Name: Bassant Ayman

Instructor: Dr Wafaa Abd- El Aziz

Course: ENG 313 Senior Seminar

Date: Spring 2016

The Tragic Hero between Aristotle and Miller

A comparison between Aristotle’s theory of the features of the tragic hero as represented in
“Oedipus the King” and “King Lear” and Arthur Miller’s theory of the modern tragic hero as
represented in “Death of a Salesman” and “View from the Bridge”

Abstract
Tragedy has always been a prominent genre in drama around the world. In fact, to the
ancient Greeks, tragedy is a genre so significant that it is associated with religious practices and
the religious concept of purification. That is why Aristotle dedicated his book “De Poetica” or
“Poetics” for highlighting the features of a perfect tragedy and the perfect character of tragedy
or, in other words, tragic hero. Aristotle’s theory regarding the characterization of the tragic hero
is applied mainly to the classical tragic heroes such as Oedipus from “Oedipus the King”. The
Elizabethan tragic hero, such as Shakespeare’s King Lear also follows Aristotle’s theory, yet
with some developments such as decreasing the rank of the tragic hero and giving more focus to
the character of tragedy rather than the plot structure or the philosophy of the tragedy alone.
Years later, in the 20th century, Arthur Miller comes up with his own theory on the
characterization of the tragic hero. Miller disregards the condition of nobility of the tragic hero,
thus making common men such as Willie Loman from “Death of a Salesman” and Eddie
Carbone from “A View from the Bridge” eligible subjects for tragic heroes as much as royalties,
and proceeds with his age’s notion of individualism and applies it to his characters. This research
thus aims to explore the development of the tragic hero between Aristotle and Miller. The
research will compare and contrast the theories of the philosopher and the dramatist and the

1
features each of them set for the tragic hero. The research will apply Aristotle’s theory to the
plays “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles and “King Lear” by Shakespeare, and applies Arthur
Miller’s theory to his plays “Death of a Salesman” and “A View from the Bridge”. The tragic
hero will be proven to have undergone a path of individualization, shifting from a mere tool to
convey the overall philosophy of the tragedy to become the heart and soul of the tragedy.

2
Introduction

This research aims to compare the theory of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle of

the concept of the classical tragic hero, as reflected in Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” and

Sophocles’ play “Oedipus The King”, and the theory of the American 20th century dramatist

Arthur Miller of the modern tragic hero as reflected in his plays “A View From The Bridge” and

“Death of A Salesman”. The research will be focusing on the characterization of King Lear and

Oedipus as representations of the classical tragic hero figure and Willy Loman and Eddie

Carbone as representations of the modern tragic hero.

These two theorists had lived eons of ages apart, and a million miles apart. Yet they both

had a common denominator that marked both their names into the world of literature; the theatre.

Theatre in ancient Greece was a holy place and a play was an act of prayer. The Greek theatre,

and the beginning of the idea of Greek tragedies, started as an act of worship to the Greek god

Dionysus, god of wine. During the rituals performed in worship of god Dionysus, the Greeks

wore masks, much associated with acting, and drank until they had no control over their

emotions and actions and turned into completely different people. In a way, actors also lose their

personalities to their characters the same way the intoxicated lose their personality to the wine;

and it was from this point that the concept of the Greek tragedies and Greek drama in general

rose (Cartwright, 2013). Almost all the Greek tragedies in the classical period were inspired or

influenced by Greek mythology and were mainly performed by 1 to 3 actors and a chorus. Plays

of 1 protagonist had him “wear a mask, allowing him the presumption of impersonating a god”

3
(Cartwright, 2013) and mostly the protagonists were nobility. Moving from ancient Greece to

America, the American drama had a major shift in structure between the 19th century and the

early 20th century. The American theatre revolted against the overly dramatic melodramas, poetic

plays and farces that mainly composed American plays in the 19th century to adopt the

movement of realism (Gabriner, 2007) and many other political and social movements that

marked the start of the 20th century (Murray and Rizzio, 2011). The American theatre in the 20th

century also adopted new schools of drama such as expressionism and absurdist drama. Yet most

importantly, most of the protagonists of 20th century plays were common men with flesh and

blood qualities.

This research will be aiming to explore and compare the 2 theories in 4 plays; “Oedipus

the King”, “King Lear”, “A View from the Bridge” and “Death of a Salesman”.

Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King” is considered to be Sophocles’ masterpiece and Greek

tragedy’s pride. It tells the story of Oedipus, the King of Thebes who was cursed with the

prophecy that says he shall kill his father, wed his mother and bear children from her. His mother

and father try to avoid the prophecy, yet fate still finds a way to lead Oedipus to unknowingly

kill his father and wed his wife and also a way to make Oedipus blind to it all. The play ends

with Oedipus realizing his own blindness and punishing himself by stabbing his own eyes for not

being able to see his terrible crime earlier.

Regarding Shakespeare’s King Lear, this research will be focusing on King Lear’s

character solely, thus disregarding Glouster’s subplot line. The play features a tale of hurt and

insanity; all stemming from Lear’s daughters’ ungratefulness to his generosity and Lear’s own

harboring on his vanity. Lear undergoes a gradual tragic downfall of revelation, ungratefulness

4
and eventually death, all stemming from his earlier decision to sell earnest filial love with

flattery.

20th century’s “Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller tells the story of an American

man’s disillusionment in his long cherished American dream and an escapism that ultimately

leads to an escape from the whole life. Willy Loman, a travelling salesman, clings desperately

onto the American dream of easy success, where America is a land where being “well-liked” is

enough for being successful. However, as the play progresses, the audience start to witness the

failure of this dream in Willy Loman’s career, children, and even his mental state. Broken with

his disillusionment in his country, himself and his children who did not live up to Willy’s

expectations or principles, Willy decides to take his leave from the world and commits suicide.

The last play to be explored in this research is Miller’s “View from the Bridge” which

features a tale of forbidden passion that lead to an ultimate downfall. Eddie Carbone is an Italian-

American commoner who works on the waterfront as a longshoreman. Throughout the years,

Eddie developed an irrational passion for his wife’s young niece, whom they keep in their house

after her parents died. Later, Beatrice’s cousins, illegal immigrants Marco and Rodolpho, arrive

to stay with the Italian-American family. Unlike his masculine, classical Middle Eastern brother

Marco, Rodolpho possesses more American qualities and demonstrates skills that are uncommon

to stereotypical Italian men such as sewing, cooking and singing opera with a “tenor”. However,

these American qualities, along with his physical American attractiveness draws Catherine’s

attention and soon they fall in love with each other. Eddie feels alarmed with this relationship.

Eddie undergoes a path of obsessive actions and sins that ultimately lead to his downfall by

stabbing himself by mistake with his own knife. Eddie Carbone dies in his wife’s arms; ending

5
his life with the realization that he had wronged himself and his wife when he sold his love for

her for his passion for Cathrine. He dies with his last words being “my B” (his wife Beatrice).

This research will be exploring these 4 plays from both the perspectives of both theories.

These are the research questions this paper will be answering.

1-What are the differences and similarities between Aristotle’s theory of the tragic hero

and Arthur Miller’s theory of the tragic heroes

2- How is the portrayal of the classical tragic heroes, King Lear and Oedipus, different

from the modern tragic heroes Willy Loman and Eddie Carbone in terms of tragic hero features

and characterization?

3- Can a common man be really a tragic hero? How can Willy Loman and Eddie Carbone

fit into both Aristotelian and Millirian theories of tragic heroes?

6
Literature Review

 Background:

 Ancient Greek Theatre Background:

Mark Cartwright’s article titled “Greek Tragedy” published in the website
“ancient.eu” provides a concise yet comprehensive background about the origins of the
Greek theatre and the evolution of Greek tragedy. Greek tragedies originated from the
religious rituals performed in worship of God Dionysus; God of wine and, at the same
time, God of theatre. The idea of acting stemmed from the act of wearing masks and
drinking during Dionysus’ religious rituals, the latter resulting in people’s losing their
characters to the drink just like actors lose their characters to their role. The researcher
can connect this concept closely to Aristotle’s theory about the tragic hero as means of
catharsis which ultimately leads to purification of the mind and soul, just like religious
practices. The article also elaborates on the evolution of the tragic theatre and how it
shifted from having only 1 actor, that actor telling the story alone as if impersonating a
god, to having 3 actors and more. Researcher shall connect the idea of the hero (ie: the
one actor) impersonating a god to the attributes of the tragic hero; one of them being
noble in birth and in stature. Finally the article provides brief backgrounds about 3
prominent tragic poets including Sophocles’, author of “Oedipus the King” and how he
was the one to develop the Greek tragedies’ plot by adding 3 actors.

 20th Century American Theatre Background:

Professor Paul Gabriner provided a manuscript of his lecture titled “20th Century
American Drama: A Background for Albee and Others” which serves to provide a
background about the history and schools of theatre in 20th century America along with
background information about some of the most eminent American playwrights.
Researcher used this source in order to provide a background about the development of
the American theatre from the melodramas of the 19th century to realism. The school of

7
 realism undoubtedly affected Arthur Miller’s portrayal of his tragic heroes. Researcher
will relate this theme of realism to the portrayal of Willy Loman from “Death of a
Salesman” and Eddie Carbone from “A View from the Bridge” as common men and their
flesh-and-blood qualities.

The article “Playwrights, Production and Performance: American Theater in the

20th Century” by Tim Murray and Laurie Rizzo is another source which highlights the
evolution of the 20th century theatre’s themes and patterns and even the audience’s taste.
The online article, along with its different threads, sheds light on how different political,
cultural and literary movements such as absurdist theatre and expressionism affected the
modern theatre. This article was used to introduce the readers to the 20th century drama in
general and its emergence.

 Background about Aristotle:

“Aristotle” article by Joshua J. Mark published on ancient.eu sheds light on
Aristotle’s life and achievements. The Greek philosopher Aristotle was born in 384 BCE
in Stagira, Greece. He was Athens to study in Plato’s academy in his youth. Aristotle
remained there for 20 years and graduated early and granted the chance to teach rhetoric
and dialogue and later took over the academy after Plato’s death. His writings influenced
almost every field of human knowledge such as biology, politics, metaphysics, literature,
theatre and many more. The article also mentions the book “Poetics” as one of Aristotle’s
most prominent works and is still used as a classical literary reference. This article was
used to provide the readers with a brief introduction about who is the Greek philosopher
who set the boundaries and features of the tragic hero. It also introduces the book
“Poetics”; the classical reference to the preset qualities of the classical tragic hero

 Background about Arthur Miller:

BBC’s GCSE bitesize notes focuses on Arthur Miller’s life. Arthur Miller was
born to a Jewish family in 1915, and his grandparents were immigrants from Poland. He
started writing plays when he was in college and received positive acclaims and awards
for many of his plays such as “All My Sons” and “Death of a Salesman”. He was married

8
 to Marlin Monroe but his marriage ended in a divorce. Most of Miller’s plays are set in
modern day America. He highlights modern age’s moral and political issues through
realistic characters who are mainly common modern men but weaves some elements of
Greek tragedies into his plays (and that is what this paper will be exploring later on).
Miller died in 2005 at the age of 89 after becoming one of America’s most renowned
dramatists. These notes will be used as a reference to the background of the dramatist
Arthur Miller who developed the theory of Tragedy and the common man.

 The 2 Theories of the Tragic Hero:

 Aristotle’s Theories of the classical tragic hero and its features:

The Anglo-Egyptian bookshop’s version of Aristotle “De Poetica” is a collective
book that the researcher will be using as a reference to Aristotle’s original theory about
tragedy and the tragic hero features. The book, along with containing Aristotle’s original text
“De Poetica”, contains a summary and an analysis of the main parts of the poetics by G.M.A
Grube and an Arabic translation and analysis of the poetics by Dr Ibrahim Hamada. One of
the features that the researcher will be comparing to Arthur Miller’s theory using this book is
the tragic hero’s association with nobility of class. Aristotle theorized that “first and
foremost, that they {the characters} shall be good” (Aristotle qtd in Bywater P.55, 1909), and
although he believed “such goodness is possible in every type of personage” he believed that
the nobility of character should be demonstrated also in the nobility of stature. He theorized
that a woman or a slave can have this goodness “though the one is perhaps an inferior, and
the slave a wholly worthless being” (Aristotle qtd in Bywater P.55, 1909) and so their
“goodness” of character is not worth portraying; thus the nobility of the tragic hero’s
character became associated with the nobility of his birth in the Aristotelian tragic heroes.
The researcher will be using this book for further references to the rest of the features of the
tragic hero as theorized by Aristotle in order to apply it to the classical texts and to compare
it to Arthur Miller’s theory and examples of tragic heroes in the play.

