George Washington University

Othello, Hamlet, and Aristotelian Tragedy

Author(s): Leon Golden
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 1984), pp. 142-156
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869923 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 06:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Folger Shakespeare Library and George Washington University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Othello,Hamlet, and
AristotelianTragedy
LEON GOLDEN

A RISTOTLE S POETICS IS A POWERFUL, INSIGHTFUL, and informative docu-

mentconcerningthenatureof art,butveryfewworkshave been written,
Greek,Elizabethan,or modern,thatconformto its standardsforachievingthe
essentialnatureof tragedy.Onlytwoworkscome readilyto mindthatcan claim
this distinction:Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus(generallyconsideredto have
been used as the model dramaforthePoetics) and Shakespeare'sOthello. In
this essay I intendto studythe way in whichShakespeare,uniquelyin post-
Classical tragedy,embodiedAristotelian principlesin Othelloand failedto do
so inHamlet,a workthatis farmorerepresentative oftheworldviewoftragedy
in Westernculture.
I

For Aristotlewhatessentiallydefinestragedyand all artis its characteras

imitation.All formsof art, qua imitation,can be comparedin termsof the
artisticmeans,object, and mannerused in theircreation.In tragedy,imitation
consistsof a carefullycontrolledprocessthatso arrangestheelementsof action
and characteras to lead us to an insightintothemeaningof thehumansituation
representedin a given drama. It is a matterof absolute importance,in the
understanding of theAristotelian theoryof art,thatwe recognizethatitis based
on an equation of poetrywiththe process of representation, and not on any
accidentalqualitysuch as meter.All controlledrepresentations are considered
by Aristotleto be "poetry," and theyinclude such varied literaryformsas
epic, tragedy,and thePlatonicdialogues,as well as all formsof music,dance,
painting,and sculpture.
In literaturethemeansof imitation are suchelementsas words,rhythm, song,
and meter,and theymaybe used separatelyor in combination.The object of
imitationregularlyconsistsof humanbeings takingpart in certainkinds of
action.These personsmustbe eitheraveragein moralstatureor betteror worse
thanaverage.The mannerof imitation concernsthedramaticor narrative struc-
tureof thework.The imitationsof all poetsand artistscan be comparedunder

This articleis dedicatedto 0. B. Hardison,Jr.

LEON GOLDEN, Professorof Classics at Florida State University,has publishedin

the fieldsof Greektragedyand Aristotle'sliterarytheory.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO, HAMLET,AND ARISTOTELIAN TRAGEDY 143

these headingsof means, objects, and manner,and thuspointsof similarity

and dissimilarity can easily be assessed.
Aristotleemphaticallyassertsthatimitation,whichis the essentialcharac-
teristicof all poetry,is a naturalhumanactivity.He observesthatlearningby
imitationbeginsin childhoodand thatin childhoodas well as in laterlife all
men take pleasurein imitations.He adduces proofof this assertionfromthe
factthatcertainobjects such as corpsesor despisedanimals(or, we mayadd,
most of the eventsportrayedin tragedies)would cause us distressif we per-
ceived themin real life, but thatwe oftenreactto themwithgreatpleasure
when we confront themin artisticrepresentations.The reasonforthiscontra-
dictoryresponseis thatpoetic mimesisinvolveslearning,and learningis in-
herentlyand naturallypleasantto all men. Thus the naturaland ultimategoal
of art is an illumination of the dimensionof the humanconditionthatis rep-
resentedin theworkof art. Since tragedydeals, like epic, withnoble heroes,
it is the fateof such figuresthatis at the centerof the actionof tragedy.
The discussion,in chapters1-5 of the Poetics, of art as mimesis,of the
natureof the means,object, and the mannerof imitation,of learningas the
naturalpleasureof imitation,and of the comparisonsmade betweentragedy
and epic and comedy,leads directlyto theformaldefinition of tragedyin chap-
ter 6:

Tragedyis, then,an imitation

of a nobleandcomplete action,havingtheproper
magnitude; itemploys languagethathas beenartistically
enhancedbyeachofthe
kindsof linguisticadornment,
appliedseparately in thevariouspartsoftheplay;
it is presented
in dramatic,
notnarrativeforms, andachieves,through therepre-
sentationofpitiableandfearful
incidents,thecatharsisofsuchpitiableandfearful
incidents.

