final exam assignment

LITR 4533 TRAGEDY  Final Exam Samples 2008 Essays & Excerpts for Part B: Special Topics

B1. Tragedy & its Updates

Haylie Unger

Tragic Changes?

          As with any genre, one would expect to see changes within the characterization, dialogue, and allusions in tragedies written several centuries apart. What one might not expect to find is the startling similarities in plot that survive centuries of tragic stories. What changes or similarities do we find in the tragedies of such authors as Sophocles, Milton, Euripides, Racine, and O’Neill? And how are their writings influenced by history, religion, and changing civilizations?

          A critical reader of tragedy will consider how major events in history might or do affect plays written during or after these events. The advent of the Judeo-Christian religion is a perfect example of how changes within a society affect the arts. Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus shares many similarities with Milton’s  Samson Agonistes. Audiences are introduced to two blind tragic heroes whose fall is caused by some innate human weakness of their own (tragic flaw). While both heroes find some sort of escape or solace in death at the end of the plays, events within the text are heavily influenced by the historical period and religious context of the play. For example, Oedipus is forced to leave the holy ground of the Eumenides so he has the elders summoned and shares with them his feelings of injustice regarding his life. Oedipus claims “I then a villain born because in self-defense, stricken, I struck the striker back again?” (Oedipus at Colonus scene 2). Sophocles’ character, instead of taking responsibility and confessing his part in his own sins, denies and blames others. Samson, on the other hand, is a tool of the Hebrew God Yahweh. Samson embraces his own depravity and, therefore, is able to rise above it. Samson states “Nothing of all these evils hath befallen me but justly; I myself brought them on,…” (Agonistes line 374). Though both texts are similar in that the hero references a god at one point or another, one finds the relationship each character has with his religion is quite different. In Judeo-Christian teaching, it is necessary that humans “confess and forsake” sins in order to find peace after life; a requirement met by Samson, but not necessarily of relevance to Oedipus. The intuitive reader then justly observes changes in tragic characters and events contingent on such factors as historical period and religious context.

          Another change that happens to tragedy as it ages is the mixing and blending of conventions from multiple genres. Tragic heroes may become romantic characters possessing mostly good qualities, endings may offer one element of romantic transcendence, or a graver-digger may appear mid-text for a comic dialogue. However, as works pass from one playwright to the next, readers may experience some purification of conventions. Three plays based on one root story are a perfect example: Euripides’ Hippolytus, Racine’s Phaedra, and O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms. Consider the following claim: if tragic heroes are made up of innately human characteristics and therefore are neither entirely good or entirely evil, one would have to accept O’Neill’s Eben as the purest tragic hero.

          Euripides’ Hippolytus has sworn his abhorrence of women and is devoted to Artemis—goddess of virginity. Throughout Euripides’ play, Hippolytus remains faultless, driven by the purest desires and honorable convictions. One might argue that his naivety in itself is a tragic flaw, so let this be named as his one weakness. In Racine’s Phaedra, one finds a much more human Hippolytus—one who has actually fallen in love with Aricia. Though still noble and honorable, Racine’s Hippolytus is capable of human emotion. In fact, he is so carried away by emotion that he gladly offers up his kingdom at the feet of his father’s enemy’s daughter. Furthermore, his death feels less like that of a martyr and more like that of a hot-blooded lover than does the death of Euripides’ Hippolytus. Finally, consider O’Neill’s Eben. Eben is a character whose redeeming qualities, if indeed they do exist, are marred by the expert marbling of “good” and “bad” traits throughout his character. As Eben moves away from the heroic character of Euripides’ Hippolytus, he moves toward a more pure tragic hero—and in effect, a more realistic human figure. A scrutiny of the Phaedra/Abbie character in all three plays will reveal a gradual movement from an entirely “bad” character to one driven by passions—some good and some bad. So, as these particular set of plays change though time, the characters become more human in nature, and therefore, more relatable: an example of tragedy changing through time.

          So, what so all of these changes suggest about the future of tragedy? One would expect that current tragedies might broach the subject of religion less and less frequently, and might possibly make a move toward atheism or agnosticism. Furthermore, tragic heroes might be expected to complete the devolution from noble souls with human weaknesses (Hippolytus) to weak humans whom we can neither love nor hate (Eben). Historical context will, no doubt, continue to affect the events which happen in tragedies—leaving us with catastrophes centered around climate change and massive environmental disasters. As our society makes its plunge deeper into humanism, our tragedies will continue to change. But, as much as human nature will stay the same, tragedies will always be, well, tragic. And that’s the one thing that does not change.