9
 Classical Literary Criticism, published by Penguin books, is another book that offers
a more modern translation to Aristotle’s “Poetics” by T.S Dorch. This source will be used as
a backup to the above reference should there be any king of differences in the translation.

“Outline of Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy in the Poetics” by Barbara F. McManus

offers a summary of the features of the classical tragic hero as defined by Aristotle in the
form of a short, focused list. The researcher will be using this as a backup reference to offer
the readers with a briefer and clearer image of each of Aristotle’s tragic hero features.

“Coles Notes: Sophocles King Oedipus, Oedipus At Colonus, Antigone Notes” is a

book of study notes on the play published by Coles Editorial Board. The third chapter in the
notes contains a briefing about Aristotle’s theory about tragedy and tragic hero. The
researcher uses this source for extra clarifying for the theory.

 Arthur Miller’s theory of Modern Tragic Hero

Arthur Miller’s article “Tragedy and the Common Man” published in New York
Times of 1998 clarifies his theory and conception of the modern tragic hero. Miller
believed that “the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings
were” (Miller,1998). He adopted some of Aristotle’s concepts but added the taste of
modernism and realism to his conception of the tragic hero; thus forming the theory of
the modern common man as a subject for a tragic hero. This article is the main reference
for Arthur Miller’s theory about the modern tragic hero and will be used in application on
his main characters in “Death of a Salesman” and “View from the Bridge” and in
comparison to Aristotle’s theories and the classical tragic heroes King Lear and Oedipus.

“Tragedy in the Modern Age: The Case of Arthur Miller” is a paper by Amar
Guendozi that holds a comparison between Arthur Miller’s concepts of the modern tragic
hero and Aristotle’s original theories. The source makes references to the Millirian plays
such as “The Crucible” and “Death of a Salesman”. This source will be used to aid the

10
 researcher in the comparison between the 2 theories. Also, this source can be used as a
reference to the character of Willy Loman as a subject of a tragic hero.

 Texts for Application:

 Oedipus The King:

The first text for application in this research paper is “Oedipus the King” or
“Oedipus Rex” by Sophocles. This text will be used as an application to Aristotle’s
theory of the features of a tragic hero. Oedipus’ character analysis will be used as a
typical example of an Aristotelian tragic hero.

“The Tragic Hero of the Classical Period” research paper by Asuamah Adade-
Yeboah, Kwaku Ahenkora & Adwoah S. Amankwah is published by Canadian Center of
Science and Education (English Language and Literature Studies periodicals ; Vol. 2, No.
3; 2012). This paper “looks at how the classical period defined and delineated its tragic
hero based on the action and the plot of the play” (Yeboah et all, 2012). The paper
explores “Oedipus the King” play as the perfect example of the classical tragic hero and
the play as the perfect example of the Aristotelian concepts of tragedy. Researcher will
use this source in order as a reference to the character analysis of Oedipus as a tragic
hero.
Krishma Chaudhary’s paper titled “The development of plot in the famous Greek
tragedy “Oedipus Rex” or “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles explores the structure of the
play as a whole as an ideal Aristotelian tragedy in terms of plot, unity and tragic hero
character. The researcher will be using this source as a reference to the Aristotelian
theory about tragedy as a whole and why Aristotle regarded Oedipus as the perfect tragic
hero of the classical period

William Magrath’s article “ClassicNote on Oedipus Rex / Oedipus the King”

offers a full formalisitc analysis of the play “Oedipus the King” with particular focus on

11
 Oedipus’ character. It also explores Oedipus as an eligible tragic hero and, more
importantly, explores the role of fate in the tragic downfall of Oedipus and the concept of
inevitability in Sophocles’ play. The researcher shall use this source as a reference for a
more in depth analysis of Oedipus’ character and also as a reference to exploring the
Aristotelian concept of Hamartia and its application on Oedipus.

“Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle” is a periodical by Marjorie

Barstow published by The Johns Hopkins University Press (The Classical Weekly, Vol.
6, No. 1 (Oct. 5, 1912), pp. 2-4). The periodical explores Oedipus as an ideal Aristotelian
tragic hero in terms of both characterization and rank. Researcher will use this periodical
as a reference to character analysis and also as reference to exploring Oedipus’ rank as
one of the features Aristotle specified for the tragic hero.

Alireza Farahbakhsh’s periodical titled “Exploring the Applicability of Aristotle's

"Tragic Flaw" to Sophocles' Oedipus Rex is published by The International Research
Journal “International Reseachers”. The research explores Aristotle’s concept of hamartia
and discusses how this concept can be applied to Oedipus’ character. The researcher will
use this source to explore the contribution of fate in Oedipus’ downfall and researching
how far Oedipus is responsible for his own downfall

 King Lear:

This research will analyze Shakespeare’s play “King Lear” as an example of

Elizabethan tragic plays. The research will focus on exploring Lear as a tragic hero and
its applicability to the Aristotelian features of the tragic hero. King Lear was chosen as a
representation of the transitional stage between ancient Greek tragedies and modern
tragedies. The research will explore the development of the tragic hero in the Elizabethan
era, its difference from the classical tragic hero and how it paved the way to the
emergence of the modern tragic hero.

12
 “The Tragic Hero of the Post-Classical Renaissance” written by Asuamah
Adade-Yeboah and Adwoa S. Amankwaah published in “Studies in Literature and
Language” journal (Vol. 5, No. 3, 2012, pp. 119). This paper explores Shakespeare’s
King Lear as a tragic hero. “The study shows that the post-classical renaissance period
portrays the tragic hero on the basis of weakness of character and is different from the
Aristotelian concept of tragedy as hamartia, a going wrong” (Yeboah and Amankwaah,
2012). Researcher will use this source in order to trace the development of the tragic hero
from the classical period to the Elizabethan period and how far King Lear is an example
of an Aristotelian tragic hero.

“Coles Notes: Shakespeare King Lear” is a book of study notes on the play
published by Coles Editorial Board. The notes include a thorough analysis of the
character of King Lear and the play itself. The book also contains an act by act analysis to
help trace the play as a tragedy. The researcher will use this as a method of character
analysis for King Lear.

“The Necessity of Reasonable Madness in King Lear” is an article by “Jessica

Dunckel” which explores the theme of insanity in “King Lear” and its significance in the
play. Researcher uses this source as an aid to explore Lear’s insanity as a method and as a
reason of evoking pity and fear that is often associated with the Aristotelian tragic hero.

 Death of a Salesman:

In examination of modern tragedy and tragic hero, and in application of Miller’s

theory of the modern tragic hero, this research will be analyzing one of Arthur Miller’s
most celebrated tragedies; “Death of a Salesman”. Death of a Salesman was rejected by
multiple theatres back in the 20th century because it was considered an unconventional
tragedy, for they could not assimilate the idea of a common man; Willy Loman being a
tragic hero. It is for this play that Miller comes up with his theory of the modern tragic
hero to refute people’s presumptions of the classical tragic hero. The researcher will be

13
applying Miller’s theory to this text and the features of the modern tragic hero to Willy
Loman the salesman.

Cathrine Elizabeth Bennett’s research titled “The interrelated development of

social values and the concept of the tragic hero with reference to the works of Arthur
Miller” is a research published by the University of Pretoria: Research Output. This
research will be using chapter 4 of this thesis which is titled “Willy Loman in Death of a
Salesman: a tragic hero or an anti-hero” which focuses on shedding light on Willy Loman
as a character. Thus the researcher will use this source as an aid in the character portrayal
of Willy Loman.

“A Critical Overview Of Miller’s Willy Lowman –A Dreamer, More Sinned Against

Than Sinning” is a research by Shariful Karim published in the Journal of Arts, Science &
Commerce. The research originally aims to psychoanalyze the character of Willy Loman, offer a
character portrayal of Willy Loman and explore the theme of the American dream. The
researcher, however, only used it as a reference for the characterization of Willy Loman and
exploring his tragic “flaw” which is escapism.

“Common Man As A Tragic Hero: A Study of Arthur Miller's Death Of A

Salesman” by Kritika Nanda research paper, published in the “Indian Streams Research
Journal” (Volume-3, Issue-10, Nov-2013), explores the Miller’s play as an example of
the modern tragedy and Willy Loman as the modern tragic hero. “The paper explores this
radical and celebrated change in the concept of tragic hero through the character of Willy
Loman in Miller's Death of a Salesman” (Nanda, 2013). This source will be used as a
reference to the development of the tragic hero in the 20th century and Willy Loman as a
modern tragic hero to be compared to the classical tragic heroes.

“Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman: A Re-evaluation” paper by Gunasekaran

Narayanan explores Willy Loman as a postmodern tragic hero and sheds light on the
theme of the American dream in “Death of a Salesman” and the impact of the failure of
the American dream on Willy Loman’s own failure. The researcher will be also using this

14
 research to explore Willy Loman’s Hamartia or tragic “flaw” along with applying the
feature of “quest” on Willy Loman as a modern tragic hero.

“A Modern Tragic Hero in Arthur Miller’s Play Death of a Salesman” is an article

by Ayça Ülker Erkan. It explores not only Willy Loman’s character, but also the theme of
individualization. It also sheds light on the quest of Willy Loman as a tragic hero; which
is attaining self-dignity and maintaining self-image.

 View From the Bridge:

The last text of application in this research is “View from the Bridge” by Arthur
Miller. It is the second play for applying Miller’s theory of modern tragic hero. The
research will compare Eddie Carbone as a tragic hero to the rest of the tragic heroes
featured in this research, including Miller’s Willy Loman.

“The Contemporary Tragic Hero” is a thesis paper by Levon Linnebank. The

paper explores Eddie Carbone’s character as a contemporary tragic hero in comparison to
Aristotle’s theory. The researcher will be using this source as an aid for analyzing the
character of Eddie Carbone and shedding light on his characterization as a modern tragic
hero.

BBC GCSE Bitesize. “A View from the Bridge Character” study guide is a study
guide used by IGCSE students for studying the play “View from the Bridge”. The
researcher will be using this as a reference as a reference to one of Eddie Carbone’s
character flaws which is being untrusting.

15
Methodology
This research follows the method of text analysis to apply the theories of Aristotle and Arthur
Miller regarding the tragic hero. The Aristotelian theory is applied to the classical texts Oedipus
the king and King Lear while the Millierian theory is applied to Miller’s plays Death of a
Salesman and View from the Bridge. The research was also aided by periodicals, books, notes
and articles for secondly resources

16
Discussion
 Aristotle’s Theory: The features of the character of tragedy

 Catharsis: Pity and Fear

Aristotle believes that the main aim of a tragedian in creating a tragedy is to evoke a
sense of “catharsis” within the audience. “Catharsis” is the process of human purification and
outlet of emotions. This process of purification can be achieved mainly by “arousing pity and
fear” (Aristotle qtd in Bywater P.43, 1909). These feelings of fear and pity are aroused firstly by
the plot structure and events of the tragedy itself and secondly by the character of tragedy who is
the key to turning the events of the tragic play. In the Aristotelian theory, “tragedy is a
representation, not of men, but of action and life, of happiness and unhappiness-and happiness
and unhappiness is bound up with action” (Aristotle qtd in Dorsch. P.39, 1965). This is a very
important point that differentiates classic tragedies from modern tragedies.

Therefore, the character of tragedy, the focus of this paper, comes in second place of
importance in an Aristotelian tragedy. The tragic hero’s actions and incentives set the actions of
a tragedy into motion; that is why Aristotle is very particular on specifying the qualities and
characteristics that make a tragic hero applicable for evoking pity and fear.

For the character of tragedy to evoke pity and fear, the character has to pass by 3 stages.
The first stage is reversal. The character undergoes a reversal of fortune and a change from one
state to the opposite. For example, a character could go from rich to poor, or from loved and
respected to dreaded in the reversal stage. The second stage is discovery, or as it is sometimes
called, “the moment of realization”. In this stage, the character shifts from “ignorance to
knowledge” and starts to acknowledge the flaw or the error of judgment that they commit in the
play. However, this stage of discovery often comes too late, which takes us to the third stage
which is calamity or downfall. This is the stage where the audience realizes that the hero’s
calamity is inevitable. Calamity is an action of destructive or painful nature which can be death,
injury or any kind of suffering. (Aristotle qtd in Dorsch, chapter 11, 1965)

17
 Considering the idea of calamity, Aristotle theorizes that “our pity is awakened by
undeserved misfortune and our fear by that of someone just like ourselves” (Aristotle qtd in
Dorsch P.48, 1965). The audience’s sense of pity is aroused upon seeing the tragic heroes
suffering. In most of Aristotelian tragedies, the “misfortune” that befalls the tragic hero exceeds
their tragic deed. The sense of fear is aroused upon the audience’s realization that the tragic hero
in the play (or on stage) is a human of flesh-and-blood qualities just like them and that his
downfall can easily befall them too.