Aristotlesees tragedyas themimesisof an actioninvolvingpityand fear.(Pity

is a technicaltermwhichrefersto the painfulemotionwe feel in the face of
undeservedmisfortune, and fear is a technicaltermthatrefersto the same
emotionwhenit focuseson ourown, personalvulnerability to such undeserved
misfortune.)As mimesis,it essentiallyand naturallyserves as a learningex-
perienceand reachesits climaxin katharsis,whichis theultimateclarification
of the eventspresentedin themimesis.Interpreting thetermcatharsisas clar-
ificationgoes againstprevailingorthodoxy;butit continuesto gain ground,and
foritelsewhere.I As a mimesisconcernedwith
I have presentedthejustification
pity and fear, tragedymustportraya hero who, in a moralsense, is worthy
of respect(spoudaios) and whomakesa significant intellectual
(notmoral)error
whichleads to his downfallfromhappinessto misery.If themimesisis to be
effectiveas a learningexperienceand offerclarificationof some dimensionof
humanexistence,it mustobey the laws of necessityand probability,and all
aspects of plot constructionand characterizationmustbe governedby these
I My
argumentforthe clarification theoryof catharsisis foundin the followingarticles:"Ca-
tharsis," Transactionsof theAmericanPhilological Association,93 (1962), 51-60; "The Clari-
ficationTheory of Catharsis," Hermes, 104 (1976), 437-52; "Epic, Tragedy,and Catharsis,"
Classical Philology,71 (1976), 77-85; "Mimesis and Katharsis,"Classical Philology,64 (1969),
145-53; "The PurgationTheoryof Catharsis,"JournalofAestheticsand ArtCriticism,31 (1973),
473-79; and "Towards a Definitionof Tragedy," Classical Journal,72 (1976), 21-33. For a
perceptiveapplicationof thistheoryof catharsisto Hamletsee JohnF. Andrews," 'The Purpose
of Playing:' Catharsisin Hamlet," in Poetryand Drama in the EnglishRenaissance: In Honour
of ProfessorJiroOzu (Tokyo: Kinokuniya,1980), pp. 1-19.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 144 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

laws. This Aristoteliananalysis of tragedyis of the greatesttheoreticalim-

portance,butit also has significant practicallimitations.
It clearlyidentifies
the
conditionsunderwhichtragicmimesisfulfillsits essentialform,but its appli-
cabilityto actuallyexistingtragediesis severelylimited.In Greektragedyit
is probablyonlythe Oedipus Tyrannuswhich,strictly speaking,illustratesits
requirements, and thereare butfewplaysin all of post-Classicaltragedywhich
would be preciselycoveredby its terms.
The restrictedempiricalrelevanceof Aristotle'stheoryoffersno difficulty,
in one sense, since its aim is to definethecircumstances underwhichtragedy
fulfillsits essentialform,ratherthanto providea descriptionthatwill cover
all existingexamplesof the genre. Aristotle'sdefinition would have validity
as a prescriptivestatementeven if therewere no empiricalevidence at hand
to supportit. We face a serious practicalproblem,however,because many
workswhichhave been writtenand designatedas tragediesvarywidelyfrom
the Aristotelianprescription.Because of this, criticsand scholarshave fre-
quentlybeen driveneitherto distorttheAristotelian theoryto a pointof mean-
inglessgenerality or to abandonitprematurely. The responsibilitythatdevolves
on all who workin the shadow of Aristotle'sgreattheoryis to finda means
of extendingits insightsto a largerangeof workswhichdo notachieveperfect
consonancewiththe Aristoteliannorm,but whichmake some approachto it
and have, therefore, earnedwidespreadpopularrecognitionas tragedy.
To sumup, then,an Aristotelian tragedyhas as itsessentialaim a significant
illumination of thepitiableandfearful dimensions of humanexistence.To achieve
this illuminationan actionmustbe presentedthatis plausible and persuasive
in humanterms,one thatis governedby whatAristotlecalls "necessityand
probability."To evoke pityand fearthe action representedmustconcerna
noble (spoudaios) characterwhose fall fromhappinessto miseryis triggered,
butnotfullyexplained,bya majorintellectual miscalculation (hamartia).Using
Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannusas a base point,I proposeto investigate theways
in whichOthello and Hamlet meet and fail to meetthe essentialAristotelian
criteriafortragedy.

II
We recall thatin the Oedipus the old men who grimlycome to reportthe
lethaleffectsof theplague remindOedipus of his past servicesto thestate,by
which he saved and protectedhis gratefulpeople. They thinkof him as the
closest of all men to the gods and theybeg him to assist themagain in this
hourof peril (11. 14-57). He respondswithsympathy forthe sufferingsof his
people and announcesthatin his torment fortheirmisfortuneshe has examined
everypossibilityand is pursuingtheonly solutionopen to him:to send Creon
to Delphi to ask Apollo's aid in thiscrisis. He announceswithintensity that
he will willinglydo all the god commandsto save his city(11.58-77).
Creonarrivesback fromDelphi withthenews thata moralpollutionin their
land has caused the plague and thatthe Thebansmustdrivefromthe country
thesourceof thispollution,themurderer of theirformerking,Laius. Oedipus
respondswithenthusiasm to thispromiseof reliefand-with unknowing irony-
assertsthatby helpingthe murderedkinghe will also help himself(11. 132-
46). He proclaimsthatall who have any knowledgeof the murderof Laius
mustprovidesuch information immediately.On anyonewho fails to comply,

