Analysis Of Veiwpoints On Tragedy Essays - Ancient Greek Theatre

Analysis Of Veiwpoints On Tragedy The question of what defines tragedy has been an issue addressed by several different literary minds since the day of Aristotle, the first person to define tragedy. When Aristotle first defined tragedy he believed tragedy was something reserved for a person of noble stature. He said this person was eventually brought down by a tragic flaw, hence the term tragedy. Robert Silverberg agrees with Aristotles views on tragedy, but other authors dont accept Aristotles view so easily. Arthur Miller for example Believes any common man can be tragic, not just the nobility. And Richard Sewall, takes a view thats a bit different all together. Aristotle was, as far as we know, the first person to define tragedy, and his definition has been forced down school kids throats year after year ever since. Aristotle said a hero was a person of noble stature that was good, but far from perfect. A tragic flaw in the persons character then led to misfortune that they didnt completely deserve, and eventually the characters complete downfall. Aristotle said that the character accepted his fate, and that it wasnt all bad. Aristotles view that the characters misfortune was not fully deserved, but that the character was responsible for their downfall seems slightly hypocritical, but who am I to criticize Aristotles opinions. Robert Silverberg describes a tragic character as, a man (or sometimes a woman) of great capability and attainment and ambition, who attempts great things and ultimately fails in his attempt, overreaching himself and loosing all because of some inherent fundamental flaw in his character (Silverberg, 6). Robert Silverbergs opinion of tragedy completely coincides with Aristotle. He doesnt form any new opinions, and his lack of creativity and originality really makes his article Roger and John undeserving of mention in this paper. Of the four opinions reviewed here I like Arthur Millers the most. In Millers Tragedy and the Common Man Miller states, I believe that common people are as apt subjects for tragedy in its highest sense as monarchs are (Miller, 16). While the others who have written their own definition have reserved tragedy for the noble, I like the fact that Miller doesnt feel that tragedy is something too good for the ordinary man. He defines tragic characters as people, who are ready to lay down their lives, if need be, to secure one thing their sense of personal dignity (Miller, 16). Miller also believes that the character is not brought down by a tragic flaw of their own, but rather by a tragic flaw in the environment. Richard Sewall has a defined three-part definition of tragedy. In his essay The Tragic Form he states, [t]ragedy makes certain distinguishable and characteristic affirmations, as well as denials about the cosmos and mans relation to it; the nature of the individual and his relation to himself; the individual in society (Sewall, 166). Sewall says that in a tragedy good and evil are both seen as definite forces in the cosmos. Sewall says that the tragic character is a paradox. Sewall states that the tragic character, is no child of God, but yet feels himself more than a child of earth (Sewall, 169). According to Sewall the tragic man is very defiant to authority. This defiance is a direct result of the tragic characters pride, and is not necessarily a bad thing, according to Sewall. Sewall belives the main thing that sets the tragic man apart from the other characters of a tragedy is suffering. Sewal says that the tragic man would define himself by the statement, I suffer, I will to suffer, I learn by suffering; therefore I am (Sewall 170). And although tragic man is defined by suffering he does not seek out suffering or find it glorious. Lastly Sewall defines tragedy by the tragic character, and his interaction with society. Tragic man has the obvious options that most people pick when faced with a cituation but a tragic man picks a different coarse. Sewall says that tragic man, protests: he pits himself in some way against whatever, in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, seems to him to be wrong, oppressive, or personally thwarting (Sewall, 172). Tragic man accepts that what he