Course Title: Classical Drama

Final Term Paper

Submitted by: Mehak Arshad

M.Phil (2015-2017)

"Tragedy dramatises the undoing of the harmony and balance showing their replacement

with chaos. It does so by counterpoising the protagonists' tragic characteristics with their

opposites" (Word Limit: 3000-5000 words)

Tragedy- a regal concept and perhaps a casually used term of modern day , is understood

as a series of miserable events. Events that evoke “effeminate” feelings (Eagleton 153). It would

not be wrong to say that tragedy is the manifestation of disruption of peace or natural order. This

imbalance instigates a turmoil, quite reminiscent of Yeats' verse : "...Things fall apart; the centre

cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." (The Second Coming).

Before proceeding it is essential to establish the cause of such anarchy and how it is brought

about. The statement clearly says that it is done by the juxtaposition of the "protagonists' tragic

characteristics with their opposites". The word incorporated is "opposites" which can be catered

on two different levels. Opposites can be external forces, depicting an exoteric conflict. It can be

gods or God at work, the cunning ventriloquist-Fate or society, which persuades an individual to

become a product of his/her circumstance. Secondly, "opposites" can also refer to the binaries

within a character making the conflict esoteric in nature. The tragic hero is bestowed with a ‘tragic

flaw’, which testifies that gods/God, Fate or society are not the only participants of the blame

game. Like Bradley puts it "...catastrophe follow inevitably from the deeds of men, and that the
main source of deeds is character" (Substance of Tragedy 13). It is the hero/ protagonist's own

actions that bring about chaos in an otherwise stabilized world.

For instance, in Christopher Marlowe's Dr.Faustus. The protagonist is introduced through

an analogy with the mention of "waxen wings" (Faustus 3) which establishes his stature equivalent

to that of Icarus. He wants to transcend his limitations . And this character asks for nothing ordinary

but the "art" to "afford" "greater miracle", to "make men live eternally" or "being dead, raise them

to life again" (Faustus 3)--attributes that are exclusively God's monopoly. Although he is conscious

of the fact that he is still a "man". "What art thou still but Faustus, and a man" (Faustus 3). Hence

it is a direct challenge to the supreme authority which can be regarded as a disturbance in the

natural order, a shift in the matrix of the universe's design. This blasphemous endeavor "to practice

more than heavenly power permits" would not be overlooked therefore he is "condemned to death".

His position evokes the image of the "Tree of Knowledge" and "Tower of Babel" from the book

of Genesis and the story of Job (1:8-12) from the book of Job. In his case the opposing force is

actually 'The Force'- God himself as "heavens" have conspired his "overthrow". Faustus' conflict

is unique in a sense that it is a wager between man-with his dilemma to go beyond the human

limitations and achieve knowledge and God--who has "conspired" his downfall . Thus the

ventriloquist here is none other than "El-Qanna", the Jealous God, moving the chess pieces high

above, causing calamity down on mankind.

In a similar fashion, Oedipus Rex, is a play that brings to surface grave existential concerns

like Fate, predestination and the question of man's existence. In his case it is Fate that is set as an

opposing force. It bestows him with misfortune while he remains oblivious. He marries Jocasta, in

a customary way as a king should when he conquers a land. There is a smooth course being

followed until an unnatural or abnormal incident takes place to disrupt the natural order of things-
incest. Oedipus, little did he know that the queen he married was actually his mother . He commits

incest, marking the onset of his fall. Since the order is disturbed, chaos ensues. In the text, Oedipus

reiterates that he is not destined for a peaceful existence rather reserved or "saved for another fate-

strange and terrible” and he had no option but to “let what is destined happen” (Oedipus Rex 1456-

1458). On one hand is Oedipus with the guilt of incest and on the other is Fate. Needless to say

that Sophocles has established fate as an antagonist, unjust and superior when set against the

protagonist. Hence, there is a tug of war between the “whole or order” of the universe and the

individual. According to Bradley, the “individual part shows itself powerless” (qtd. in Leech 7).

Oedipus is reduced to a mere puppet, with his strings being controlled by Fate.

Euripedes' Medea, unlike Oedipus or Dr.Fautus is not a potrayal of man versus God/Fate

it is infact individual and society. It is society that has led to triggered a catastrophe and ultimately

led to the creation of a "child murderess" (Medea 756). Right from her advent at Corinth, her place

as the other is established she is an "alien" constantly being subjected to alienation has rendered

her without a foothold. Moreover, Jason who's "love" had "smitten" her "soul" (Medea 723)

betrays her for a "royal bride" and Medea is "banished from her land" (Medea 740). A wife has

been wronged and a mother cheated , once again the natural order has been shaken. It is important

to note that it is evil human actions that force her to take desperate measures. There can be an

argument that it is Medea’s own character flaw as "all her love" has now "turned to hate, and

tenderest ties are the weakest" (Medea 723) but the society’s contribution in her tragedy cannot be

overlooked. It is the society that has created an imbalance inverted the ideal of a mother to a

"murderess" (Medea 756) . It is a "father's feeble lust" that has resulted in the creation of a "vile"

"mother" (Medea 755) and a "cursed witch"(Medea 756). In this case it can be concluded that

society set was against the protagonist, she was merely “an innocent victim of the malignant
outside forces and responsible” (Napieralski 441) fuelling a catastrophe for herself as those around

her.

