In chapter three of Leech's The Critical Idiom: Tragedy (henceforth shortened to Tragedy), the traditional Aristotelian view of a tragic hero is defined as an exalted person, usually of high rank, who is held because of said rank "in a position of recognisability". eminence” (34). Eminence is a key component of being and recognizing an Aristotelian tragic hero because it is eminence that gives the hero the defining characteristic of maintaining superiority over others. Leech quotes Aristotle as defining these tragic heroes as “better than us” in terms not only of social position but of essence (34). “What is important is the sense of full, or at least unusual, realization of man's peculiar strengths and tendencies. Orestes kills his mother, Oedipus marries his mother and kills his father, Medea kills her children: and yet they are, in some sense, more fully themselves than men and women dare to be," writes Leech, "It must be remembered, moreover , that in the Greek theater the actor was a remote, masked figure...He represented the people...But he represented a king or a hero...he necessarily induced amazement, the sensation of being 'on top' as he fell” (34) . This sense of superiority is what defines the titular protagonist of Webster's The Duchess of Malfi (TDM) as a tragic hero, at least according to Leech's interpretation of an Aristotelian tragic hero. Here is a woman of high rank, a noble, who by birth occupies a different space than the common person, who is ultimately stripped of her innate superiority at the hands of seemingly unpredictable forces. Webster's Duchess fits comfortably into Leech's interpretation of Aristotelian tragic heroes as she is not only of noble blood and enhanced strength in her life, but also appears to be doomed by fate in a similar way to the classical Greek tragic heroes upon whom Leech attracts attention in Chapter Three of the tragedy. Like her classical Greek predecessors, the Duchess undergoes the “fall” necessary to disfigure the protagonist of a play as a tragic hero according to Aristotle's definition. “There is always a fall, and the tragic writer is inevitably concerned with how it works. Aristotle insisted that this occurred through 'hamartia', an error in judgment that enabled disaster. This has always usually been interpreted as implying a kind of 'poetic justice'...", writes Leech (38). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, this is where Leech disagrees with Aristotle when it comes to defining a tragic hero. Leech echoes the sentiment that Aristotle's approach to defining tragic heroes may be too limiting because in Nonetheless, although Leech touches on the idea of ​​Aristotle's concept of the tragic hero as too limiting because Aristotle fails to recognize that "the tragic burden can be shared" (45). it is with this relationship between characters such as Mortimer and Edward and Brutus and Caesar that the full depth of a tragedy is realized (45) The circumstance of the tragic burden shared between other characters within a play seems to be the case in The Duchess of Malfi, where the play seems to be as much about the murderous but pitiful Bosola as it is about the Duchess. Although Bosola does not bear the traditional attributes of a tragic hero --- Bosola does not possess a noble rank or an essence of superiority --- Bosola it's still as tragic as its circumstances seembe as helpless as those of the Duchess. As in examples of Leech's plays in which the tragic burden is shared, The Duchess of Malfi does not venture too far from this notion; in fact, the symbolism of the circles present within the work seems to encourage the shareable nature of the work's tragic burden. Although Bosola and the Duchess are pitted against each other as two competing forces, Bosola is described by Antonio as an opportunistic flatterer who "rails against those things he wants" while the Duchess is pitted as the beautiful and virtuous "the right noble duchess”, both Bosola and the Duchess seem to share the same unfortunate fate which seems to be demonstrated through the symbolism that the circles have in the work (1.1. 25-35, 1.2.110-115). Inside the Duchess of Malfi are ideas such as marriage, the dichotomy between trust and distrust, sovereignty, private worlds and secrecy. From Act 1, circles are included to represent a series of ideas and begin to leave the sign as a general symbol within the play starting with the secret wedding between Antonio and the Duchess In Act 1 scene 3, the Duchess, proclaiming that her wedding ring is a cure for one of her bloodshot eyes. Antonio, says that his ring is "very sovereign" and that he "swore never to part with it / But to my second husband" (1.3.110). The word sovereign means in this context that the ring possesses healing attributes but still carries a tinge of royal power[1] due to the nobility of the Duchess. The dual meaning of the word sovereign may also illustrate how the Duchess views her position as the widow of Amalfi regarding her ability to override social conventions by marrying someone below her rank and expecting critics such as her brothers to eventually give in to his point of view. with time (“And yet, if they knew, time will easily / Disperse the storm (2.1.170-176). This illustration of the Duchess's naivety in this circumstance, perhaps