 Nobility of Stature
Aristotle was very keen on stressing the fact that the classical tragic hero must be of
either a noble rank or of noble blood. Aristotle hints at the tragic hero’s rank more than
once. First of all, Aristotle claims that an “utterly worthless man” falling from happiness
to misery, though might trigger some emotions, would evoke neither pity nor fear
(Aristotle qtd in Dorsch P.48, 1965). He also stresses on the fact that the tragic hero must
be “highly renowned and prosperous” so the character’s reversal of status can be from
prosperity to misery (Coles: Sophocles King Oedipus, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone
Notes, P.13&14, 1994). Thus, Aristotle closely associates the process of catharsis to the
tragic hero’s status and, as proof, often made reference to noble, royal characters such as
Oedipus and his family as subjects of a perfect tragic hero. Aristotle also associates the
goodness of character to the goodness of blood, gender and status. When stating the
personal qualities of the tragic hero, Aristotle states that “goodness” is one of the
characteristics of the classical tragic hero; and states that such goodness is possible “even
in a woman or a slave, though the one is perhaps an inferior being and the other a wholly
worthless being” (Aristotle qtd in Bywaters, P.55, 1909). This, again, suggests the
Aristotelian notion that the classical tragic hero must be nobility, as a slave is not
regarded as a worthy subject of a tragic hero due to their low stature.
Goodness of character is another quality Aristotle set for the classical tragic hero
that ought to be explored closer.

18
 Goodness of character
A good character falling from happiness to misery would make us appalled, and a
bad character going from happiness to misery would evoke neither pity nor fear. That is
how Aristotle reached the conclusion that the tragic hero has to be the “intermediate type
of personage”. In his Poetics, Aristotle described the tragic hero’s moral code as
“intermediate”. This means that the tragic hero is neither a devil nor an angel; “a man not
pre-eminently virtuous and just” but still good in nature. The aspects of pity and fear for
the tragic hero arise from the fact that he is an imperfect human just like any of the
audience witnessing his downfall.
However, like a painter likens his model to real life but makes him handsomer, a
tragedian, Aristotle says, should keep his tragic hero “true to life” and yet raise it to be
more beautiful and glorious than the “Ordinary man” (Aristotle qtd in Bywaters, chapter
15, 1909). The feature of nobility mentioned earlier perhaps contributes to raising the
tragic hero above reality as kings are usually portrayed as refined, glorious beings above
the “ordinary man”.
Still, a tragic hero must be a morally imperfect human being with flaws.A
particularly important “flaw” is one of the most crucial points in the characterization of
an Aristotelian tragic hero; that is the tragic flaw.

 Hamartia; Tragic flaw/error

The Greek word Hamartia has evoked a lot of debate among literary scholars.
This issue has aroused due to the difference in translation. In some translations, Hamartia
has been translated to an “error” while others translated it as “flaw” (Coles: Sophocles
King Oedipus, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone Notes, P.13&14, 1994). The 2 translations
of Aristotle’s “De Poetica” that this research features translate it as “error”, so one ought
to explore the first interpretation of the word “Hamartia”
Both T.S Dorsch and Ingram Bywater translate Hamartia as “error”. In this light,
Hamartia is defined as an error of judgment. Accordingly, this translation clarifies that a
tragic hero’s downfall “is brought upon {the tragic hero} not by vice and depravity but by
some error of judgment” (Aristotle qtd in Bywater, P.52, 1909). According to this
definition, Hamartia , or in this case the tragic error, is not the result of a flaw or a defect

19
 in personality, but solely a result of lack of knowledge or wrong judgment. It is this error
of judgment in the tragic hero that triggers the events of the tragedy and leads to the
inevitable downfall that is often associated with tragedy (McManus, 1999). Scholars who
support this idea believe that considering the Hamartia as a personality trait gives more
importance to the character than the classical dramatists intend, and disregard the fact that
classical tragedy does not focus on the individual as much as the philosophical scope of
the tragedy as a whole. Therefore these scholars believe that Hamartia is only a tragic
hero’s error of judgment that results from ignorance, not because of moral weakness.
(Coles: Sophocles King Oedipus, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone Notes, chapter 3, 1994).

On the other hand, some other literary scholars interpret the hamartia as a “tragic
flaw”. These scholars believe that Aristotle meant for the hamartia to be a part of the
tragic hero’s imperfection of character (Coles: Sophocles King Oedipus, Oedipus at
Colonus, Antigone Notes, chapter 3, 1994). Aristotle, as was mentioned earlier, states
that the tragic hero must be “like ourselves” to evoke the feelings of pity and fear. Thus,
these scholars interpret the hamartia as a defect or a “crack” in the personality of the
tragic hero, thus giving the word an ethical perspective rather than philosophical one. In
this case, this “flaw” brings about the downfall of the tragic hero by his own hands (i.e:
self-destruction) and that is where the inevitability stems from.
Taking these definitions into consideration, each dramatist or tragedian applies
the quality of hamartia to his/her tragic hero in different ways. This research will explore
how Sophocles and Shakespeare applied Hamartia to their classic tragic heroes by
analyzing their plays “Oedipus the King” and “King Lear”.

 Oedipus the King: Ideal Aristotelian Tragic Hero:

Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King” tells the story of a man’s refusal to see the truth
until he could see nothing at all. After plague strikes the Greek city of Thebes, citizens
gather before their king, Oedipus’ palace, asking him to take an action. Oedipus tells
them that he already sent his son-in-law, Creon to the oracle to seek a way to lift the
curse off the city. Creon comes back with a message from the oracle; the curse will be

20
lifted only when the murderer of the former king Liaus is found and exiled from the
country. Laius was murdered by a band of thieves on his way to find an oracle, and only
one survived the incident. Oedipus vows to find this murderer and banish him from the
country. Creon then reenters with the blind oracle Tiresias and Oedipus asks him to tell
what he knows about the murderer. Tiresias refuses to speak at first, but then reveals that
Oedipus is the actual murderer. Naturally, Oedipus refuses to believe the accusations.
Before leaving, Tiresias gives one last peculiar statement that Laius’ murderer will turn
out to be father and brother to his children, and son of his own wife. Upon inquiring his
wife, Jocasta, widow of King Laius, Oedipus starts to realize that he may be the murderer
of king Laius. Oedipus tries with all his might to disprove the accusations, but later he
learns the bitter truth that he was the son of Laius, that he murdered Laius, wedded his
mother and bore children from her. Jocasta hangs herself and Oedipus stabs his own eyes
as a punishment for his inability to see the truth earlier. Oedipus begs Creon to banish
him and keep guardianship of his daughters. And so he leaves the city of Thebes, blind
and bleeding. Oedipus the King is considered Sophocles’ masterpiece and one of the
most renounced plays in Greek drama. Aristotle himself considered Oedipus the King to
be the perfect example of the perfect classical tragedy and often made reference to it in
his poetics. Oedipus was considered by many critics, besides Aristotle himself, to be the
ideal classic, Aristotelian tragic hero.

First of all, regarding the status, indeed, Oedipus is one of the few families
Aristotle recommends for writing a tragedy. He is in every respect a king; noble in blood
and in stature. Oedipus the King starts with Oedipus assuming his Kingship of the land of
Thebes, thus confirming his noble stature even before the discovery of his origin (Yeboah
et al, 2012). Not only is this kingship a title, but also a status he attained among his
people. He is “The first of men” and the “great and glorious” to his people (Sophocles,
P.38, 1988). Later on, the audience learn that Oedipus has been left in the care of a royal
Corinthian couple, King Polybus and Queen Merope’ making him the supposed prince of
Corinth. Afterwards it is revealed that his real parents are the King and Queen of Thebes.
Oedipus, then, is noble to the last inch; “renounced and prosperous” as Aristotle
specifies. The nobility of Oedipus’ upbringing and origin and his respected status among

21
his people raises him above the common man in terms of rank, making him a human
more “great and glorious” than the audience that watch his story. As Marjori Barstow
states, the greatness of his stature and rank strikes his downfall more terrible and his
reversal of fortune more piteous and fearful. (Barstow, 1912) as will be discussed later.
Aristotle states that the tragic hero must not be vile or bad in nature. Goodness
and nobility of morale is as important as goodness of origin and birth in the
characterization of an Aristotelian tragic hero. Oedipus, indeed, is overall a good
character despite having his imperfections. The opening scene of the play reflects
Oedipus’ devotion and care for his people and his city. He states frankly that he “would
willingly do anything to help {his people}” (Sophocles, p.38, 1988). He expresses his
grief for his citizens; says that “their plight concerns {him} now more than {his} life”
(Sophocles, P.40, 1988). Oedipus is not merely sweet-talking his people out of their
misery. Oedipus is shown to have taken practical steps for saving his people. Thus he
does “the only thing that promised hope” and sends his brother-in-law to get the prophet
Tiresias to tell them the cause of their city’s plague (Sophocles, P.39-40, 1988). He also
vows to “start afresh and bring everything to light” and unravel Laius’ murderer upon
discovering it is the murder that brought the plague upon the city. In fact, Oedipus’
nobility of character is the primary reason for his reign on Thebes. During his argument
with Tiresias, Oedipus is shown to take pride in the fact that, when Tiresias’ “bird-lore
and god craft all were silent” during Sphinx’s attack on the city, it was he who came and
solved sphinx’s riddle “guessing the truth by mother-wit not bird-lore”. Indeed, Tiresias’
prophecies and predictions did not save the city in the past; it was Oedipus’ nobility and
initiative nature. Oedipus’ nobility of nature leads him to stand up for a city he did not
then belong to, and for people he did not then know, to save them from a plague. Thus it
can be said that Oedipus’ nobility of character is one of the primary reasons behind his
acclamation of his noble title. Oedipus is also a character who values the truth. He
chooses to unravel a truth that could shame him for a lifetime rather than living in a lie.
After realizing that he could be the culprit for Laius’ murder, Jocasta tries to warn him
against going any further into the investigation. Yet Oedipus insists that he “must pursue
this trail to the end till {he has} unraveled the mystery of {his} birth” (Sophocles, P67,
1988). One must not also forget that in his investigation in Laius’ murder, he still had his

22
people and his city in mind. When Jocasta warns him not to delve anymore into the
investigation for his own “good” he simply tells her that his “good” had been his
“bugbear long enough”. By unraveling the mystery of his origin and his own sins, he has
not only his “good” in mind, but also his people. This noble, selfless attitude is later
emphasized in the end of the play when Oedipus finally unfolds his dreadful fate, and
punishes himself for his moral blindness with literally blinding himself. Oedipus pleads
Creon to cast him away from his “fatherland” so as to no longer “let {his} living presence
curse this fatherland of {his}” (Sophocles, P77-78, 1988). All these qualities of noble
morality, justice and earnest make Oedipus an overall good character and accordingly an
eligible tragic hero, for Aristotle makes it clear that the character of tragedy must be a
morally good character.
Aristotle states that the tragic hero must be “a man not pre-eminently virtuous and
just”. Indeed, Oedipus is far from an ideal or a “pre-eminently virtuous” character.
Oedipus has many flaws. One crucial flaw is mirrored in some of his first words: “I,
Oedipus, whose name is known afar”, is pride. Oedipus’ pride is a key trigger to his
tragic downfall (though not the main one). Oedipus’ pride is wounded by a drunken
stranger who tells him that he is not Polypus’ son. It is this pride that drives him off to
find Apollo’s oracle to ask for the truth. This oracle’s prophecy, which says that Oedipus
will kill his father and wed his mother, sends Oedipus off from Corinth to Thebes. Had it
not been for his pride, Oedipus could have chosen to ignore the words of a drunken
stranger and live peacefully with his adopted mother and father, and perhaps might have
avoided his dreadful prophecy. Throughout the play Oedipus’ pride continues to show.
Oedipus is too proud to take Tiresias’ words. He takes pride in his own intelligence and
chooses to follow his own methods to unravel the mystery of Laius’ murder rather than
depend on the old, blind oracle (Magrath, 2015). Oedipus’ pride is clearest in his talk
with Tiresias. When Tiresias accuses Oedipus of Laius’ murder, Oedipus taunts him for
his boldness, his psychic methods, and yet above all, his sight. Oedipus also taunts
Tiresias and his likes for failing to save the city when it was threatened by sphinx and
raises himself above them for solving the “riddle too deep for common wits” by his
“mother-wit not bird-lore”. Not only does Oedipus raise himself above the oracles and
prophets’ soothsaying, but actually takes pride in an intelligence he raises to be above

