity. Aristotle points out that a for something to be considered as a tragedy, it should evoke the fear within the audience and this may be for the purposes of purgation of senses the sequence the climax of the tragedies or even catharsis (Foster, 2003). These are expounded as follows. First, a satisfactory tragedy is concerned about tackling an issue that is considered serious. It is not likely to evoke a tragedy by trivializing the breaking of a finger nail. The issues under addressing should not only be serious, but also particularly important. This explains why it acceptable that a tragedy be is as death of a person and the play must focus revolve around the issue so that the audience is not lost. Secondly, the tragedy scenario should be presented on not only appropriate, but also pleasurable language. The ancient tragedy by the Greek would be accompanied by a chorus to comment on the plays actions, and would even be sang on the part of the heroes, yet the employed language should be easy to understand (Thomas & Osborne, 2004). Thirdly, this should be represented in the form of drama, other than narration. Here, narration implies the telling of a story, while acting implies dramatizing, aping or imitating. Thirdly, the tragic event should elicit fear, as well as pity. A composition could be rated as a tragedy if it makes the audience to sympathize with the ‘affected’ characters. The audience should also be filled with fear as the tragic hero walks into the destructive end. Fifthly, as the plays rolls, the composition should be capable of creating pity and fear emotions. A catharsis may be considered as the act of cleansing the emotions. This comes out as a revelation when the tragic hero is reduced, stirring the audience to an explosion of catharsis. These descriptions lead to the demarcation of a tragic hero. Here, the tragic hero is perceived as the character in the possession of high stature and who is brought down by a misfortune, a disaster or as a result of failure to make appropriate plan to avert the imminent, disastrous event, in what may be referred to as hamartia (Grene & Lattimore, 1991). For Aristotle, tragic hero should not possess a completely paramount and righteous character, for this would isolate him from the perceptivity of humans. Rather, his character should be considered as a noble one. There is the allowance for the harmatia to be realized by the character, and when this happens, the scenario is often labeled anagnorisis. Yet these cannot be effectively resolved without giving considerations without approaching it from the context of irony. The element of irony creates the allowance for the audience to on the level that the characters cannot afford. This is evident reflected by Oedipus. According to Aristotle, a tragedy comprises of six elements, which include thoughts, characters, plot, diction, melody and spectacles. Character is considered amongst the crucial elements. The character should be natural and should be characterized by consistency, such that they should not have been belittled by acts. It is indisputable that Oedipus is a perfect representation of what constitutes a tragic hero. This is because Oedipus observes all the rules, including the harmatia, peripeteia and the anagrosis. In the initial stage of the play, the audience is treated with the hamartia experience when Oedipus believes that he has the capability of dodging the oracle presented to him at Delphi that he would kill his mother to marry his mother. Upon Corinth for Thebes, Oedipus is deeply convinced that he has the capability of overshadowing the will that gods have for him. However, one obvious point is that the audience is aware the impossibility that lies in the ability for one to run away from the oracle. Indeed, it seems the audience is aware that the events would disapprove of Oedipus heroism. In this regard, the hamartia presented in the Oedipus is his staunch belief that he could run away from the oracle. The anagrosis later comes unfolds when it dawns upon him that whoever killed King Lauis, should be married to his mother. Oedipus is the killer to king Lauis. Thebes has been relentlessly seeking to find the murderer to Kin Lauis to chase him away and save the city from the occurrence of plague. As far as this anagrosis is concerned, Oedipus is destined for a downfall. Indeed, as the events unfold, Oedipus is condemned to shame before the entire city for turning to marry his mother, an act of incest. It dawns to him that he did not avoid the oracle, after all. Even worse, in the attempting of saving himself from the unbearable shame, he resorts to blinding himself. To Oedipus, now that he is incapable of seeing the truth by his eyes, what would be the use of enjoying the given sight? According to Dawe (2006), there are three main reasons as to why Oedipus matches the Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero. In one way, Oedipus is a tragic hero because he walks into the tragedy by himself; he is the author of his own fate through his actions. In the beginning of the play, the audience cannot help treating Oedipus with a high esteem. In the end, the audience cannot as well help sympathizing with Oedipus discomfitures. Even as the story unfolds and the Oracle is stated, the audience is driven to the world filled with fear and substantial feelings of apprehension. It would have obviously been difficult for Oedipus to learn that he was the murderer of King Laois if he had not called on Teresias. Yet this was only until Teresias told him he was the murderer of the King that was had been seeking. Considering how this made him to doubt his innocence, he took action to distinguish between the lies from the truth. As a hero, Oedipus falls from high esteem. In the beginning, Oedipus is a person of great stature, a king to the society of Thebes. Pity for Oedipus is particularly felt when he is concerned about averting the consequences of plague, only the tables to turn against him. Aristotle positing that a tragic hero is a character whose superiority is not entirely felt in terms of justice and virtues. A tragic hero is fallible through an error, which ends reducing him from heroism. References Dawe, R. (2006). Sophocles: Oedipus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, C. (2003). "How to Read Literature Like a Professor." HarperCollins, New York, 2003 Grene, D & Lattimore, R. (1991). Sophocles, Oedipus. University of Chicago. Thomas, J. & Osborne, E. (2004). Oedipus: Literary Touchstone Edition. Prestwick House Inc. Read More