Separating qualities common to a "set" or "type" of Shakespeare's plays that are not common to all of the plays is a difficult task: it would undoubtedly be possible to find evidence of some trait uniting "the tragedies" in any of Shakespeare's plays if one looked hard enough. This is not surprising considering that what unites Shakespeare's plays above all is that they describe human life, and that the nature of human life does not change. So the basis of each piece 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 aspects of this paradox are necessary for tragedy to work. If tragic events were not isolated and special in some way, they would be considered everyday occurrences, and if they were not close to common experience, the public would not sympathize with the characters. Either way, the tragic element would be lost. I firmly believe that what Shakespeare wanted to explore in his plays was how people react to different situations, both psychologically and through their actions. This is confirmed by the fact that Shakespeare only invented one of his plots himself? The Storm? while for all his other plays he adapted tales from folklore, the works of 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 plays, for 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 master of art as of life.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Thus, rather than having a distinct set of unifying characteristics, certain characteristics are more prominent in tragedies than in other plays. Tragedies are, more than any other of Shakespeare's plays, detailed studies of the psychology of a character, the tragic hero. The fact that the plays are generally named after the main protagonist supports this theory: in Antony and Cleopatra and Romeo and Juliet, the presence of two tragic heroes indicates a broader study? these two plays are more interested in the functioning of society and the characters' interactions with that society than other plays. This broader concern is also reflected in the absence of soliloquies in both plays. Comedies are given more general titles, such as Twelfth Night or Measure for Measure: they explore even more general problems in society and are less interested in the reactions of individual characters than in the bigger picture. Doesn't that mean that tragedies don't concern society? many tragic heroes are rulers or become rulers over the course of the play, and we see that their circumstances affect 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. The very basis of tragedy lies in the audience's reaction to a situation where the fundamentally virtuous or righteous protagonist experiences misfortunedisproportionate to his guilt: misfortunes that he partly brought on himself? not by depravity or vice but by error of judgment. Should we see in the main character a reflection, even minimal, of ourselves, and a representation of human limits? we pity a man who does not deserve his misfortunes, and we fear for someone like us. If the audience does not like the protagonist, they will not sympathize with his plight and his tragic nature will disappear because of the complex mixture of excitement and terror ultimately leading to catharsis will be replaced by indifference or even pleasure in the face. the fall and death of the hero. Is that why some people have a problem with Othello? the ease with which Iago tricks Othello into jealousy suggests that he is actually rather stupid and may lead the audience to a contemptuous rather than sympathetic reaction. Likewise, it is important that the protagonist has some guilt in his own misfortune? if he does not, then the situation is not tragic but simply unfortunate, and the hero is simply unlucky to be drawn into circumstances beyond his control. Each of Shakespeare's tragic heroes is "blinded" in one way or another by a character flaw that affects their judgment and will. causes them to react differently in the heat of the moment than they otherwise would. The fault is generally that of temperament which allows the hero's passions to get the better of him and prevail over reason. Shakespeare studies the reactions of characters to extreme emotions outside the normal sphere of experience and following extraordinary events and so the audience can forgive the characters' judgment being a little capricious? the tragedy comes from the crushing and disproportionate consequences that follow the mistake and shift the public reaction from pity to deepest sympathy. Macbeth is blinded by "a hunched, self-surpassing ambition" (I.vii.27), an ambition which he cannot help but pursue, even though he knows the terrible consequences that will befall him and the mental anguish that this will cause: Macbeth is perhaps the most purely psychological of tragedies, showing like it the inner turmoil of Macbeth and his wife, and their gradual descent into madness. Macbeth's famous soliloquy at the beginning of I.vii brilliantly shows the torments he is going through? he knows that if he acts on his ambition it will destroy him, but he can't help but do it anyway, and laments his impending downfall, wishing "If it were done when it's done, then if it 'was good, it would be done quickly... but this move could be the ultimate solution' (lines 1-5) But he knows that "Bloody instructions... being taught, return / To torment the inventor" (lines 1-5) 9-10)? he cannot "skip the life to come", but must "have judgment here". The public has great sympathy for him, because he is a great man, very intelligent and fiercely loyal to the point. now, and although he says he has "no sting / To prick the sides of [his] intention," it could be argued that he was greatly insulted in I.iv when Duncan, after telling Macbeth that “[his] due is more than all can pay,” names Malcolm as Prince of Cumberland and not Macbeth less than twenty lines later This is far from politically astute, for Malcolm is far from being so! impressive as Macbeth, and downright rude given Duncan's previous debt to Macbeth. This affront, combined with the witches' cryptic promises and Duncan's ill-timed visit to Macbeth's castle, conspires to produce an extraordinary opportunity and enormous temptation for Macbeth. This is where thedifference between Macbeth and the character Edmund from King Lear, who has a similar all-consuming ambition? Edmund's rise is entirely of his own making, he knows exactly what he's doing, it's cool and calculated whereas Macbeth's is a crime of passion and