Then comes the second category. Characters possessing binaries within, making their

conflict quintessentially internal or esoteric. It is not necessarily the intervention of gods/God or

Fate that brings about the downfall or destruction but the own actions of individuals. The "tragic

flaw" as Aristotle calls it. This concept can be better understood in terms of Jung's theory of

Individuation that he presented in "On the Psychology and Phenomenology of the So-Called Occult

Phenomena" published in 1902. According to him, every individual has potential "splinter-

personalities" that "manifest" themselves during "seances" that were evidently "components of

more comprehensive personality hidden in their unconscious psyche" (qtd in. Ways to

Individuation). He is basically endorsing the idea that individuals have "splits" within themselves

and these counter-personalities reside within and they have a tendency to materialize. Moreover,

he elucidates that a balance can be restored through the integration or reconciliation between these

splits. Which ushers us to the former point that if there is no reconciliation or resolution it reinstates

the fact that there is a disorder that prevails. Ultimately leading to chaos. Shakespeare, the literary

genius takes this to a whole new level, making it problematic. Not only does he give a psycholgical

insight into the characters but also intensifies it by juxposition of his characters with their

opponents.

Richard III for example, is an intense study of psychology as it chiefly revolves around the

exploration of Richard's mind who happens to be the protagonist as well as the villian. We see

binaries within him. And within the parameters of these "opposites" it is the evil that supersedes,

causing an imbalance and consequently ushering towards self-destruction. The play opens with the

stage set after a lengthy civil war and Richard utter's these lines :
 "...since I cannot prove a lover

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,

I am determined to prove a villian

And hate the pleasure of these idle days." (I.i)

Vividly showing that Richard's has decided that to side with the evil. Interestingly as Jung

ponited out, such "splits" mainfest themeselves during the "seances" or spiritual encounters. The

dialogue here is also a soliliquy, Richard talking to himself.It is during this soliliquy that the

audience get a preview into his mental topography.This too can be regarded as a distortion of the

natural order as his "shadow" dominates his "self". There is an"undoing of harmony". This

abnormality results in self-destruction . It is his "tragic flaw" the lust for throne that makes him

commit atrocities.He murders Clarence, King Edward, the two princes, Queen Anne and all those

who proved to be a hindrance in his way.

Later in the text he says:

"...What do I fear? Myself? There's none else by.

Richard loves Richard;that is, I am I.

Is there a murderer here?No. Yes, I am.

Then fly! What, from myself? Great reason. Why:

Lest I revenge. Myself upon myself?" (V.v.136-40)

 Richard's speech towards the end of the play reiterates the same notion, giving an insight

into his conscience as well. To pacify himself he assures that he his by himself but that rejuvenates

the fear as the insidious is inexhaustibly haunting.Frightened, he suggests himself to run away but

realizes that he cannot run from himself.

Moving on, if a comparison is drawn between Richard and his opponent-Richmond he

possesses all those attributes that Richard does not. For instance he is pious for he calls out "God

and your arms be praised!victorious friends". (V.v 19) while Richard resonates "I am" equating

him with The Great "I am". His reign merely brought "bloody days" while Richmond promises

"fair prosperous days" balancing out his vices with his virtue. This not only establishes him as a

complete individual but also fit for the throne.Hence we see that formerly the state of anarchy that

prevailed "England hath long been mad, and scarred herself ;/ The brother blindly shed the

brother's bood." has now been transformed as "civil wounds have stopped" and "peace lives again"

(V.v.40)

Macbeth potrays a similar tragedy. It is a tragedy of political over-ambition, fused with

intense psychological suffering on part of the tragic hero. Macbeth murders King Duncan,

thwarting the natural order, after receiving the prophesy of his future as the king by the

witches."Fair" becomes "foul" and "foul becomes fair" (I.i 11) Like Richard, the evil dominates

and he is no longer full of the "milk of human kindness".The unnatural ensues only on an individual

level but affecting the State at large.When Macduff reports Maclom of the state of affairs he talks

about the "misery" "chanced" upon his country and the "bloody tyranny of Macbeth" which means

that his vaulting ambition and lust to hanker after the "crown" without any "right or title" has

rendered Scotland infested with mayhem. Not only that , the muder has mental repercussions and

we see the chaos seeping in as he can "sleep no more" and the guilt overpowers him to his death.
Shakespeare brings to surface a problematic question in front of his audience. The leaves it to them

to decipher the direction of his conflict that is whether it was the prophesy (external) that corrupted

him, or was there a presence corruption in his soul and the witches simply stirred it ? Was the

protagonist juxtaposed against fate or himself? Whatever the reasons may be but his actions lead

him to his downfall.

