The Tragic Hero of the Post - Classical Renaissance

Abstract

Just as the drama of ancient Greece is dominated by the classical order, English drama spearheaded by William Shakespeare, is dominated by the Renaissance post-classical period. Pre-renaissance drama in England was based mostly on allegorical plays extolling Christian values. One of the morality plays that survived the period is Everyman. But the type stood its ground throughout the Elizabethan period. Theatre, which became public, was a tradition handed down from the classical Greek period. Therefore, it was the belief that when a prince fell, that fall was tantamount to the fall of Lucifer. The victim was forever doomed and excluded eternity. And that was the Christian concept of tragedy.Marlowe's emergence as a playwright with Dr. Faustus reinforced the notion that when a fall comes the way of a hero it is because of willful indulgence, lustful desires and incapacity to repent. Hubris, therefore proved to be the sin of Dr. Faustus. Thus, the hero obviously becomes responsible for own downfall. This is equally the fate of King Lear, Coriolanus, and Othello Shakespeare's tragic heroes. Apart from this received tradition coupled with the Christian dimension, the characterization of the English tragic hero was further influenced by Machiavelli through the publication of The Prince (1560). This influence accounts for the blossoming of Machiavellian figures such as Edmund in King Lear and Richard III.Seneca published own adaptations of Greek tragedies. In these adaptations, he explores themes like problems of political power and corruption; the loneliness of kingship and jealousy. These themes are embellished appearances, ghosts, as well as horrific and gory incidents which Seneca described in sublime language.Folktales, one of the received traditions, were effectively used. For example, King Lear, unlike King Oedipus, is conceived on the basis of the Christian notion of original sin. King Lear is therefore cast in the mould of the tragic hero with the tragic flaw inherent in character. His demand that three daughters prove their filial love and fidelity so they can earn their inheritance is naive. This shows gullibility as a parent because he is easily taken in by the false declarations of two elder daughters. As a result, King Lear disinherits Cordelia, the true daughter to the advantage of Reagan and Goneril. His conviction that duty must be rewarded and ingratitude should be punished coupled with inordinate desire to retire into a peaceful old age without the cares of the state is unconvincing. The falsity of Reagan and Goneril which the King realises later reveals injustice to Cordelia and foolishness in giving up kingdom to two false daughters who later maltreat him. In anger, the king rejects shelter and goes out wandering in the storm. His tragic physical suffering at the mercy of the elements and mental torture make his mind turns as he wonders at the cruelty of daughters. Thus, whereas in King Oedipus the concept of fate creates despair, in King Lear, there is hope and faith when at the end the forces of evil are completely defeated.