23
“common wits”, and of accordingly, above Tiresias’ “brainless”, “senseless” self.
Metaphors of sight and blindness are often mentioned in the play, and the play’s major
dramatic irony is Oedipus blinding himself with his own hands. These references of
blindness echoes Oedipus’ flaw of blindness. Oedipus’ reactions are in a lot of times
prompt, thoughtless and blinded by emotions (Barstow, 1912). For example, Oedipus
blindly accuses Tiresias of murdering Laius due to Tiresias’ reluctance to speak of
Oedipus’ crime and promptly accuses Creon, his kinsman, his “most trusted friend”, of
conspiring against him to steal his throne. Upon confronting Creon, Oedipus finds no
other reason to base his accusations of Creon except that he brought “that canting
prophet” (Sophocles, P.48 and 53). Oedipus’ tendency to be blinded by his emotions is
most evident is with his encounter with King Laius. The rider orders him to step aside
“and his venerable master joined in with a surly command” as Oedipus states it. Oedipus
admits to being “angry”. Oedipus, with his “misguided promptness” kills the old man,
who would be the same age his father should be, disregarding the prophecy over his head,
and weds Jocasta, Laius’ wife, who is probably the age of his mother (Magrath, 2015).
Thus in complete blindness, mainly blindness by emotions, Oedipus fulfills the prophecy
with his own hands, and in blindness did the prophecy end.
Coming to Oedipus’ Hamartia, the question is, is it one of his flaws that brings
about his downfall or merely an error on his part? Is his Hamartia to be translated to a
“Tragic flaw” or a “Tragic error”? As previously mentioned, Oedipus is not devoid of
flaws. Oedipus’s pride, as clarified above, is the reason behind his disregard of Tiresias’
prophetic words and his orders not to delve into his origins. Had Oedipus’ pride not
blinded him and had he taken heed of Tiresias’ words, Oedipus would not have
uncovered the secret of his origin or his murder and would have lived in the bliss of his
ignorance (Magrath, 2015). On the other hand, had he continued to live in his ignorant
bliss, he still would have been married to his mother, father and brother to his children
and living in a plagued city, which still marks him as a tainted being “hated by God and
man”. Moreover, according to Asuamah Adade-Yeboah, Kwaku Ahenkora & Adwoah S.
Amankwah’s paper “The Tragic Hero of the Classical Period”, one of Oedipus’ most
crucial tragic deed, which is killing his father, might have been a combination of both
ignorance and temper. Yet, indeed, incest is a result of no moral weakness or flaw, but

24
purely ignorance (Yeboah et al, 2012). The only thing that Oedipus can be held at fault
for in the incest is not judging by the ages of Jocasta and Laius (Magrath, 2015). This
means that Oedipus’ tragic deeds, which brings any tragic hero to his downfall, is not a
result of his flaws but majorly of ignorance and wrong judgment. Therefore, regarding
Oedipus’ Hamartia, Oedipus has no tragic “flaw”, but a “tragic error”; that is the
Aristotelian translation for “error of judgment”.
One must also not forget that Aristotle’s idea of a tragedy is to be a representation of
action; of the more universal theme of “happiness and unhappiness” not of character.
Thus the role of the fate in Oedipus’ downfall cannot be ignored. Yeboah says that
“prophecies in Greek tragedies are bound to be fulfilled in their true interpretation”.
Oedipus and Jocasta try their hardest to escape the prophecy. For example, Jocasta tries
getting rid of Oedipus as a baby, only for him to come back as an adult. Oedipus flees
Corinth so as not to kill his adopted father, only to kill his real father on the road. Even
when he tries to learn the truth, Oedipus has been already living in his tragic deed; incest.
Oedipus, indeed, is partially responsible for his own downfall with his error of judgment,
fate, or as Oedipus calls it “Apollo” is definitely to be held responsible for Oedipus’
downfall. Therefore, Oedipus’s role in the tragedy is not as much of an individual
character as he is the dramatist’s tool to highlight “the central theme of the play” which is
“divine credibility or the credibility of oracular pronouncements” (Yeboah et al. 2012).
This emphasizes the previously mentioned theory posed by some literary scholars that
Greek dramatists never focus on the character of tragedy as much as the overall
philosophy of the tragedy and the process of catharsis intended by the tragedy as a whole.

As an ideal and typical Aristotelian tragic hero in characterization and

significance in the tragedy, Oedipus is in every way eligible for evoking the feelings of
pity and fear. His stature and character, as explored earlier, make him an embodiment for
the features Aristotle specified for a tragic hero who can evoke catharsis.
Oedipus has also undergone all the 3 stages of tragedy in a typical Aristotelian manner.
Almost every event Oedipus goes through undergoes a stage of reversal. For example,
Oedipus mocks Tiresias for his blindness and calls him “sightless” and “senseless”.
Oedipus is later bound to the same fate when he gouges his own eyes with his own hands

25
upon discovering his own blindness to the truth and to all the signs that could have led
him to an earlier discovery. The messenger who is supposed to cheer Oedipus with the
news that his “father” died of natural causes does the exact opposite by revealing he was
never Polybus’ son to begin with. Everything Oedipus does, and every attempt to escape
or to reverse his curse turns against him, thus trapping him in a chain of tragic
inevitability. The audience pity Oedipus in this stage of reversal of fortunes; especially
with the fact that the audience most probably already know what will happen to Oedipus
based on the Greek myth (Farahbakhsh, 2013). The fear in this stage stems from the
inevitability of fate and the terror of reversal of fortune. The next stage is discovery;
where Oedipus’ fears are finally confirmed. Oedipus learns the truth of his origin and
accordingly that the one he killed was no other than his father, and that he is the father
and brother to his children. According to Krishma Chaudhary’s paper “The Development
of Plot in the Famous Greek Tragedy “Oedipus Rex” Or “Oedipus the King” By
Sophocles”; “The tragedy lies in the discovery of the guilt and not in the guilt himself,
and so the feeling of pity and fear reach their height with the discovery by Oedipus”. The
audience pities the once proud king who now becomes “sinful in {his} begetting, sinful
in marriage, sinful in shedding of blood” (Sophocles. P70. 1988). The last stage Oedipus
undergoes is the calamity or downfall. Aristotle states that in order for this stage to evoke
pity and fear, the tragic hero’s misfortune must be “undeserved”, meaning that the
punishment must be more than the crime or the tragic deed. Indeed, Oedipus’ crimes are,
by moral standards, terrible. However, considering that all his crimes were a result of
lack of knowledge and, one cannot ignore, a game of fate, one cannot help but believe
that Oedipus’ downfall is far worse than what he deserves. In the end of the play, an
attendant enters and narrates a full account of Oedipus’ downfall. Oedipus finds his
mother/wife had taken her own life in her room. He holds her dead body in his arms; he
gets to feel it cold and dead, and bear the pain of such a calamity. He then takes his
mother’s pins and repeatedly stabs his own eyes; “eyes that should see no longer his
shame, his guilt” (Sophocles, P. 73, 1988). “ Bloody tears ran down his beard-not drops
but in full spate a whole cascade defending in drenching cataracts of scarlet rain”
(Sophocles, P. 73, 1988). The audience’s horror and pity at these dreadful images are
echoed in the chorus’ cries upon seeing blind Oedipus: “Horror beyond all

26
 bearing...Insensate agony” (Sophocles, p73& 74, 1988). The play ends with Oedipus
banishing himself out of his homeland, leaving his children behind after a last goodbye.
In the end, Oedipus does not deserve such a downfall, for after all, most of his deeds is a
result of sheer ignorance and blindness.

Chorus: “He was our bastion against disaster, our honoured king; All Thebes
was proud of his name. And now where is a more heart-rending story of affliction?”
(Sophocles, P.71, 1988)

This song summarizes Oedipus’ journey as a tragic hero and a catharsis releaser.

 King Lear: Lear; the Elizabethan Tragic Hero:

The play opens with old king Lear announcing his intention to give up his title
and divide his lands among his 3 daughters; Cordelia, Regan and Gonreil on the
condition that he would spend a month with each of them. He engages his 3 daughters in
a ridiculous game of flattery, asking them to tell him which of them loves him most.
Regan and Gonreil, brilliant with the “oily art” of flattery, shower the old king with
empty words of love and doting. Yet when it comes to the youngest and the most earnest
in her love, Cordelia, she fails to express her feelings with flattery and tells her father that
she loves him according to her duty as a daughter “no more, no less”. This provokes
Lear’s anger and so he orders her to be banished away from his land, poor and despised.
Behind Lear’s back, Gonreil and Regan agree to scold Lear the right way if he becomes
too much of a nuisance to them. Lear shortly goes to visit his daughter, Gonreil, with a
100 men of his troops. Gonreil orders her father to decrease the number of his troops and
choose more decent people for companions. Old Lear becomes angry and leaves her
place, cursing her. Lear later moves to his daughter, Regan’s palace but the latter treats
him with the same insensitivity as her sister, perhaps more, and orders him to decrease
his troops even more. Enraged, Lear takes his horse and rushes out into the storm with his
fool. His disillusionment, along with the severe conditions of the storm drive Lear to
insanity. In France with her husband, Cordelia learns of her father’s condition and goes
with an army to England to save him; and so Lear and Cordelia reunite. Cordelia and

27
Lear are later imprisoned by the English and Cordelia is later hanged. Lear’s grief sends
him to his death, right beside his daughter. Shakespeare’s “King Lear” is a tragedy often
disregarded in comparison to his other works such as Hamlet and Macbeth. This tragedy,
written long after “Oedipus the King”, still applies the Aristotelian theory of the tragic
hero, but rather with some adjustments related to the Elizabethan age. These adjustments
are mainly related to Lear’s characterization and significance in the play as a character.

In terms of status, Lear is of noble blood as an Aristotelian tragic hero should be.
He makes his first appearance on stage in royal attire, displaying all the glamour and the
glory of a King. Yet from the very first moment he speaks, and the moment he engages
his daughters in the ridiculous game of flattery, this noble, kingly aura starts to shatter.
Instead of a classical, proud and glorious king like Oedipus, the audience find themselves
before a whimsical, almost senile old man in royal garments (Coles Notes: Shakespeare
King Lear, P.55. 1994). Instead of raising Lear above ordinary man as Aristotle specifies,
Shakespeare reduces Lear from the nobility of his status by the frailty of his character,
thus positioning King Lear somewhere between the glory of nobility and the realism of
the ordinary man. Moreover, the play starts with Lear dividing his crown and kingdom
among his 3 daughters, thus giving up his rank and authority. Despite his constant
clinging onto the nobility’s appearances and the luxuries of having followers, a fool and
servants, King Lear, by giving up his crown, technically becomes a common man by the
end of the first scene in the first act. Even the fool taunts him with his lost rank: “I am
better than thou art now. I am a fool, thou art nothing” (Shakespeare, P.96). Thus
Shakespeare takes the Aristotelian condition of nobility, but gives it a more modern,
Elizabethan twist that sets Lear in a middle position between nobility and common man
both in terms of status and character

Lear is one of Shakespeare’s most complex characters, for his imperfections and
goodness are intertwined, unlike Oedipus whose imperfections can be told apart from his
virtues. Lear’s vanity is one of the most crucial flaws in his personality. The first scene
highlights this vanity, and it also marks the red alert for the tragedy to come. In this
scene, Lear announces his decision to divide his kingdom in 3 to “shake all cares and

28
business” from his age. Yet in return he engages his daughters in a nasty, senseless game
of flattery: “Which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty may
extend” (Shakespeare, P44). Gonreil and Regan, experts at “glib and oily art”
(Shakespeare, P 60), gain the most, while Cordelia whose “love more richer than {her}
tongue” gets nothing for saying “nothing”. Lear, in a fit of fury, disclaims her. Gonreil
and Regan get the most because they tell Lear what he wants to hear. Lear himself
declares it, for he expresses his wish that Cordelia “hadst not been born than not to have
pleased {him} better” (Shakespeare, P.60). Flattery and large speeches please Lear and
his sole purpose from his game of flattery was to “please” his vanity. This pleasure in
appearances and glamour, which emphasizes Lear’s vanity, is also clear in his insistence
on keeping a train of a hundred followers. Technically, by giving up his crown, Lear
becomes “nothing”; no longer a king. Yet still, Lear holds onto all the glamour of kings
by keeping his fool, servants and 100 followers. Gonreil receives a thousand curses from
Lear only because she criticizes his followers for being “unruly” and in that Gonreil
might have been right (that does not deny the fact that she deserved these curses later in
the play). By insulting his followers, Gonreil wounds Lear’s vanity, not just his fatherly
heart; perhaps his vanity more than his heart. To top it all, Lear actually measures Gonreil
and Regan’s love with the number of followers each of them allow him to keep. Gonreil’s
“fifty yet doth double five-and-twenty” and so she had “twice {Regan’s} love”
(Shakespeare, P.164). Like the first scene, Lear measures his love with the satisfaction of
his vanity. It is clear, therefore, that Lear is flawed with vanity; yet one cannot separate
this vanity from other attributes such as senility of old age. Lear’s insistence on keeping
his train of followers, indeed, shows his vanity and his love of appearances just like the
flattery game. However, Lear explains himself when Regan and Gonreil question him of
the necessity of all those followers. He says that the “basest beggars are in the poorest
thing superfluous” (Shakespeare, P.164). Lear has given his daughters everything; his
crown, his lands and his guardianship. This train of gentlemen is all Lear could call his
own. He knows he does not need all of them, yet they are still all what is left of his
former glory. Following the Aristotelian feature of realism, Lear follows the manner of
all old people, which is clinging onto the past, and reliving their former days of glory in
the time when they have nothing. Lear also does not fail to demonstrate a kind-hearted

