Separating the qualities common to a "set" or "type" of Shakespeare's plays that are not common to the works as a whole is a difficult task: it would undoubtedly be possible if you look hard enough, you can find evidence of any characteristic that unites the "tragedies" within any of Shakespeare's works. This is not surprising when you consider that what Shakespeare's works have in common most of all is that they represent human life, and the nature of human life does not change. So the basis for every play is the same: only the circumstances change. Furthermore, all cases of tragedy are, paradoxically, unique and also very similar to everyday events (even if they are extreme examples of them), and both parts of this paradox are necessary for tragedy to work. If the tragic events were not distinct and somehow special, they would be dismissed as everyday occurrences, and if they were not close to common experience the audience would not empathize with the characters. In any case, the tragic element would be lost. I firmly believe that what Shakespeare was interested in exploring in his plays was how people react to different situations, both psychologically and through actions. Is this confirmed by the fact that Shakespeare invented only one of his plots himself? The Storm? while for all his other works he adapted folklore tales, works by other writers and, in the case of the Histories, historical events themselves. This is in no way a flaw in Shakespeare's talent or something that detracts from his works, because Shakespeare was not simply interested in telling stories: he wanted to dramatize the very nature of human life. As Joseph Conrad said, “Imagination, not invention, is the supreme teacher of art, as of life.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay So, instead of having a distinct set of unifying characteristics, some characteristics are more prominent in tragedies than in other plays. The tragedies are, more than any other of Shakespeare's works, detailed studies of the psychology of a character, the tragic hero. The fact that plays are generally named after the main protagonist supports this theory: in Antony and Cleopatra and Romeo and Juliet, does the presence of two tragic heroes indicate a broader study? these two plays are more interested in the workings of society and the characters' interactions with that society than other plays. This broader concern is also demonstrated by the lack of soliloquies in the two plays. Comedies are given more general titles, for example Twelfth Night or Measure for Measure: they explore even more general problems in society and are less concerned with the reactions of individual characters than with the situation as a whole. Doesn't this mean that tragedies don't concern society? many of the tragic heroes are rulers or become rulers during the play, and we see that their situation affects the functioning of the entire kingdom, for example the storms in Macbeth and King Lear which symbolize the disruption of the natural order when a king is deposed . illegally. This focus on the tragic hero means that the success of a tragic play depends on the audience's reaction to that character. Does the very foundation of tragedy lie in the audience's reaction to a situation in which the fundamentally virtuous or just protagonist experiences misfortunes disproportionate to his guilt: misfortunes that he has partly brought upon himself? not through depravity or vice but through error of judgment. We must see a reflection in the main character, howeverhow small, of ourselves and a representation of human limitations? we feel pity for a man who does not deserve his misfortunes and we fear for someone like us. If the audience does not like the protagonist, then they will not sympathize with his fate and the tragic nature will be lost due to the complex mix of excitement and terror that ultimately lead to catharsis will be replaced by indifference or even pleasure at the fall and the death of the hero. Is this why some people have trouble with Othello? the ease with which Iago causes Othello to be jealous suggests that he is actually quite stupid and may lead the audience to a reaction of contempt rather than sympathy. Likewise, is it important that the protagonist has a certain degree of guilt for his own misfortune? if he does not, then the situation is not tragic but simply unfortunate, and the hero is simply unlucky to be involved in circumstances beyond his control. Each of Shakespeare's tragic heroes is "blinded" in some way by a character flaw that affects their judgment and judgement. it makes them react differently in the heat of the moment than they might otherwise. The flaw is generally due to temperament, which allows the hero's passions to get the better of him and prevail over reason. Does Shakespeare study characters' reactions to extreme emotions outside the normal sphere of experience and as a result of extraordinary events and so can the audience forgive the characters' judgment being a little wayward? the tragedy comes in the crushing and disproportionate consequences that follow the mistake, and which transform the audience's reaction from pity to the deepest sympathy. Macbeth is blinded by "a hovering, self-surpassing ambition" (I.vii.27), an ambition he cannot stop himself from pursuing, even though he knows the terrible consequences that will befall him and the mental anguish it will cause: Macbeth is perhaps the most purely psychological of the tragedies, thus showing the inner turmoil of Macbeth and his wives