• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 5315 0

It is not for nothing that we apply the word `reckless' to the mood in which they set out: they have their attention fixed so obsessively on one point, one object of desire, that they do not pay heed to other factors in the overall context in which they are operating which may therefore produce consequences which their restricted vision fails to foresee. When Icarus ascends upwards in his heady flight towards the sun he shuts his mind to the physical laws governing his flight. When Don Jose succumbs to his infatuation for Carmen, he has become blinded to the possibility that she may eventually switch her affections to someone else just as casually as she switches them to him. When Macbeth carries out the murder of Duncan his only conscious thought is that he is removing the one obstacle between himself and his heart's desire, the kingship. It does not enter his mind that his crime might one day be found out.

In fact we see the heroes and heroines of Tragedy becoming more and more ensnared in their predicament, precisely like the hero of one of those `Stickfast' tales in folklore where, with every attempt to get free (like Macbeth murdering the suspicious Banquo) he only gets a little more trapped: except that when Brer Rabbit gets stuck to the Tar Baby he is falling into a trap laid for him by someone else, whereas the heroes and heroines of Tragedy are becoming ensnared by some obsessive desire which springs ultimately from themselves. In this respect it is no accident that we so often, in relation to the central figures of Tragedy, see reference to the words `dream' and `fantasy'. We naturally use such words to describe the state of mind of someone who has in some way lost touch with the reality of the world around him. And this is precisely what is happening to the hero and heroine of a Tragedy. They are being drawn into a kind of fantasy or dream-state, in which their obsession with gratifying one desire or appetite overrules their capacity for wider judgement. Having entered into such a state of illusion, they slide further and further into it. Having made one false move, they are led into another and another in an increasingly desperate bid to shore up or retrieve their position. They are set more and more at odds with the reality of the world around them - until finally it begins to close in on them, demanding a reckoning.2

Nowhere do we see this inexorable process more clearly reflected - and this is the second reason why the course followed by the hero or heroine of Tragedy cannot reach a satisfactory resolution - than in the evolving nature of their relations with the other people around them in the story.

At the beginning of a full five-stage Tragedy, the central figure is always part of a community, a network of relationships, linked to other people by ties of loyalty, friendship, family or marriage. And one of the most important things which happens to such heroes and heroines as they embark on their tragic course is that they begin to break those bonds of loyalty, friendship and love (even if, initially, they may form other alliances). It is the very essence of Tragedy that the hero or heroine should become, step by step, separated from other people. Often they separate themselves in the most obvious, violent and final way possible, by causing other people's deaths. And here we must particularly note the kind of people around the hero or heroine who are most likely to die in a Tragedy.

In tragedies centred on a hero, we may single out four types of victim who are particularly likely to suffer as a result of the hero's reckless course. Two of these are male, two female - and we may describe them as:

The Good Old Man

This is a figure older than the hero, who in some way represents kingly or fatherly authority. Examples are Duncan, killed by Macbeth; Julius Caesar, killed by Brutus; the Commendatore, killed by Don Giovanni.

The Rival or `Shadow'

This is a figure in some way on a level with the hero (e.g., by age, rank or some other similarity) who comes to stand as a kind of `opposite' and threat to