29
disposition even within his fits of rage fueled by his vanity. He demonstrates true, sincere
appreciation and love for this train of followers, including the fool. Upon Gonreil’s
criticizing their behavior, Lear immediately throws a tantrum, but indeed he rises to their
defense, telling her that his “train are men of choice and rarest part that all particulars of
duty know” (Shakespeare, P.102). The heated manner in which Lear defends these men,
though partially stemmed from his hurt vanity, reflects his sincere respect and love for his
men. This is also clear in the way he treats the fool. In fact, the names Lear and the fool
call each other show deep care, respect and love for each other. The fool calls Lear
“nuncle” (modernly translated as “good uncle”) and Lear calls him “my boy” which can
be used for calling one’s son. During the storm, the only thing that distracts Lear from his
misery has been the fool’s and Kent’s misery. He asks the fool if he was cold and
expresses his concern for him. Thus he seeks shelter, for the fool’s sake not his own.
Plus, the only one Lear so severely mourns besides Cordelia is his “poor fool” who has
been hanged. Lear is simply a representation of human reality, a mixture of the folly of
old age and the nobility of a good king and man, thus following the Aristotelian theory of
goodness of character and imperfection, yet in a more realistic, individualistic manner
that can only be attributed to Lear as a character.

According to Asuamah Adade-Yeboah and Adwoa Amankwaah’s paper “The

Tragic Hero of the Post-Classical Renaissance In King Lear”, the tragic flaw is one of the
most common features of Elizabethan tragic heroes (Yeboah and Amankwaah, 2012).
This means that Shakespeare has taken the route of the more personalized translation of
Hamartia which is “tragic flaw” rather than error. Lear has not committed an “error of
judgment”. Lear’s banishment of Cordelia, the tragic deed that sets the tragedy into
motion, is not a result of error of judgment or ignorance of Cordelia’s love for him. Lear
himself admits that he “loved her most” and that he “thought to set {his} rest on her kind
nursery” (Shakespeare, P.50). It is impossible for Lear not to have known that Cordelia,
out of all his daughters, loved him most. Nor would he have thought of spending his last
days in her particular “kind” care if she had never shown him such kindness before. Thus
Lear is held fully responsible for his banishment of Cordelia, and this deed cannot be
attributed to neither error of judgment nor ignorance; but solely to his vanity. At

30
Gonreil’s palace, Lear “confuses his role as father with his role as monarch” (Yeboah and
Amankwaah, 2012). As a king (former king in fact), Lear considers Gonreil’s criticism of
his followers a huge insult to his vanity and to his authority and thus leaves Gonreil’s
house, only to find the same demand from Regan. Lear had the option of returning back
to Gonreil and shielding himself from the storm, yet he chooses to “abjure all roofs” and
“wage against the enmity of the air” (Shakespeare, P.160) than dismiss 50 of his men,
symbols for his pride and an appearance of his former glory (Yeboah and Amankwaah,
2012). It is Lear’s vanity that gets him into the storm which has contributed to his
insanity, and from there his suffering went on. The main trigger of Lear’s downfall is his
vanity, which all 3 of his daughters offend, and each time his vanity is offended, Lear
commits one foolish action after the other, ultimately leading to his downfall.
Shakespeare personalized his tragic hero’s hamartia, thus giving more depth to Lear’s
character and giving Lear’s tragedy a more individual dimension. The pity and fear of the
Aristotelian tragedy is aroused not primarily because of the actions of the play, but
because of Lear himself.

Lear, as explored earlier, is not a typical Aristotelian tragic hero. However, Lear
still has gone through the 3 phases of catharsis. Lear gives up his crown and lands to his
daughters, thus descending down from the rank of a king from the very first moment of
his appearance. The reversal is also clear in Lear’s daughters. Regan and Gonreil, who
have been most eloquent with words of love, turn out to be the least loving, most cruel to
the old man, and the Cordelia who says “nothing” is the only one to give him a helping
hand during his time of misery. This reversal of fortune is, as Aristotle specified, from
prosperity to misery thus matching the Aristotelian theory. At the beginning of the play, it
is hard to imagine that a character like Lear would be able to evoke any pity in the
audience, as he reduces himself to the role of the bad father (Coles Notes, P.55, 1994).
However, as the play progresses, and the audience witness Lear’s daughters’ ingratitude
and cruelty, along with Lear’s insanity, the audience’s pity is aroused. The audience’s
pity and fear reach their peak in the 2nd stage which is discovery or revelation.
Shakespeare transitioned Lear from ignorance to knowledge in an exceptionally
unconventional manner; his insanity. “Lear’s insanity, which destroys his coherence, also

31
stimulates that power of moral reflection which had already been quickened by his
sufferings.” (Dunckel, 2012). Ironically, Lear has been most sane during his times of
insanity. For example, Lear’s revelation starts with a single sentence “I did her wrong” in
reference to Cordelia. Yet he disregards this confession as madness, and pleads for the
gods to “let {him} not be mad” (Shakespeare P.112). When Lear thought he regained his
senses, he actually goes to Regan, thinking that she has “a tender-hefted nature” and eyes
that “do comfort not burn (Shakespeare. P.156). It is in a moment of insanity that Lear
sees how he wronged Cordelia, and in his sanity he is blind to Regan’s true colours. Not
only does Lear’s insanity open his eyes to his own condition, but also to the condition of
others. In his insanity, Lear gains an insight of the condition of the wretched, poor people
in his kingdom and starts to demonstrate care for his subjects; the fool, Kent and poor
Tom (Edgar in disguise). He starts to comprehend the concepts of justice and authority.
He also starts to understand the difference between appearance and reality and
differentiate between love and flattery only when he descends into insanity (Yeboah and
Amankawaah, 2012). He realizes that Regan and Gonreil “flattered him like a dog” only
when he is insane. Finally, he gains insight of his own self when he becomes insane,
realizing that he is “a very foolish, fond old man” rather than “every inch a king”. Lear’s
revelation is terrifying to the audience, for his revelation came with a terrible price and
their pity is aroused as they witness the old man mental degradation. The final stage of
Lear’s tragic cycle was calamity. Before his death, Lear has to witness the death of his
daughter and the death of his dear fool, his most faithful companion. He follows his
daughter with his last vision being her “look on her, her lips” and the last voice he heard
being her voice “ever soft, gentle and low” (Shakespeare, P.316). Lear never gets the
chance to reunite with his daughter for more than mere minutes. Yet “he dies a man
clothed in the forgiveness of one whom he has wronged so grievously” (Yeboah and
Amankwaah, 2012). The pity of the audience, of course, is aroused by the old man’s
grievous death .Yet more importantly, the fear is aroused by the realization that
purification comes with such a terrible price, and it could come far too late. The audience
realizes the inevitability of the situation as Lear descends into madness, and is assured of
it in the death scene. It is needless to say that Lear was “more sinned against than
sinning”. Lear’s tragic deed has been his banishment of his youngest daughter, and the

32
terribleness of this tragic deed lies in its needlessness. Cordelia’s reply, while blunt, does
not require a punishment as severe as banishment, disownment and stripping away her
wealth. However, he has given his 2 other daughters his all, and has given them nothing
but kindness, prosperity and love. Even when Regan refuses to see him, he still tries to
excuse her and her husband’s inconsideration and rudeness towards him, claiming that
“we are not ourselves when nature, being oppress’d, commands the mind to suffer with
the body” (Shakespeare, P.151&152). In return, Lear is met with ingratitude and cruelty
from whom he gave his all to. Indeed, Lear has sinned against Cordelia, yet his other 2
daughters’ sinning against him is far more terrible. Also, the impact of Gonreil and
Regan’s sinning against him has been far greater than the impact of Lear’s own sinning.
Cordelia, while banished and disowned, still spends her last days under a roof in the
custody of a loving husband. Lear, however, spends his last days bare-headed in a storm,
struggling with a broken father’s heart and descending into a mental breakdown. Even
when he gets the chance to redeem himself before Cordelia, he loses it with her death and
his own. Lear’s punishment is overall undeserved and far exceeds his tragic deed. Lear’s
punishment is rendered even more underserved by the fact that he attains purification and
redemption through his insanity.

Overall, Lear is not the typical Aristotelian tragic hero, although he does follow
some of the conditions that Aristotle set for the tragic hero. He was not a full noble in
terms of rank, and he was a representation of reality, not “more beautiful”. He had his
goodness and imperfection as Aristotle specified, but their portrayal was somewhat
unconventional. Most importantly, Shakespeare gave his tragedy a personalized,
individualist dimension by reinterpreting the concept of Hamartia and focusing on the
characterization of Lear to make him a genuine, individual character rather than a tool in
the tragedy; Lear is the tragedy. Otherwise, in terms of action, Lear followed the
complete cycle of catharsis, thus evoking the feelings of pity and fear according to
Aristotle’s notions.

33
 Tragedy and the Common Man: Arthur Miller’s Theory of
Modern Tragic Hero:

 Common Man as a Tragic hero:

One of the main aspects Miller on which openly disagrees with Aristotle (or
classic tragedians in general) is the rank of the tragic hero. Arthur Miller believes that
during the classical period, tragedy has been held above the common man; otherwise
common man has been believed to be below tragedy (Miller, 1949). Miller believes that
“the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were”
(Miller, 1949). Miller theorizes that a common man is as capable of delivering the
feelings of tragedy as much as the royalty, as both the king and the subject have the same
mental processing and the same emotional range. Also, he claims that kings’ fights to
dominate one another’s regions are no longer the concern of the modern age, and so do
not produce the tragic effect any longer.
 Catharsis:
While Miller agrees to tragedy’s purpose of purification and raising the human
personality to be “able to flower and realize itself” (Miller, 1949) and agrees on the
concepts of both pity or empathy and fear, he disagrees on the causes of this process of
catharsis. Miller believes that the tragic effect stems from not fortune reversal, but when
“we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to
secure one thing--his sense of personal dignity” (Miller, 1949). Miller theorizes that the
tragic effect is evoked upon seeing the tragic hero’s struggle to maintain his image and
dignity (and most of the times his failure in achieving so) and the fear that “shakes us” is
that of being displaced or torn away from the image and the life that he wants to set for
himself. Therefore Miller’s catharsis is more thematic rather than structural.
 Goodness and imperfections of Character:
Though Miller does not devote much of his article for specifying any particular
characterization features of the modern tragic hero, one can trace a certain pattern of
characterization in all Miller’s tragedies. Miller is known for weaving aspects of Greek
tragedies (i.e: Aristotelian tragedies) into his plays (BBC’s GCSE bitesize). One of these

34
 aspects that Miller borrows from classic tragic heroes is the goodness of the character’s
nature, along with its imperfections and, sometimes fatal, flaws. This pattern can be seen
in many Millerian tragedies such as Death of a Salesman, View from the Bridge, All My
Sons, The Crucible and The Broken Glass. This pattern is also due to the influence of the
20th century’s realism. Paul Gabriner explains that one of the features of realist characters
is “their psychological definition is such that we can easily identify with them” (Gabriner,
2007). Imperfection is a human trait and imperfection is a mingle between perfection and
the lack of it (ie: good and bad). This research will focus on Death of a Salesman and
View from the Bridge in particular to explore the pattern of characterization in the
characters of Willy Loman and Eddie Carbone.
In terms of characterization; Miller only specified a condition for the modern tragic hero.
Amar Guendouzi in his paper “Tragedy in the Modern Age: The Case of Arthur Miller”
explained it as “he should display an intensity of feeling and passion”. According to
Guendouzi’s explanation, the modern tragic hero must show a lot of this passion and
feelings by showing willingness to sacrifice his life for his quest and what he believes in
(Guendouzi, 2007).