Lear's tragedy in King Lear also germinates from his "tragic flaw" which creates a

disporportion in the set of natural order. The affects of his tragedy can be seen on a family as well

as political level. It is his foolish decision of dividing his kingdom " Give me map there. Know,

that we have divided/ In three our Kingdom : and 'tis our fast intent " ( I.i. 12) that leads to his

doom. Not only did he banish his daughter , Cordelia " Here I disclaim all my paternal care,/

Propoinquinty and property of blood/ And as a stranger to my heart and me, Hold thee from this

for ever..." (I.i.29) but also reduced himself to the mercy of Regan and Goneril daughters who

"flattered him like a dog" and told him that the "white hair" in his "beard" were actually "black"

(IV.vi. 21).It is only after the divison that the is able to see their true faces. Ultimately he is reduced

to the stature of a "wretched fool" and a " dog". Cordelia on the other hand is sentenced to death.

Bradley in Shakespearean Tragedy argues that within the structure of tragedy it is mandatory that

"calamity" or "catastrophe" should be suceeded by "death.Unfortunately, it is too late when Edgar

receives the message. Lear cannot save her and his "poor fool is hang'd " ( V.iii) . Despite calling

out "Pray you undo this button" he cannot "undo" what he himself initiated. One decison has set

the entire plot in motion and against Lear's fall.In the end he dies of a heart break which is tragic.

In Hamlet , Prince Hamlet is burdened with the weight of vegeance and saddened because

of his mother's act. Surely there is an imbalance set from the begining as something is "rotten in

the state of Denmark" and the reason is not merely the death of Claudius' "dear brother " or those
"incestuous sheets" but the tension is deeper. His conflict is internal as Bradley aptly calls him

"philosopher king". He is stuck between an existential crisis :

"To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous Fortune,

Or to take arms against the sea of troubles..." (III.i6-10)

He is fixated between indecisiveness and overthinking which becomes his tragic flaw of

character marking his downfall. Right from the start we find him contemplating the idea of suicide.

" Oh,that this too too solid-flesh, would melt/Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew:/Or that the

Everlasting had not fix'd/ His canon 'gainst self-slaughter.O God, O God! /How werary ,stale, flat

and unprofitable /seems to me all the uses of this world!" (I.ii20-24) As in Richard III , the audience

is informed about this "splits" through his soliliquy that are no different from Jung's "seances".

There is already a turmoil within his being and we do not see a "reconciliation" or "assimilation"

of the binaries within his own character, as Jung propounded. His makings are perhaps of a

"philosopher" and not of a king. Claudius on the other hand is not as passive as Hamlet, he

introduced as an effective acting head who has restored peace to a "war-like State" (I.ii 24) by

taking an "imperial jointress" (whatever the means may be) and ordering instructions to

Voltemand and Cornelius. Whereas it literally takes Hamlet four long acts to commit the deed.

Not only that we also see Claudius' haste when he discovers that Hamlet is a threat, at once orders

are sent to the King of England to get Hamlet killed. When that fails Claudius manipulates Laertes
and feuls his vengeance by saying "Requite for your father" (IV.vii 138). A stark difference can

be observed unlike Hamlet he is not a man of words but rather of deeds.

In the light of the given agrument it can be deduced that tragedy is the depiction of

disrupted harmony or disorder in the natural course of events that arises by a "tragic flaw" human

action like in Hamlet, Richard III and Macbeth or imposed by external forces like fate in Oedipus,

gods in Agamenon or God in Dr. Fautus. This imabalance is sought by equating or juxtaposing

the protagonists with their "opposites" which then complements to even out the disproportion . In

some exceptions however, the porportion is delibrately distorted so as to show one side

overpowering and superior than the other. This can also be taken as an attempt to render the readers

questioning whether characters chose the tragedy or tragedy chose them.

 Works Cited

Bradley. A.C. “The Substance of Shakespearan Tragedy.” Shakespearean Tragedy. 2nd ed.

London: Macmillan, 1919. EPUB File.

Eagleton, Terry. Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic. London: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
PDF File.

Euripedes.Medea.The Complete Greek Drama.Trans. E. P. Coleridge. Whitney. J. Oates and

Eugene O'Neil,Jr. Eds.vol.1.ed.1.723-762.PDF.File.

Leech, Clifford. Tragedy: The Critical Idiom. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library: 2002. PDF
File.

Napieralski, Edmund A. “The Tragic Knot: Paradox in the Experience of Tragedy.” The Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31.4 (1973): 441-449. JSTOR. 29 December 2015.

Marlowe, Christopher. The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. Ed. Rev. Alexandar Dyce.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Ed. Roma Gill. UK: Oxford University Press 2001.Print.

----.Richard III. London: Popular Penguin Classics, 1994. Print.