opportunism, and Edmund doesn't care at all about that. who is good or bad? its very goal is to overthrow the accepted way of life. Like an Elizabethan version of Conrad's Mr. Kurtz, Macbeth "[lacks] restraint in the gratification of his various lusts": if it is in his power to do something, he cannot help but do it. Is it the genius of Macbeth and Kurtz that is the cause of 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 heal" (II:i:300-1), mastering the insecurity that causes him to be suspicious of Iago's slightest encouragement, which leaves Othello's imagination do most of the work. The ease with which Iago persuades Othello that his wife and his most trusted officer are cheating on him is alarming, and in fact there is almost an eagerness in the rapidity with which he moves from devoted love to absolute hatred: in barely over three hundred lines, Othello goes from professing that “when I do not love [Desdemona], / Chaos has returned” (III:iii:92-3) to “I will tear her to pieces!” » (III.iii.428). Although he tries to maintain that he is secure in his position and his wife's loyalty, saying "exchange me for a goat, / When I turn the affairs of my soul / To such self-sufficient and exaggerated suppositions" (III.iii.178- 180), the very fact that he does not immediately dismiss Iago in disgrace shows that he is not as secure as he claims to be. Very soon after, he indulged so fully in "trifles light as air" (III.iii.319) that only a flock 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 / That chambermen have" (III. iii.260-2), and because it is “declined / In the valley of years” (III.iii.292-3). This is no reason to condemn him in itself, for it was unheard of for a "Moor" to find himself in such a position of success, and no doubt he had other unseen enemies besides Iago (the father of Desdemona, for example, of whom it is said "[Desdemona's] match was fatal to him" (V.ii.204). Does the fault come from his judgment of character? with tragic irony, Othello attacks those who respect and love him most for the man he is, while he trusts the racist who hates him for superficial reasons: as he says himself, he “loved not wisely, but too well” (V. ii.340). Iago actually has very little to do: as with Macbeth and the Wyrd Sisters, the roots are there from the start and only need a little maintenance to flourish. I am not suggesting 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 is simply misled by the amoral Iago but retains his innate virtuosity. However, I believe the tragic element is heightened if some of the blame for Othello's "deception" is placed on the protagonist himself, not for his stupidity but for presupposing the guilt of Desdemona and Cassio, and for his weakness in not keeping his demands. for proof. The errors of judgment that Othello commits under the influence of his jealousy are serious, but most of the fault lies with Iago and Othello is forgiven for his misdirected passion? it maintains at least the same codemoral throughout, and as he says at the end, “I did nothing with hatred, but everything with honor” (V.ii.292). Othello's problems stem from a common mistake among tragic heroes: he mixes his personal affairs with his public affairs and his leadership role when he allows Desdemona to accompany him to Cyprus. As Richard II's failure as king shows, a leader's personal life and role must be kept separate, and a leader's personality and intelligence are not necessarily indicators of how well he will do its job? Henry V was a great king, but he had many faults as a man. Lear mixes the two worlds when he holds a public "trial" for what should be intensely private declarations of love, and Macbeth allows his own personal ambitions to completely obscure any idea of ​​actually ruling for the good of the wider kingdom. The most striking examples of the overlap of private and public concerns are found in Antony and Cleopatra and Romeo and Juliet. In the first case, love is more of a public affair, grand gestures being the only way to demonstrate authentic feelings: Octave Caesar is shocked when his sister arrives without much entrance, saying "You're not coming / Like the sister of Caesar Antony's wife / It would be necessary to have an army for an usher and horses neighing to announce his approach / Long before she appeared to Antony from Julius Caesar when he restored peace with. Pompey and marries Octavia to appease his brother Octavius, but gradually he gives in to his lust again, culminating in his retreat during the naval battle, when he abandons thoughts of battle and blindly follows Cleopatra's retreating ship, which transforms a possible victory into certain defeat This is Antony's “blindness”: he cannot maintain the balance between his public and private affairs, and allows himself to be influenced by one. Juliette, the couple fights. permanent struggle to preserve their very private romantic feelings from the constraints that social and religious institutions seek to impose on them. They meet at night and marry in secret, in contrast to the public spectacle of Antony and Cleopatra. Ultimately, the only way for the couple to defeat the public forces that threaten to destroy their love is to commit suicide: it is a final assertion of their private rights, their final night. Romeo and Juliet does not follow the general trend of most tragedies. in that it has two main protagonists, neither of whom fits the exact definition of "tragic hero" as someone who brings about his own downfall through a failure of character. Indeed, 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 simply a "game" of "free" destiny, as Gloucester says in King Lear, but I think this opening scene is loaded with Shakespeare's irony is in fact subtly referring to the widespread fatalistic views of his time. The play has more in common with its tragic peers than it might seem at first glance? the couple are "blinded", just as the tragic heroes of other plays are, because when they fall into a love "limitless as the sea" (II.ii.133), a love so strong that it surpasses fear and reason, their subsequent judgments are affected and they make choices they would not otherwise have made. Is their love something that, once ignited, is largely beyond their direct control? we can't control its ebbs and flows? but which undeniably comes from within them. Due to thisduality, when their love brings them into conflict with their family, social institutions and their religion, we not only