 Tragic flaw:
Miller believes that a modern tragic hero may or may not have a tragic flaw
(Guendouzi, 2007). Yet in terms of definition, Miller names it a “flaw” or a “crack” in
personality, thus disregarding the translation of “error of judgment” in explanation of the
Aristotelian Hamartia. According to Miller “the flaw, or crack in the character is really
nothing – and need to be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the
face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful
status.” (Miller, 1949).

 Death of a Salesman: Willy Loman as a modern tragic hero

Death of a Salesman” by Arthur Miller tells the story of an American man’s

disillusionment in his long cherished American dream and an escapism that ultimately
leads to an escape from the whole life. Willy Loman, a travelling salesman, comes home

35
from a business trip with little to no money. He tells his wife that he often slips into a
state of dreaming while driving and was about to crash with his car multiple times. His
wife, Linda, asks him to seek his boss’ approval to find him a job in New York. Willy
believes that he can easily get this job for he is a “well-liked” salesman. Yet as the play
progresses, the audience witness how Willy slips into states of day dreaming of the past;
of a time when his life and his children’s were better. His children, Biff and Happy, two
jobless bums with dreams as big as their father’s, notice how frequently their father talks
to himself and recites incidents from the past. Inspite of their concern, Biff seems for
some reason bitter towards his father. We later learn that Willy’s episodes of day
dreaming is a result of his guilt for cheating on his wife with a woman on one of his
business trips, and the reason for Biff’s bitterness was seeing the woman in his father’s
bathroom. Both Willy and his children struggle to attain a job in the land of opportunities
and to bridge the gaps between them. Willy is so confident in his son, Biff and his ability
to succeed in business, for they are simply “well-liked”. Yet this dream crumbles when
Willy’s boss fires him and his son Biff comes back with his failure to attain a job because
his supposed employer, who was once his friend, did not remember him, and later Biff
steals his fountain pen. In the final scene of confrontation, Biff confronts his father that
he was the reason behind his children’s failure, for he kept “puffing {them}” with the
“phony dream” of easy success in America, the land of opportunities. Biff breaks down
before his father and warns him against taking his broken dream any further. Relieved
with the realization that his son still cares for him and loves him, but broken with his
disillusionment in his country, himself and his children, Willy decides to make his leave
from the world; and so he takes the car and crashes it, ending his life with his own hands.
Death of a Salesman is one of Miller’s most celebrated tragedies. It is in defense of this
play, and Willy Loman, that Arthur Miller initially writes his essay “Tragedy and
Common Man”. Death of a Salesman is considered a contemporary Greek tragedy and
Willy Loman a contemporary tragic hero.

Willy Loman was one of the first tragic heroes to have no rank. Willy Loman, as
his name implies (low man), is a common man. He works as a salesman and does not
make enough money. He had “payments on the house”, to “the dentist” and even for

36
some of the electrical appliances in the house. Willy Loman resembles the middle class to
which many of the modern audience belong to.
It is very difficult to pinpoint the good and the bad of Willy Loman’s character.
Linda summarizes Willy’s character by saying: “I don’t say he’s a great man. Willy
Loman never made a lot of money. His name was never in the paper. He’s not the finest
character that ever lived. But he’s a human being” (Miller, P.56, 1977). Willy Loman,
like any human being, had his flaws and at times his sins, but that does not negate some
of his good qualities. Willy has never been the perfect husband or father. Willy has
cheated on his wife once. Yet it is clear throughout the play that he regrets the deed to the
extent of madness. The woman, with whom he cheated on Linda with, haunts his
memories, and almost tarnishes every sweet memory of young Biff, Happy and Linda
that Willy reminisces. The woman’s laugh throughout Willy’s recollections of the past,
and the way it overlaps with the sweet recollections of young Biff and Happy represent
his sense of unwavering guilt at what he has done to his wife. Willy is, and always has
been, a loving father to his children. Willy loves his children more than anything in the
world. Besides the recollections of young Biff and Happy in which Willy is shown to
display so much love and tenderness for his children in, Willy is “all smiles” and “is just
wonderful” just upon hearing that Biff is coming home (Miller, P.54. 1977). He gets so
excited at the prospect of having dinner with his children, and “was so humiliated he
nearly limbed” when his children left him alone in the toilet at the restaurant. Yet above
all, Willy is at his happiest upon discovering that Biff still loves him even after seeing
him with another woman. He is “elevated” upon seeing Biff cry for him. During his last
minute in life Willy is “choking with his love” for Biff. His last dream, among the many
dreams that Willy Loman cherishes, was for his son: “that boy-that boy is going to be
magnificent” (Miller, P.133,1977). This has been Willy’s last wish; for his son to be
“magnificent”. All his life he has worked for them. Linda states that he never worked but
for their benefit and even to fulfill this promise for his son, Willy commits suicide so that
his sons can use the insurance money to start their own business (Bennet, 1999).
However, Willy Loman is mostly known for his flaws, not his virtues. Perhaps Willy’s
most crucial flaw is his escapism. Willy’s mental issue stems from a passionate clinging
to a better past. He often escapes from his reality into his own world of memories, where

37
life was better. According to Kritika Nanda’s paper “Common Man as a Tragic Hero: A
Study Of Arthur Miller's Death Of A Salesman”: “although Willy often attempts to
shroud the greater part of his issues. He supposes he is an incredible sales representative
in spite of the fact that he is enduring fiscally” (Nanda, 2013). He is often seen lying to
his wife about his reputation among the buyers, and how “well-liked” he is. And yet he
himself admits that they no longer buy from him and in fact “laugh” at him. He also
refuses a profitable job offered by Charley, and tells him he is a huge success as a
salesman. Yet at the same time, he borrows money from Charley to pay for his expenses,
and lies to his wife about the source of this money (Karim, 2013). Regarding Miller’s
condition of the modern tragic hero having a passion for his quest, Willy Loman clings
onto his phony, American dream with the naivity and the passion of a child (Narayanan,
2015). Willy’s insistence on holding on to the American dream is reflected in his frequent
recollections of Ben. “To him, Ben represents the adventurous spirit of rugged
individualism, rapid wealth and the American story of rags to riches. He went out to
make his fortune in Alaska but because of his “faulty view of geography” wound up in
Africa, and through a combination of pluck and luck struck it rich” (Naryanan, 2015).
Willy’s suicide can even be regarded in the light of devotion for the American dream.
With the insurance money in mind, Willy Loman might have wished his children would
attain the dream of quick success and wealth through his death. Willy literally laid his life
down for his quest; that is his kids and his dream.
Willy’s tragic flaw, in the sense of pinpointing a specific character trait, cannot be
pinpointed. Some argue that it is, like Oedipus, a lack of self-knowledge (Erkan, 2012)
while others argue that it is his naïve clinging onto the “phony” American dream
(Narayanan, 2015). However, according to Miller’s theory, the tragic flaw of a tragic
hero is the struggle to maintain one’s dignity and self-image. Willy Loman’s escapism
serves this exact purpose. Willy holds onto a time when his children loved and respected
him most to escape Biff’s current bitterness that Willy calls “spite”. But Willy does not
only resort to recollections and dreams to preserve his dignity. This is also shown in
Willy’s arguments with other characters. Willy tries his hardest to convince Howard that
he still can sell, when he in fact has gone past his usefulness (Guendouzi, 2007). Willy’s
clinging onto the American dream is also an attempt to save his self-image. Willy does

38
 not want to face the fact that is “a dime a dozen”. He hold onto the notion that as long as
he and his boys are “well-liked” they will be successful in time. Willy’s pathetic
attachment to this dream contributes to the evoking of pity within the audience, for he is
struggling to keep hold of a dream that was never there; a “phony dream”.

 View From the Bridge: Eddie Carbone as a Tragic Hero:

The last play to be explored in this research is Miller’s “View from the Bridge”
which features a tale of forbidden passion that lead to an ultimate downfall. Eddie
Carbone is an Italian-American commoner who works on the waterfront. He lives with
his wife, Beatrice, and his wife’s orphaned niece, Catherine. Throughout the years, Eddie
developed an irrational passion for his wife’s young niece. However, Eddie kept
suppressing this passion, for he regarded his niece as a “Madonna” (another name for
Virgin Mary); a girl too pure to be touched by any man including himself. Later,
Beatrice’s cousins, illegal immigrants Marco and Rodolpho arrive to stay with the Italian-
American family. Unlike his masculine, classical Middle Eastern brother Marco,
Rodolpho possesses more American qualities and demonstrates skills that are uncommon
to stereotypical Italian men such as sewing, cooking and singing opera with a “tenor”.
These qualities and skills are not often considered manly in Italian culture and in middle
eastern culture in general. However, these American qualities, along with his physical
American attractiveness draws Catherine’s attention and soon they fall in love with each
other. Eddie feels alarmed with this relationship. In order to justify his own passion
growing, Eddie claims he wants to save Catherine from Rodolpho because “he ain’t
right”. Eddie later sees Catherine with Rodolpho and the image of the Madonna shatters
before his eyes. Coming back home drunk, he attacks Cathrine and kisses her by force
and attacks Rodolpho and, in a sort of a drunk mockery, kisses him too, to mock his
weakness and what he assumed was unmanliness. Then, Eddie tells the Beuro of
immigration on the two illegal immigrants. In revenge for his brother’s insult and for
himself, Marco challenges Eddie to a fight. Eddie tries to kill Marco with a knife, but
ends up stabbing himself by mistake with his own knife. Eddie Carbone dies in his wife’s
arms; ending his life with the realization that he had wronged himself and his wife when

39
he sold his love for her for his passion for Cathrine. He dies with his last words “my B”.
View from the Bridge is one of Miller’s tragedies that often fade in comparison to Death
of a Salesman, and Eddie Carbone is a character who has been seen as a tragic hero by
some critics and as a villain by others. This research, however, explores the character of
Eddie Carbone as a tragic hero of a peculiar kind.

Like most of Arthur Miller’s characters, Eddie Carbone is by no means a royalty

or nobility neither by blood nor by rank. Eddie is a common Italian-American long shore
man from Brooklyn. He is not rich and is not even educated.

Miller does not specify goodness of character as a condition for the modern,
contemporary tragic hero. However, in A View from the Bridge, Eddie is not devoid of
good traits. Alfieri highlights the fact that, despite all his sins, Eddie was “as good a man
as he had to be in a life that was hard and even He worked on the piers when there was
work, he brought home his pay, and he lived” (Miller, P.15, 2010). Eddie’s life has been
hard. He has always been one of those men who “hustled” to put food on the table and at
times he “walked hungry plenty days in this city” (Miller, P.35, 2010). Eddie’s life has
been hard enough on its own, yet still he takes in his wife’s orphaned niece and raises her
in his house. Not only that, but Eddie “struggled” for that girl”. He “worked like a dog
twenty years” to pay for her studies and to keep her well off (Linnebank, 2015).
Although Eddie’s love for her is “mixed up” as Alfieri put it, and has taken a turn of
obsession, it still does not deny Eddie’s generosity and kind-heartedness. Eddie also
demonstrates a sense of chivalrousness and hospitability in his acceptance to give the
Italians, Rodolpho and Marco, shelter in his house. By providing his home for the
Italians; Eddie puts his life on the line, for it is “the United States government {he is}
playin’ with” along with the immigration bureau (Miller, P.13, 2010). Yet still, Eddie
considers helping the illegals as “an honour” (Miller, P.8, 2010). Upon their arrival,
Eddie tries to make them feel welcome in his home and tells them hints about life in
America (Linnebank, 2015). Even when Eddie follows his instincts and informs the
Immigration Beauro about Marco and Rodolpho, there has been a moment when he
actually tries to save them to correct his mistake. He pleads for Cathrine to “get them