and their gradual descent into madness. Does Macbeth's famous soliloquy at the beginning of I.vii brilliantly show the torment he is going through? he knows that if he acts on his ambition it will destroy him, but he cannot resist anyway, and laments his impending downfall, wishing "If it were done when it was done, then it would be well if it were done quickly... this but this blow might be the end of everything!" (lines 1-5) But does he know that "the cursed instructions...are taught, return / To afflict the inventor" (9-10)? he cannot “skip the life to come,” but must “have judgment here.” The audience has great sympathy for him, as he is a great man, very intelligent and fiercely loyal up to this point, and although he claims to have "no stimulus / To prick the sides of [his] intent", it could be argued that he was much insulted in I.iv when Duncan, after telling Macbeth that "he is owed more than any can pay", names Malcolm Prince of Cumberland and not Macbeth less than twenty lines later! This is far from politically astute as Malcolm is nowhere near as impressive as Macbeth, and downright rude given Duncan's previous debt of thanks to Macbeth. This snub, combined with the witches' cryptic promises and Duncan's ill-timed visit to Macbeth's castle, conspires to create an out-of-the-ordinary opportunity and enormous temptation for Macbeth. Is this where the difference lies between Macbeth and the character Edmund in King Lear, who has a similar all-consuming ambition? Edmund's rise is all his own doing, he knows exactly what he's doing, he's cold and calculated, while Macbeth's is a crime of passion and opportunism, and Edmund doesn't care.at all what is right or wrong? its true purpose is to subvert the accepted way of life. Like an Elizabethan version of Conrad's Mr. Kurtz, Macbeth "[lacks] moderation in the gratification of his various lusts": if it is in his power to do something, he cannot help but do it. Is Macbeth and Kurtz's brilliance their downfall? as Marlow says in Heart of Darkness, "no fool ever made a bargain for his soul with the devil." Othello is blinded by "a jealousy so strong / That judgment cannot cure" (II:i:300-1), an overwhelming insecurity that causes him to be suspicious at the slightest encouragement from Iago, who lets Othello's imagination do most of the work. The ease with which Iago convinces Othello that his wife and his most trusted officer are deceiving him is alarming, indeed there is almost enthusiasm in the speed with which he goes from devoted love to absolute hatred: in just over three hundred lines Othello transforms from professing that "when I don't love [Desdemona], / chaos returns" (III:iii:92-3) to "I'll tear her to pieces!" (III.iii.428). Although he tries to claim that he is sure of his position and his wife's loyalty, saying "exchange me for a goat, / When I turn the affairs of my soul / To such exufflicted and thoughtless conjectures" (III.iii.178-180) , the very fact that he does not immediately send Iago away in disgrace shows that he is not as sure as he says. Very soon he has given himself up so completely to the "light-as-air trifles" (III.iii.319) that only a herd would do. This surprising reversal suggests to me a predisposition to suspicion; that Othello expects to be treated differently and less equally than other men because "[he is] black / And [has] not those soft parts of conversation / Which chamberlains have" (III.iii.260-2), and because he is "declined / Into the vale of years" (III.iii.292-3). This in itself is no reason for condemnation, for it was unheard of for a "Moor" to be in his position of success, and no doubt he had other invisible enemies besides Iago (Desdemona's father, for example, of whom it is said «The [Desdemona's] marriage was fatal to him" (V.ii.204). Does the fault lie in his judgment of character? With tragic irony does Othello lash out against those who most respect and love him for the man he is, while he trust the racist who hates him for superficial reasons: as he himself says, "he loved not wisely, but too well" (V. ii.340) Iago has very little to do: as in the case of Macbeth and the Wyrd Sisters, the roots there are from the beginning, and need only little care to flourish. I do not suggest that Othello's motivation is in any way similar to that of Macbeth: the latter rejects conventional morality in exchange for absolute power, while Othello simply is. misled by the amoral Iago but retains his innate virtuosity. However, I believe that the tragic element increases if part of the blame for Othello's 'deception' is attributed to the protagonist himself, not for stupidity but for having assumed the guilt of Desdemona and Cassio. , and for his weakness in not fulfilling his request. for proof. The errors of judgment that Othello makes under the influence of his jealousy are serious, but does most of the blame lie with Iago and do we forgive Othello his misdirected passion? at least he maintains the same moral code throughout and, as he says at the end, "nothing have I done in hatred, but everything in honor" (V.ii.292). Othello's problems stem from a common mistake among tragic heroes: he mixes personal affairs with public affairs and with the role of leader when he allows Desdemona to accompany him to Cyprus. As shown in Richard II by Richard's failure as king, a leader's personal life and role should be kept separate, and a leader's personality and intelligence are not necessarily indicators of howwill it affect your work? Henry V was a great king, but he had many flaws as a man. Lear