feel pity, but we recognize that they have a choice, difficult as it is, and that they could save their earthly body if they wanted. compromise their purity. This element of choice evokes a lot of pathos and transforms our pity into deep sympathy. Tragically, the other choice available to the couple is to “end in death” (Gloucester in King Lear IV.vi.63)? it's the only way they can be together without compromising each other or the purity of their love. Suicide is man's final personal choice, the only way to take control of life absolutely and irreversibly: to end it. Is this why Gloucester laments that even this last right has been denied him? When suicide has failed, he really has no reason to live, because human life has no meaning without the ability to choose: it becomes an absurdity. Hamlet wonders whether he should commit suicide to escape the iniquity of the world, but is reluctant to commit the act, initially because "the Lord had fixed his canon against self-slaughter" (I.ii.131- 2). ), but later the religious imagery fades and is replaced by fear of the “unknown country”. Hamlet concludes that it is only this “fear of something after death” that makes man “bear the whips and scorns of time” (III.i.70). If the land of death was a plotted territory, everyone would commit suicide. This theory is essential 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, for although the emphasis is on earthly physical pleasures which will be left behind with death, there is also a strong sense of belief in some sort of "timeless" state after death. death in expressions such as "eternal rest", the "dateless bargain", and Juliet's "timeless end". Above all, Romeo and Juliet's double suicide is a defiant denial of predestined destiny and their status as "crossed stars." Instead, they show that it is still possible to take control and “shake off the yoke of the ominous stars” (V.iii.111). ). That such a pure embodiment of love was not allowed to exist and that they must commit suicide to gain control is a damning indictment of their society. The transcendent love of Romeo and Juliet is both their blessing and their curse: it is the quality that makes audiences love them and what sets them apart from ordinary people; but it is at the same time what leads to their fall and 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 of many tragedies, often the "fault" of the tragic hero is linked, or in fact is, to that trait that endears us to him in the first place. In this way, innocence can often lead to evil. David Daiches compares it to Eve's temptation in Milton's Paradise Lost: "If Satan, in the form of the serpent, had told the truth, then Eve would have been right to believe him and eat of the fatal fruit. Eve's real fault was lacking. of sophistication; she had no idea what the snake was telling her; she was, to use an American slang term, a “sucker” and swallowed his story. But is it morally wrong to be a sucker like Eve was to the serpent? , as Othello was to Iago, as Brutus was to people as sophisticated as Antony, as Hamlet was,could we almost say, with regard to life? » Shakespeare does not give an answer to this problem of “the morality of innocence”. ", although he examines it in many tragedies. We can conclude, however, that the "practical man" is far from being the pinnacle of human achievement in Shakespeare's eyes. Characters such as Benvolio in Romeo and Juliet, Octavian Caesar in Antony and Cleopatra, and Malcolm in Macbeth are depicted as cold and uninteresting, impervious to the great passions that drive the rise and fall of tragic heroes. They reminded me of Tennyson's phrase: "It is better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." » Really these “practical men” never liked, and are monochrome sketches therefore in comparison with the glorious Technicolor of heroes? shiny and imperfect is superior to ordinary and consistent. Inevitability is important in Shakespeare's tragedies, both as a dramatic device and as a tool to convey the message of the play. A sense of inevitability keeps audiences captivated as they watch seemingly hopeful events, knowing that an inexorable downturn will occur in the near future. This causes the audience to sympathize more with the tragic hero, as he is caught in circumstances that he initiated but which have become beyond his control, as is the case in Macbeth, where once the hero has murdered Duncan, it is inevitable that his reign of tyranny will intensify until he himself is destroyed. There is, however, an important difference between inevitability and predictability: if events are predictable, the audience will quickly become bored and the tragic effect will be lost, whereas incidents that arouse pathos have a greater effect when they occur unexpectedly. unexpected, 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 production says. This event could not have been predicted, especially since in the previous lines there was a feeling of hope building for the first time in the play, but there is a feeling of inevitability, and it is a consequence of Edmund's evil. I believe the piece would be incomplete and much less powerful if it did not contain this final hammer blow to hope. If Cordelia were to survive, it would contradict everything the play has said thus far about the injustice and futility of life; Lear's death alone would not have been enough, because it would have brought about a sense of fulfillment and justice, because he was reconciled with Cordelia and would thus die a happy man. The tragedy is greatly multiplied by this denial of Lear's contentment, and he consequently dies confused and wondering what all the pain, destruction, and loss is 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 rat have life, / And you , no breath at all? Cordelia in no way deserves the fate she receives, she is in England solely because of her selfless love for her father, but it could be argued that she precipitated the tragedy through her selfishness in refusing to participate in the "trial of 'love' of his father. However, his suffering is completely disproportionate to the scale of his crime, which further accentuates the tragedy. Cordelia's death, the only glimmer of hope and purity in a room full of injustice and suffering, gives deeper meaning to Edmund's novel "The Wheel Has Come Full Circle" (V.iii.174) ? this destroys any sense of progress that has been made through Cordelia's transformation from groveling selfish to, 1979