more in hindsight rather than how The story unfolds within the text, it may be a symptom of a larger problem relating to the characterization of the Duchess: her pride in proclaiming her ring as sovereign in terms of both healing and royal abilities can be seen as an example of the use of privileged by the Duchess. space she occupies to persuade her lover to accept her proposal In "Spiritual Echoes of the Duchess of Malfi" ("Spiritual Echoes"), Hunt criticizes the behavior of the Duchess regarding the way she treats. her children. religion and her interactions with her brothers and Cariola; and Hunt suggests that the Duchess's "proud self-creation of her own destiny regardless of conventional morality by courting Antonio and marrying him individually could make her an admirable prototype of confidence in herself" (175). However, for the ease with which the Duchess dismisses Cariola's judgment of the Duchess's attitude towards the Church and for how Cariola declares the Duchess "mad" due to her disdain for "Ferdinand's warnings and the social context that she , Antonio and their children must live” , the Duchess's apparently high regard for her own perspective may be the central feature of her Harartia in its subtle suggestion of a "problematic ambiguity" in her character. (175). In light of Hunt's suppositions, the circle symbol draws more attention to this possibility that pride is the root of the Duchess's hamartia; especially because the circle symbol incorporates other concepts besides marriage and sovereignty such as sanctuary, secrecyand the dichotomy between trust and distrust. When Antonio asks what the couple should do about the Duchess' brothers who will despise their marriage, the Duchess replies "Think not of them. / Any discord without this circumference / Is only to be pitied and not feared" to which Antonio, perhaps out of sincere belief that his brothers will come to accept their marriage, he agrees with her (1.3.169-174). The word used by the Duchess, circumference, implies the sense that the Duchess carves out a boundary that immediately separates the people she trusts (Cariola and Antonio) and the people she distrusts (the Cardinal and Ferdinand) and in doing so, the Duchess has established a new order in his family. The word circumference[2], similar to sovereignty, carries a double meaning that can represent both the very room in which the Duchess is married and the embrace of the couple itself, which, once again, raises the question of how the Duchess sees herself and recalls the "problematic ambiguity" to her character that Hunt mentions. In establishing this new order in which all the things she finds suitable are inside the circumference and all the things she doesn't like are outside it, the Duchess is creating a private world, a sanctuary, where she can thrive without the obstacles of unwanted actions and opinions. ; and, in creating such a boundary, the Duchess, regardless of intentions, has created a dichotomy between those she trusts (Cariola and Antonio) and those she distrusts (The Cardinal and Ferdinand). Because of her actions, the Duchess can be considered naive as well as proud because, as she later discovers, she allowed one of the most untrustworthy people around her into her private world where he would later betray her. With the establishment of the circumference, her sanctuary and private world, the Duchess has perhaps extended her authority beyond her natural capabilities. However, the establishment of circles as private worlds is not exclusive to the sanctuary the Duchess created with Antonio and Cariola. The play presents a strong dichotomy between trust and distrust in the way the other characters are grouped together in relation to each other so that they too share a private world. Ferdinand and the Cardinal have their own circle made up of Castruccio, Silvio, Pescara, Malateste and Giulia with Bosola mediating between the brothers' circle and that of the Duchess. Antonio and Delio have their own separate circle in which Delio, similar to Bosola although not as discontented, distances himself from the circle of Ferdinand and the Cardinal returning to Antonio to help his dear friend. In a small way, Bosola and Antonio share their circle in that Bosola, desperate to save Antonio's life in Act V and avenge him later, share their circle even though it seems to contain a highly spiritual component in which Bosola he wants a way to redeem himself. same as demonstrated in the following lines: “Oh poor Antonio, though nothing is so necessary/ For your goods as piety, yet I find/ Nothing so dangerous./... Well, good Antonio,/ I will seek you, and all the my care will be/ To secure you out of reach.../ I will join you in a most just revenge;/...O Penance, let me truly taste your cup,/” (5.3.312 -330). The circles as symbols of private worlds further exemplify Leech's suggestion that relationships between characters of opposing, perhaps even hostile, perspectives show the capacity these relationships have in revealing the depth of tragedy in works such as The Duchess of Malfi because shows how the tragic burden spreads to each character depending on the world they occupy. When the Duchess is considered the focus of the play regardless of how she created boundaries between herself, Antonio,.