40
out”. Eddie initially is an honourable man. Eddie has never intended to betray the
Italians. It’s his obsession with Cathrine that has driven him to breach his code of honour.
Eddie’s virtues cannot cover for his flaws. Eddie is distrustful and even declares his
motto “the less you trust the less you be sorry” (Miller, P.12, 2010). Part of Eddie’s
overprotectiveness of Cathrine, even to the extent of attempting to keep her from taking
on a job just for being in a neighborhood of longshoremen, is due to Eddie’s distrust of
people (GCSE bitesize) To him “most people are not people”. This is later reflected in his
distaste for Rodolpho. Eddie throws multiple accusations at Rodolpho; a “hit-and-run”
guy who is after Cathrine’s passport and even that he “ain’t right”. None of these
accusations have a solid base; only jealousy and distrust. Another major flaw in Eddie’s
personality is his denial. Eddie listens only to his own voice; his own mind. For example,
Alfieri warns Eddie against informing the immigration Beauro about the Marco and
Rodolpho. He warns Eddie that he “won’t have a friend in the world” and that “even
those who understand will turn against {him}” (Miller, P.49, 2010), yet still he pursues
this path, informes the Beauro about the Italians, thus breaking his community’s moral
code of loyalty and “killing” the whole family which Marco supports. It has been this
step that led to the loss Eddie his name, his honour, and eventually his life as Marco stabs
him. Finally, Eddie’s most fatal flaw is his unnatural lust and passion for his niece,
Cathrine. Every fault in Eddie’s deeds and personality could be attributed to his unnatural
passion for Cathrine. Eddie has deprived his wife, financially and emotionally for
Cathrine’s sake. Eddie admits that he “took out of {his} wife’s mouth” to provide for
Cathrine (Miller P.35, 2010). Eddie also deprives her from being “a wife” (physical
passion) for 3 months for he has been too obsessed with Cathrine. Even from the very
first scene, Eddie is shown to compliment Cathrine for her hair, her dress and her
progress at school, while Beatrice does not get a word of compliment throughout the play
except that she had “too big a heart” and even that has been meant in a negative
connotation; emphasized by the story of when she made him sleep on the floor when her
father came to stay with them for 2 weeks. Eddie’s most sinful acts, kissing Cathrine and
then beating up and kissing Rodolpho to “show her what he is” are again fueled by his
obsessive passion for Cathrine. Finally, the deed that leads to his downfall which is
breaching his neighborhood’s code of morality and informing the Immigration Beauro on

41
the Italians has been a desperate attempt to keep Rodolpho away from Cathrine. All
Eddie’s sins and flaws revolve around this one flaw; obsession. According to Miller’s
theory, Eddie literally laid down his life for his quest. In this case, Eddie’s quest is
retaining his hold on Cathrine. And in order to do that, Eddie descended with his
character and name down till he finally met his end.
Miller believes that a tragic hero might or might not have a Hamartia, and
interpreted Hamartia as a “flaw” or a “crack” in character. Therefore, Miller’s Hamartia
takes a more personalized, individualist interpretation. This flaw, Miller explains “is
nothing – and need to be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the
face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful
status”. He also stated that the element of catharsis in a modern tragedy stems from the
audience’s witnessing the character struggling to maintain his dignity and self-image.
Eddie’s tragic flaw is his obsession with Cathrine and he conceives anything that could
take her from him a threat to his “rightful status” as the only man in her life. In order to
keep this status, Eddie slides down the path of personality degradation and, ultimately,
the path of doom. As mentioned earlier, Eddie’s obsession with Cathrine kept him from
providing his own wife with her emotional and at times financial needs for a long time.
He had to fall to the rank of a bad husband to keep his “right status” as Cathrine’s
guardian. Later in the play, with informing the immigration beauro about the Italians,
Eddie breached the Italian neighborhood’s code of honour. He lost the respect of the
community that he belonged to, for “nobody is gonna speak to him again if he live{ed} to
a hundred” (Miller, P.59, 2010) and the respect of Marco, who spat in his face infront of
everyone. Thus in order to keep his hold of Cathrine, and maintain his dignity and
rightful status as her only man, Eddie lost his status as a respected man in his community.
Finally, in the last scene, Eddie claimed he wanted “{his} respect” by going to fight
Marco. Yet it was not his moral respect that Eddie wanted. Beatrice confronted Eddie
with truth: “You want something else, Eddie, and you can never have her” (Miller, P.62,
2010). Eddie remained in denial, even after this confrontation and his fight with Marco
was a last attempt to save his own self-image and to convince himself and everyone
around him that he was fighting for his name, only to end up dead by Marco’s hands
(with Eddie’s own knife). The horror of Eddie’s situation is that he “allowed himself to

42
 be wholly known” (Miller, P.64, 2010). In all his attempts to save his image and to
maintain his dignity before Cathrine, Eddie made his desires, lust and flaws wholly
known, thus losing his dignity before everyone, including Cathrine whom he conceived
as his dignity and pride.

 Comparing and Contrasting: Tragic Hero between Aristotle and

Miller
Now there are 2 different eras with 2 different theories on the character portrayal
of a tragic hero. Between the 2 theories, and within the 4 tragic heroes in the 4 plays
formerly explored, there are similarities and differences.
Regarding the theories, both theorists agree mostly on the terms of
characterization of the tragic heroes. All the tragic heroes formerly explored fulfilled the
Aristotelian condition of goodness of character, along with the imperfection. All 4 tragic
heroes, classic and modern, had their virtues and flaws, ranging from kindness to honour.
In fact, Willy Loman and King Lear have a common good trait which is fatherhood. Lear
gives his all to his 2 ungrateful daughters and followed the third to his death. Willy
Loman loved his sons more than anything in the world that he held onto every memory of
them and used them as an escape from his reality. Perhaps Willy even demonstrated more
love for his sons than Lear during the end of the play. Willy Loman deliberately
committed suicide so that his children could start a new business with his insurance; thus
ending his life for their benefit. Eddie Carbone and Oedipus share the common trait of
honour. Eddie provided his house for the Italians to live in, thus putting his life on the
line by playing with the Immigration Beauro and the United States government to attain
this honour of hospitality. Oedipus left his city upon realizing that he was the reason
behind his plague, thus choosing to dwell and die in the mountains than to let his people
suffer because of him. Both deeds, though different in rank and power reflect the same
quality of honour and chivalrousness.
All 4 heroes also had their “Hamartia” that led to their downfall. However, the
interpretation of the term Hamartia differed between the 4 plays. Oedipus’ Hamartia was
not a personal flaw, but rather an error of judgment and a result of ignorance. Oedipus’

43
downfall was due to his ignorance of his origin and his deeds, not because of any of his
previously mentioned flaws. In the Elizabethan tragic hero, Lear, the term Hamartia took
a more personalized interpretation; thus Lear’s downfall can be attributed to his personal
flaw of vanity. It was Lear’s vanity that set the tragedy in motion from the very first
scene when he disowned Cordelia for not being able to “please” him with flattery and it is
vanity that leads him gradually to the storm that drives him to insanity and finally to his
death. The Millerian theory gave the tragic flaw a yet more personalized dimension, but
at the same time blending it with a thematic dimension. Miller believes that the tragic
flaw of the modern tragic hero needs to be nothing but the struggle to maintain his dignity
and self-image. Willy Loman is seen to be doing just that. His dreamy escapism is an
attempt to save his own self-image before himself by mentally sliding back to a time
when he had his self-respect and his son and wife’s respect. According to Ayça Ülker
Erkan’s paper “A Modern Tragic Hero In Arthur Miller’s Play Death Of A Salesman”:
“The position of Willy Loman desperately believing in the idea that he is “well liked”
secures his place in the society; because this is the only way out that he can be accepted
as an individual having some value” (Erkan, 2012). Willy clings onto the notion of the
American dream and the premises of quick, easy success because he finds solace for his
failure in the hope that he is “well-liked” and thus success will come to him and his sons.
Thus the Hamartia in Death of a Salesman takes a more thematic approach than King
Lear, and a more personalized approach than Oedipus. Eddie Carbone’s tragic flaw was
his obsession with Cathrine and, in appliance to Miller’s theory, his struggle to maintain
his “right stature” as the only man in Cathrine’s life (as mentioned earlier). However,
Eddie’s flaw is more individualized, for it mirrors the struggle of Eddie Carbone to
suppress his desires, unlike Willy Loman, whose tragic flaw resembles a lot of
Americans in the 20th century (Nanda,2013).
All 4 plays and all 4 tragic heroes perform what the theorists called the tragic
function which is catharsis. All 4 tragic heroes evoke senses of pity and fear and attain a
sense of purification within the audience. However, the method of evoking this catharsis
differs between the modern tragic heroes and the classic ones. Lear and Oedipus evoke
the senses of pity and fear through undergoing the cycle of catharsis as explained by
Aristotle. Both classic tragic heroes went through the stages of reversal, where they

44
descend from happiness to misery; discovery, where the tragic heroes come to the
realization of their errors and sins but are unable to turn back, thus creating a case of
inevitability and finally calamity; the downfall. The senses of pity and fear in the
classical tragedies are evoked through an “undeserved punishment” for the tragic hero.
Both Lear and Oedipus’ punishments were more than their crime. Oedipus was not even
fully responsible for his downfall as it is a result of ignorance and error of judgment
along with divine intervention. However, his calamity exceeded his crime which was
ignorance. Lear, though responsible for his own downfall, was “more sinned against than
sinned”. While Lear’s vanity lead to his downfall, he still did not deserve to witness his
daughter and followers’ death, madness and degradation for, as previously explained, his
tragic flaw can be attributed to the senility of old age as much as it is a personal flaw. As
for modern tragic heroes, the reason behind the catharsis is different from the Aristotelian
theory. The reason the modern tragic heroes evoke senses of pity and fear is because they
are purely themselves (ie: purely human) and reflect our fear of being displaced or losing
our image. Willy Loman evokes our pity throughout the play. Willy’s struggle to keep
hold of his self-image as a father and a successful salesman, represented in his world of
dream reminiscing, evokes our empathy for the old salesman. The more Willy feels
himself displaced, such as the time when Howard fired Willy for his uselessness to the
business or when Biff sees him with his mistress, the more he withdraws into the past and
the more sympathy we feel for the salesman. Willy’s sense of fear is not as much of a
fear as much of an alarm. Willy’s calamity calls for “attention” for those deluded by the
American dreams rather than fear of the same fate befalling the audience. Eddie Carbone,
however, is capable of evoking fear within the audience. Eddie’s Carbone’s desires and
flaws, thought individualized, represent the audience’s struggles with their own desires
and flaws (not necessarily resembling that of Eddie’s). Alfieri comments on Eddie’s
death that it evokes a sense of “alarm”. That is because within every one of the audience,
there is an Eddie struggling within to suppress and tame their desires and flaws, and the
result of losing the fight is magnified in Eddie’s death. The pity of Eddie’s tragedy is
evoked through his general character portrayal; Eddie is not a bad man. His fault was
“too much love” as Alfieri comments.

45
 Coming to the significance of the character of tragedy, the tragic hero concept
went through a gradation in a very important aspect which is individualism. The
Aristotelian theory states that tragedy is not a tale of man, but a tale of action. This
principle was thoroughly applied to Oedipus the King. Oedipus was not the main focus of
the tragedy, but the overall structure of the plot and the theme of divinity in the play were
the focus. The characterization of Oedipus was not portrayed in as much depth as King
Lear. Shakespeare gave more attention to the character of tragedy in terms of
characterization, exposing more dimensions to the character and giving him a role more
important than just a tool. However, Lear’s tragedy still is a universal tragedy, focusing
on universal themes such as ungratefulness and pride and thus one cannot call King Lear
an individual tragedy. Willy Loman was a mixture between individualism and
universality. Loman’s tragedy did not affect a whole city like Oedipus, nor did it affect
more than his own family like Lear. Willy Loman’s tragic calamity only affected his
family. The whole tragedy revolves around Willy Loman’s and his family’s suffering and
struggles. However, Willy Loman cannot be separated from the notion of his society, nor
from the American society in general (Nanda, 2013). While Willy Loman’s death in the
actual play was only mourned and noticed by the narrow circle of his family “The mental
aggravation encountered by Willy Loman was a normal encounter of numerous
Americans. Willy Loman doesn't stand separated from everyone else; rather he speaks for
the Americans of that period incapacitated by war and despondency. The issue rolls out
not on account of one specific family but in view of America itself as it was then”
(Nanda, 2013). Eddie Carbone is a purely individualist tragedy. It portrays the struggle of
Eddie Carbone and mainly Eddie Carbone alone. Though the audience can relate to the
concept of struggling, the flaws and desires that Eddie is struggling to suppress are his
and his alone. View from The Bridge is mainly the tragedy of one man.

Finally, the nobility of stature is one of the biggest differences between the
modern era and the classical era. Aristotle regarded the story of a slave or a woman as
worthless to be told, believing that these inferior beings cannot evoke the catharsis of
tragedy. Miller believed that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy as royalties.
Oedipus is a king in every sense in terms of blood and rank, while Willy and Eddie are

46
poor, common workers of the middle class. Both classes, as explained above, were able
to evoke the feelings of catharsis equally, thus proving that the common man is not less
of a subject of a tragedy than the kings. It is worth noting that King Lear was a transition
between the 2 stages between Miller and Aristotle. Lear is of noble blood, and started the
play as a king. However, as the fool said, he became nothing upon giving up the crown.
Therefore Miller was actually not the first to write a tragedy of a common man.

