Monday 11 June 2012

Lear and Creon both fulfil the roles of the tragic hero in their plays. Discuss.


An essay exploring how effective King Lear and Creon (The Burial at Thebes) are portrayed as tragic heroes.


In Aristotle’s Poetics, – a collection of philosophical dissertations on literary and dramatic theory – Aristotle defines tragedy as “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude”. He also underlines certain characteristics through which a tragic hero must conform. Both King Lear and King Creon excellently adhere to Aristotle’s conception of the tragic hero through their conduct, persona and status. However, it is worth considering that both plays were written almost four centuries apart and that the idea and execution of tragedy is different in each context. The Burial at Thebes was written as a contemporary example of Classical Greek Tragedy and is therefore seen as a ritualistic, ceremonious activity in honour of deity and divinity. King Lear, however, is a Shakespearean Tragedy and was seen solely as entertainment.

Perhaps the key aspect of a tragic hero’s temperament is their hamartia or “tragic
flaw” (although more accurately translated as “tragic error”). King Lear and Creon both display hubris and an overwhelming inflexibility towards choices both considerate and arbitrary. These traits represent their hamartia – their error in judgment that will, according to Aristotle, wrongly generate their own decline but not due to sinful or moral weakness, but instead due to a lack of knowledge or understanding.  Creon’s obstinacy and refusal to change the law condemning the venial sin of burying Polyneices is primarily based on arrogance and an attempt to establish authority. Likewise, as a result of his hamartia – also one of hubris – King Lear rejects any advice given to him, namely by Kent, despite being
aimed to assist Lear in perceiving his predicament in its truest sense:

“in thy best consideration, check
This hideous rashness: answer my life judgment,
Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least.” (Kent I, I, 149-151)
 
Both of these incidents help bring upon the protagonists’ nemesis – the sealing of their fate – wherein the protagonist must suffer severely in order to achieve anagnorisis.
Aristotle emphasises that a tragic hero is one of great noble prestige or of “high” eminence. On a practical level, this causes their peripeteia and catastrophe to be all the more dramatic producing the audience to evoke greater fear and pity on behalf of the protagonist. If they were of common or lower-class heritage, their demise would seem less colossal and the cause-and-effect chain, less spectacular. King Lear and Creon satisfy this requirement as they are both sovereigns with which entails significant responsibility and therefore fulfil another aspect through which Aristotle defines a tragic hero.

The tragic hero, although distinguished, must never be a faultless individual. Witnessing an honourable, virtuous man fall from grace to adversity would seem morally unjust. Similarly, the demise of a wicked, nefarious man would seem appropriate and stimulates neither fear nor sympathy. According to Aristotle, a true tragic hero exists “between these two extremes” – a person who is “neither perfect in virtue and justice”, nor one who “falls into misfortune through vice and depravity”, but rather one who “succumbs through some miscalculation”. King Lear and Creon, although often portrayed in disparaging light, act benevolently despite irrationality, hence conforming to Aristotle’s directives. King Lear divides his kingdom so that “future strife / May be prevented” (I, I, 43-44) intending to attain peace and serenity. Equally, Creon passes the law dictating the prohibiting of the burial of Polyneices, as Polyneices was regarded as a traitor and an “anti-Theban”. Creon believes “Never to grant traitors and subversives / Equal footing with loyal citizens, / But to honour patriots in life and death”. In both cases each monarch makes decisions that prefigure their demise, despite each one being ultimately well intended. As a result, Lear and Creon yet again conform to Aristotle’s regulations regarding the tragic hero.

In order for the tragic hero to experience anagnorisis, he must reach a point of reconciliation with regards to the error of his ways. He must realise the single, major point of corruption that initially caused his downfall, wherein finding redemption – but this is an experience that arrives, inexorably, too late. It is this idea of blindness and the failure to recognise that Aristotle also attaches to the notion of the tragic hero. Once again, King Lear and Creon fulfil this obligation. During the beginning of the play, Creon proclaims the dangers of a “man who has all good advice / And then, because his nerve fails, fails to act / In accordance with it, as a leader should”. This seems ironic considering he “fails to act” upon criticism and counsel offered by a number of characters. Instead, Creon asks “Why am I standing out here like a target? / Why is every arrow aimed at me?”. By regarding advice as judgmental scorn, Creon fails to observe the true nature of his error and as a result, demonstrates a failure of leadership in the process. He has created a totalitarian regime and fails to see himself as Dictator despite Heamon declaring, “There’s no city that belongs in single hands”.

King Lear also displays vast symptoms of blindness and a failure of recognition. Most notably he fails to see through Goneril and Regan’s embellished and fraudulent declarations of love towards their father – “Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter” (Goneril I, I, 54,). He also fails to see the true intention behind Cordelia’s silence when asked to declare her love for him. She justifiably sees the task as a futile endeavour designed purely to feed his vanity and ego. Despite this, she still confesses her love for him but only in pragmatic, realistic terms and not in embroidered, decorative language that Lear so wishes:
“I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth: I love your majesty
According to my bond; no more nor less” (Cordelia I, I, 90-92)
 
King Lear, as with Creon, does not appreciate the reasoning behind interrogations towards his actions. Instead – such as with Kent – he banishes them for defamation by yelling “Out of my sight” (I, I, 156). This inability to see, or even allow himself to see, the error in his ruling leads to his inevitable demise. King Lear also shows a failure not only to recognise others, but to recognise himself. This idea is reinforced though Regan’s remark of “he hath ever but slenderly known himself” (I, I, 290). Consequence of being blinded, rather pathetically, towards their own acts concerning leadership, authority and pride, both Lear and Creon emphasise the futility of one another’s reign and judgment. This in turn strengthens their rendering of the role of the tragic hero.

Although the plays were written centuries apart, the purpose of the tragic hero remains consistent in both contexts. It acts as a deterrent, cautioning people of a similar position or mentality never to submit to corruption, iniquity or ambition. If so, they shall meet a similarly cruel and hostile fate as that of the protagonist. Through Aristotle’s definition and through critical analysis of each play, it remains quite clear that King Lear and King Creon fulfil the role of the tragic hero. Their personality traits and elements conducting their disposition prove undeniably to be that of a tragic protagonist.

No comments:

Post a Comment