mixes the two worlds when he holds a public "trial" for what are supposed to be intensely private declarations of love, and Macbeth lets his personal ambitions completely overshadow any thoughts of actually ruling for the good of the larger kingdom. The most striking examples of overlap of private and public interests are found in Antony and Cleopatra and in Romeo and Juliet. In the first case love is something public, grand gestures are the only way to demonstrate genuine feelings: Ottavio Cesare is shocked when his sister arrives without a grand entrance, saying: "You don't come / Like Cesare's sister. Antony's wife /Should have an army for her usher, and horse whinnies to tell of her approach /Long before she appeared." Furthermore, the crux of the play lies in Antonio's balancing between his private pleasures and his public duties. He appears to have reverted to Julius Caesar's Antony when he makes peace with Pompey and marries Octavia to pacify his brother Octavius, but gradually gives in to his lust again, culminating in his retreat during the naval battle, when he abandons thoughts of fighting and blindly follows Cleopatra's retreating ship, which turns possible victory into certain defeat. This is Antonio's "blindness": he cannot maintain the balance between his public and private affairs, and lets each influence the other constant battle to keep their very private feelings of love away from the constraints that social and religious institutions try to impose them. They meet at night and marry in secret, the opposite of Antony and Cleopatra's public spectacle. In the end, the only way the couple can defeat the public forces that threaten to destroy their love is to commit suicide: it is the final assertion of their private rights, their last night. Romeo and Juliet does not follow the general trend of most tragedies. as it has two main protagonists, neither of whom conform to the exact definition of a "tragic hero" as someone who brings about his own downfall due to a failure of character. In fact, in the prologue we are told exactly what will happen to the "star-crossed lovers"? they must die to end their families' feud. It would be easy, after this beginning, to dismiss the events of the play as mere "sport" of "unbridled" fate, as Gloucester says in King Lear, but I think this opening scene is full of irony and Shakespeare is in fact subtly conveying the widespread fatalistic visions of his time. Does the play have more in common with its tragic peers than it would seem at first glance? the spouses are "blinded", just as the tragic heroes of other comedies are, because when they fall into a love "as boundless as the sea" (II.ii.133), a love so strong that it overcomes fear and reason, their subsequent judgments are influenced and they make choices that they otherwise would not have made. Is their love something that, once ignited, is largely beyond their direct control? Isn't it possible to control its ebb and flow? but which undeniably originates from within them. Because of this duality, when their love brings them into conflict with their families, social institutions, and their religion, we not only feel pity, but we recognize that they have a choice, however difficult, and could save their earthly bodies if they were willing. compromising its purity. This element of choice evokes a great deal of pathos and transforms our pity into deep sympathy. Tragically, the other choice the couple has is to "end themselves in death" (Gloucester in King Lear IV.vi.63)? it's the only way they can be togetherwithout compromising themselves and the purity of their love. Suicide is man's final personal choice, the only way to take absolute and irreversible control of life: to put an end to it. Is this why Gloucester complains that this last right has also been denied him? when the suicide has failed he really has nothing to live for, because human life has no meaning without the possibility of choosing: it becomes an absurdity. Hamlet agonizes over whether to kill himself to escape the iniquity of the world, but avoids committing the act, initially because "the LORD had set / his canon 'against self-killing" (I.ii.131-2) , but later the religious imagery vanishes and is replaced by the fear of the "undiscovered country". Hamlet concludes that it is only this "fear of something after death" that causes man to "endure the whips and scorns of time" (III.i.70). If the country of death were a designated territory, everyone would commit suicide. This theory is fundamental when considering Romeo and Juliet's suicides: they do not fear “insubstantial death” (V.iii.103) but rather welcome it as a certainty after the uncertainty of life. There is a mixture of Christian and pagan imagery, because while there is an emphasis on the earthly physical pleasures that are given up at death, there is also a strong sense of belief in some sort of "timeless" state after death in phrases such as Juliet's "eternal rest", "timeless affair", and "timeless end". Above all, Romeo and Juliet's double suicide is a defiant denial of their predestined fate and their "star-crossed" status. Instead, they show that it is always possible to take control and "shake off the yoke of the inauspicious stars" (V.iii.111). The fact that such a pure embodiment of love was not allowed to exist and must kill themselves to take control is a damning indictment of their society. Romeo and Juliet's transcendent love is both their blessing and their curse: it is the quality that makes the audience like them and what distinguishes