47
Findings
Aristotle’s theory on the character of tragedy cannot be separated from the plot structure.
While the philosopher specifies some personalized features for the character of tragedy, such as
goodness of character and imperfection, most of the features he focuses on serve to portray the
tragedy itself and not the character of tragedy as an individual. Aristotle specifies nobility of
status as a condition of a tragic hero to serve the purpose of catharsis; which is the overall
philosophy of tragedy. The tragic hero’s Hamartia in the Aristotelian theory is translated as an
error of judgment, meaning that it is not related to the tragic hero’s character build. The classical
Hamartia is a trigger to the events of the tragedy, but not a part of the tragic hero’s character.
Therefore, Aristotle regards the tragic hero, and the character profile of the tragic hero as an
accessory or a tool for delivering the overall plot structure of the tragedy and not as an
individualized character or as a significant element in the tragedy.

Oedipus, in this light, is the ideal classical Aristotelian tragic hero. He is noble in both
status and nature, though not perfect in anyway. He is a subject of pity and fear throughout his
journey to unravel the truth of his sins and his birth and through his entrapment in the
Aristotelian cycle of tragic inevitability. Yet most importantly, Oedipus is not the focus of the
tragedy. Sophocles does not intend to give the character more significance than the plot structure
or the universal theme of the tragedy as a whole. Thus Oedipus is not given a tragic “flaw”, for
he is not meant to be a stand-out, individual character, nor is the tragedy meant to be his tragedy
as a “man, but rather a portrayal of the pattern of reversal of fortunes and the theme of divine
power. “Oedipus the King” is a tragedy of divinity vs man, not the tragedy of Oedipus the father,
brother, husband, son…it is not a tragedy of a man.

Lear, on the other hand, is not the typical Aristotelian tragic hero, although he does
follow some of the conditions that Aristotle has sets for the tragic hero. Lear marks a transitional
stage between the tragedy of nobilities and the tragedy of common man. While of noble blood,
Lear gives up his title as a king from the very first scene of the play. The audience, therefore, are
forced to acknowledge the tragedy of a wounded father rather than a king who undergoes a
reversal from prosperity to misery, thus giving Lear a more individualized, realistic dimension.
Lear had his virtues and imperfection as Aristotle specified, but their portrayal was somewhat

48
more realistic than Oedipus, for his virtues and flaws are intertwined together with the portrayal
of his age and his position as a father. Most importantly, Shakespeare chooses to give Lear’s
Hamartia a personalized dimension, thus making Lear’s flaw of vanity the cause of his downfall,
unlike Oedipus, whose downfall was a combination of ignorance and divine power. In terms of
action, Lear follows the complete cycle of catharsis, thus evoking the feelings of pity and fear
according to Aristotle’s notions, but Shakespeare also adds another stage to this cycle which is
purification. While “King Lear’s” tragedy is more individual than “Oedipus the King”, the
tragedy is still overall a portrayal of themes such as ungratefulness and authority. It is not Lear’s
tragedy alone. Still, King Lear marks a transition between the classical tragedy’s universality and
the modern tragedy’s individualism.

While Aristotle is a philosopher and a tutor, Miller is only talented dramatist. This is the
reason why Miller’s theory about the modern tragic hero is not as well elaborated as Aristotle’s
theories. Miller’s theory does not give as much details about the characterization of the tragic
hero as Aristotle. For example, while both Miller and Aristotle agree on the condition of
goodness of character, Miller does not explain it thoroughly in his theory, but rather highlights it
through his plays. Miller also does not give much detail on the concept of the Hamartia, yet one
can conclude that he interprets it as a “crack” or a “flaw” in the character. Therefore, Miller’s
modern tragic hero is, like the Elizabethan tragic hero, individualized. The modern tragic hero is
not a tool in the hands of fate, but rather the focus and the heart and soul of the tragedy. Miller
dedicates a bulk of his article on explaining the insignificance of the tragic hero’s rank in the
tragedy. Miller believes that a common man is as capable of evoking pity and fear as a king. This
research proves that common men such as Willy Loman and Eddie Carbone are as capable of
drawing the audience’s pity and fear as noble Oedipus and Lear.

Contrary to Aristotle’s theory, Willy Loman is able to rise to the rank of a tragic hero
and his tragedy was not at all “worthless” to tell, despite his low status in comparison to King
Lear. Willy Loman proves to be able to rise to a degree of goodness of character despite his
flaws and sins just like the classical tragic heroes. In fact, Willy Loman’s tragedy is elevated to
King Lear’s level through his fatherhood. Willy loved his sons as much as Lear loved his
daughters. Perhaps Willy even demonstrated more love for his sons than Lear in the end of the
play. Willy Loman deliberately commits suicide so that his children could start a new business

49
with his insurance money; thus ending his life for their benefit. Willy Loman’s tragedy does not
affect a whole city like Oedipus. It only affects his narrow family circle, and it is only this
narrow circle of family that mourns his death. Yet through Willy’s individualization and his
realistic portrayal, he manages to reflect a whole society and shatter a belief long cherished by
the American society. Instead of being mourned by a chorus of people like Oedipus, Willy
Loman is mourned by a whole deceived society.

Eddie Carbone is a unique tragic hero. While he is not “purely good”, he is “himself
purely” (Miller, P.62,2010). The classic tragic heroes like Oedipus, Lear and even Willy Loman
might have been better men than Eddie. Yet Eddie is fully human; a magnification of human
flaws, instincts and desires. The terror of Eddie’s situation stems from the fact that all his
attempts to hide these desires and flaws only made them “wholly known” for them, and so Eddie
Carbone is a wakeup call for humanity to not hide; but to resolve. The audience’s pity for Eddie
is not for his death, but for his failure to hide the truth of his desires and flaws even from himself.
Eddie could never resolve his drawbacks, and so he brought about his doom. “And so I mourn
him with a certain…alarm” (Miller. P.62, 2010)

All 4 tragic heroes, including Miller’s tragic heroes have proven to be able to deliver the
tragedy’s purpose of catharsis and also able to carry the philiosophy of tragedy. Nobility of the
tragic hero is proved to be of no significance. Salesman Willy Loman, Longshoreman Eddie
Carbone and even the retired King Lear have proven to be able to deliver the emotions of
catharsis. In fact, the 3 “common” tragic heroes are able to evoke more pity and fear within the
audience as the audience can relate to them more. Not every man is a king like Oedipus, but
every man can be a father and a worker like Willy and Eddie. Also, the character of the tragic
hero has undergone a journey of individualization between Aristotle and Miller. Oedipus,
marking the ancient Greek Era, is not as significant of a character as he is a tool that sets the
tragedy in motion and a mirror to the overall theme of the tragedy. The Elizabethan King, Lear,
is given a more personalized dimension with his moral tragic flaw. Shakespeare dedicates more
focus on Lear himself as a character, and gives him more significance as a character than as a
mere element in the tragedy. Miller, then portrays the tragedy of individual characters through
their struggles, whether with their society or with their own demons of desires. The sacred quest
of the tragic hero shifted from serving a whole city or a whole country, like Oedipus, to a

50
struggle to maintain one’s individual self-image and dignity thus making the modern tragic hero
a portrayal of the 20th century value and theme of individualism.

51
Conclusion
The Aristotelian theory and the Millerian theories are both built upon each other,
however with different, contemporary techniques of application. Both theories share the same
purpose of the tragedy, which is catharsis. Also, in terms of the tragic hero characterization, both
theories follow the same pattern; that is giving the character a good but imperfect disposition.
However, the main differences between the two theorists are 2 points; Hamartia and nobility of
stature. The classic interpretation of the Greek word Hamartia is an error of judgement that is a
result of solely ignorance. The modern approach for Hamartia is portraying it as a flaw in the
character; thus giving the Hamartia a more personal, individualized dimension. While Aristotle
insists on the nobility of the tragic hero’s rank and stature, Miller proved that a common man is
as capable of delivering the feelings and purpose of tragedy as royalties.

52
Works Cited

Aristotle (translated by Igram Bywaters). Aristotle On the Art Of Poetry. Oxford:

Clarendon Press. 1909

Barstow, Marjorie. “Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle”. The Classical
Weekly. 6.1. (October 1912): 2-4

BBC GCSE Bitesize. “A View from the Bridge Character”. 2014. 4/5/2016.
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/dramaviewbridge/2drama_vie
wbridge_charrev1.shtml <

BBC GCSE Bitesize. “A View from the Bridge: Context”. 2014. 8/4/2016.
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/dramaviewbridge/0drama_vie
wbridge_contrev1.shtml<

Bennett, Cathrine Elizabeth. “The interrelated development of social values and the
concept of the tragic hero with reference to the works of Arthur Miller: Chapter 4: Willy Loman
in Death of a Salesman: a tragic hero or an anti-hero”. 1999. 8/5/2016.
>http://repository.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/2263/28594/04chapter4.pdf?sequence=
5&isAllowed=y<

Cartwright, Mark. “Greek Tragedy”. 16/3/2013. 8/4/2016.

>http://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Tragedy/ <

Chaudhary, Krishma. “The Development Of Plot In The Famous Greek Tragedy “Oedipus
Rex” Or “Oedipus The King” By Sophocles”. Research Journal of English Language and Literature
(RJELAL). 1.4 (2013).

Coles Notes. Coles: Shakespeare King Lear Notes. New Delhi: Rama Brothers Educational
Publishers PVT. LTD. 1994

53
 Coles Notes. Coles: Sophocles King Oedipus, Oedipus At Cononus, Antigone Notes. New
Delhi:Rama Brothers Educational Publishers. 1994

Dorsch, T.S. Classical Literary Criticism: Aristotle: On The Art Of Poetry, Horace On The
Art Of Poetry, Longinus: On The Sublime. New York: Penguin Books Ltd. 1965

Dunckel, Jessica. “The Necessity of Reasonable Madness in King Lear”. 12/9/2003.

24/4/2016. >http://www.stjohns-chs.org/english/shakespeare/STUDENTPAPERS/JESS.html<

Erkan, Ayça Ülker. “A Modern Tragic Hero In Arthur Miller’s Play Death Of A Salesman”.
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 21.3. (2012): 101-110

Farahbakhsh, Alireza. “Exploring the Applicability of Aristotle's "Tragic Flaw" to

Sophocles' Oedipus Rex”. International Researcher. 2.3.( September 2013): 105-115

Gabriner, Paul. ““20th Century American Drama: A Background for Albee and Others”.
17/2/2007. 4/5/2016. >
http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/lezing%2020th%20century%20american%20drama.pdf <

Guendouzi, Amar. “Tragedy in the Modern Age: The Case of Arthur Miller”. 5/4/2016.
>http://www.ummto.dz/IMG/pdf/Tragedy_in_the_Modern_Age_The_Case_of_Arthur_Miller.p
df<

Karim, Shariful “A Critical Overview Of Miller’s Willy Lowman –A Dreamer, More Sinned
Against Than Sinning”. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce. 4.1. (January 2013): 55-60

Magrath, William. “ClassicNote on Oedipus Rex / Oedipus the King”. 2015. 22/4/2016.
>http://www.bsu.edu/classes/magrath/HON201/oedTcrit.html<

Mark, Joshua. “Aristotle”. 2/10/2006. 8/4/2016. >http://www.ancient.eu/aristotle/<

McManus, Barbra “Outline of Aristotle's Theory of Tragedy in the Poetics”. 11/1999.

8/4/2016. >http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html<

54
 Miller, Arthur. “Tragedy and the Common Man”. 27/2/1949. 8/4/2016.
>https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/12/specials/miller-common.html<

Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman: Certain Private Conversations in Two Acts And A
Requiem. Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop. 1977

Miller, Arthur. A View from the Bridge. London: Penguin Books Ltd. 2010

Murray, Tim and Laurie Rizzo. “Playwrights, Production and Performance: American
Theater in the 20th Century”. 8/6/2011. 8/4/2016.
>http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/spec/exhibits/theater/<

Nanda, Kritika. “Common Man As A Tragic Hero: A Study Of Arthur Miller's Death Of A
Salesman”. Indian Streams Research Journal. 3.10. (November 2013).

Shakespeare, William. King Lear (Text, Paraphrase, Criticism and Notes). Cairo: Anglo
Egyptian Bookstore

Sophocles. Oedipus The King. Cairo: Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop.1988

Yeboah, Asuamah Adade et al. “The Tragic Hero of the Classical Period”. English
Language and Literature Studies. 2.3. (August 2012)

Yeboah, Asuamah Adade and Adwoa S. Amankwaah. “The Tragic Hero of the Post-
Classical Renaissance”. Studies in Literature and Language. 5.3. (2012): 119-123

55