them from ordinary people; but at the same time it is precisely what leads to their ruin and their death, precisely because of its transcendent nature, if their love had not been so intense and so beautiful, they would not have died to save it. This 'duality of innocence' is a common feature in many tragedies, often the tragic hero's 'guilt' is linked, or actually is, to that trait which makes us like them in the first place. In this way, innocence can often overtake evil. David Daiches compares it to the temptation of Eve in Milton's Paradise Lost: "If Satan, in the form of a serpent, had told the truth, then Eve would have done well to believe him and eat the fatal fruit. Eve's real fault was the lack of sophistication; she did not suspect what the serpent was telling her; she was, to use an American slang term, a 'fool' and swallowed her story. But it is morally wrong to be a fool as Eve was to the serpent, as Othello was to Iago, like Brutus compared to sophisticates like Antony, like Hamlet compared to life, we might almost say ', although he examines it in many tragedies. We can conclude, however, that the 'practical man' is far from the pinnacle of human achievement in Shakespeare's eyes. Figures such as Benvolio in Romeo and Juliet, Octavius ​​Caesar in Antony and Cleaopatra, and Malcolm in Macbeth are depicted as cold and uninteresting, indifferent to the great passions that determine the rise and fall of tragic heroes. They put me in mind of Tennyson's line "It is better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." Have these 'practical men' really never loved, and are therefore monochrome sketches compared to the glorious Technicolor of the heroes? brilliant and imperfect is superior to the ordinary and consistent. Inevitability is important in tragediesof Shakespeare, both as a dramatic device and as a tool to convey the message of the work. A feeling of inevitability keeps audiences spellbound as they watch seemingly hopeful events in the knowledge that there will be an inexorable recession in the near future. This leads the audience to sympathize more with the tragic hero, as if he were involved in circumstances that he initiated but which have spiraled out of his control, as in the case of Macbeth, where once the hero has killed Duncan it is inevitable that the his reign of tyranny will increase until he himself is destroyed. However, there is an important difference between inevitability and predictability: if events are predictable, the audience will quickly get bored and the tragic effect will be lost, while incidents that arouse pathos have a greater effect when they happen unexpectedly, but at the same time as a direct consequence of each other. An example of this is at the end of King Lear, when Lear enters carrying Cordelia "dead in his arms", as the caption says. This event could not be predicted, especially since in the previous lines there was a sense of hope for the first time in the play, but there is a sense of inevitability, and it is a consequence of Edmund's wickedness. I believe the show would be incomplete and much less powerful if it didn't contain this final blow to hope. If Cordelia were to survive, it would contradict everything the play has said up to this point about the injustice and futility of life; Lear's death alone would not have been enough, for there would have been a sense of fulfillment and justice, as he would have reconciled with Cordelia and would therefore have died happy. The tragedy is multiplied enormously by this denial of Lear's contentment, and as a result he dies confused and wondering what all the pain, destruction and loss was for. One of the greatest tragedies of the play, and there are many, is that Lear dies without finding an answer to his question: "Why should a dog, a horse, a mouse have life, / And you not breathe at all?" Cordelia in no way deserves the fate she receives: she is only in England because of her selfless love for her father, but it could be argued that it was she who precipitated the tragedy through her selfishness by refusing to take part in the "trial "love" of his father. However, his suffering is completely out of proportion to the magnitude of his crime, which further accentuates the tragedy. Does Cordelia's death, the only glimmer of hope and purity in a work full of injustice and suffering, give a deeper meaning to "The wheel has come full circle" (V.iii.174)? it destroys any sense of progress that has been achieved through Cordelia's transformation from rampant egoist to selfless altruist and thus any sense that anything has been learned or gained from all the pain and death. If one wishes to find hope in the end of King Lear, then one must find it in Edgar, for one must assume that he will assume the place of king. It could be argued that Edgar has experienced madness without being mad by adopting the role of poor Tom, and has learned first what it means to be an "unaccommodated man" without having to pay the ultimate price for his discovery, and thus can avoid doing the mistakes made by Lear. However, I would dispute the idea that Edgar has learned anything: the stupidity he displays at the beginning by unconditionally accepting Edmund's frankly unintelligent trick is still present at the end. He effectively allows Cordelia's death when he is again deceived by Edmund, the latter encouraging Edgar to waste time by saying, "This speech of yours has moved me, / And perhaps it will do some good. But go on talking; / It seems you have had something ". nothing else to say.", 1979