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO, HAMLET,AND ARISTOTELIAN TRAGEDY 145

he calls down the bitterest of curses-curses whichhe, of course, will even-

tuallyendurehimself(11.216-75).
When advised thattheseer, Teiresias,mightwell knowthesecretof Laius'
murder,Oedipus revealsthatin his zeal to removethe plague he has already
sentfortheprophetand impatiently awaitshis assistance.Again, Oedipus has
done the necessaryor probableact thatis dictatedby circumstances.When
Teiresiasarrives,Oedipusaddresseshimwithkindnessand respectand, calling
attentionto Thebes' pitiablecircumstances, begs himto identify the murderer
of Laius and save his city (11.300-15). Teiresias refuses,offering no satis-
factoryaccountof his reluctanceto act on behalfof his fellowcitizens.It is
at this pointthatOedipus, feelingan obligationto protecthis people, lashes
out in anger.He can fathomno reasonforTeiresias' lack of cooperationother
thanhis complicityin the crimeitself.His angrychargeto thiseffectelicits
a counter-response fromTeiresiasin whichOedipus' own involvement in great
crimesis indicatedand the dark questionof his parentageis raised (11.334-
462).
Since some criticshave used thisscene to call intoquestionthemoralstature
of Oedipus, denyingthathe is trulya spoudaios herobecause of his rash and
angrydenunciationof Teiresias,it is important to emphasizethecircumstances
underwhich the disputetakes place. The city is in dire peril, and Oedipus,
who has the respectand love of his people, also has a dutyto protectthem.
A citizen withspecial knowledgeof the factsof the case refusesto divulge
them, and Oedipus quickly-too quickly-suspects political subversion.In
drawingthis conclusionOedipus commitsa seriousintellectualerror,but the
erroroccurs forthe rightmoralreasons. Oedipus' angeris not unreasonable
consideringthelong silence and theunclarified accusationsof Teiresias. Oed-
ipus' vehemenceis, in fact,a potentsign of thegreatlove he bearshis people
and the deep responsibility he feels as kingfortheirsafety.
Oedipus' confrontation withCreonis of thesamenatureas theargument with
Teiresiaswhichprecedesit(11.512-75). Because Creonrecommended thesum-
moningof Teiresias, Oedipus mistakenly assumesthathe mustbe involvedin
Teiresias' apparentlycriminalreluctanceto aid his fellowcitizens. Oedipus'
passionatedenunciationof Creon,and his angrydesireto puthimto deathfor
an unprovedcrime,are vivid signsof thepressuresthatare closingin on him
as he seeks to fulfillhis royalresponsibilitiesin the face of unfathomable re-
sistancefroma sourcein whichhe had placed greatfaith.Here again Oedipus
commitsa seriousintellectualerror(hamartia),but his outburstsagainstTei-
resias and Creon have no taintof moralevil whatsoever.
This leads directlyto Jocasta'sunderstandable attemptto soothe Oedipus.
Unexpectedly,thisprovidesthefirstclue thatOedipusmayhave been involved
in Laius' death. It thuscreatesa new level of anguishforhimthatgrowsout
of the necessaryand probablestructure of theplot. In attempting to discredit
the prophetTeiresias, Jocastaseizes on the supposedfactthatearlierproph-
ecies, indicatingthata son of Laius and herselfwould kill Laius, had gone
unfulfilledbecause theirchild had been exposed to die and Laius had been
murderedat the handsof robbersat a place wherethreeroads came together.
The mentionof threeroads remindsOedipus naturallyand terriblyof a fatal
altercationhe had withan unknownpartyof menjust beforearrivingin Thebes.
It thusawakensforthefirsttimea troublingsuspicionof thepossibleaccuracy
of Teiresias' charges. Filled withdeep personaldistressbecause of the nec-

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

essaryand probabledevelopmentof theplot,Oedipus acts, notto suppresshis

fears,but to bringeverything to lightby summoningto his presencethe one
survivingeyewitnessof Laius' murder,whose testimony will eitherexonerate
or convicthim. Here again we see Oedipus as a noble (spoudaios) heroacting
withmoralrighteousness to rootout theguiltthathas caused theplague in his
city(11.707-70).
We get an important indicationabout Oedipus' moral staturefromthe in-
formationhe gives to Jocastain explanationof his presentanxiety(11.771-
833). He tells her thatwhen his parentagehad been called into questionin
Corinth,he soughtthe truthfromDelphi. Insteadof receivingthe answerto
his question,he says, he was warnedthathe wouldcommitparricideand incest.
Upon hearingthis,Oedipusfledhis homeand cityin orderto avoid committing
unspeakablecrimes.In thinkingthathe could evade theoracle, Oedipus may
well have been guiltyof anotherserious intellectualerror,but in seekingto
avoid these terribledeeds he acted withtotaljustification.
In his flighthe came to the place whereLaius and his partywere traveling
and wherethefatalstruggletookplace. In dangerous,unpolicedcountry,Oed-
ipus foundhimselfthrustphysicallyfromthe road, and he respondedin fear
and angerby slayingthosewho werethreatening him.Some criticshave seized
uponthisincidentas indicating a deep moralflawin Oedipus. Butin challenging
Oedipus' violentreaction,thesecriticsfail to perceivethatOedipus had good
reason to believe thathis life was in dangerand acted froma deeply-rooted
instinctof self-preservation. Again, then,we may chargehim withan intel-
lectual mistake,but not witha moral flaw. At no point in the play are the
actions at the threecrossroadsconsideredby Oedipus or any othercharacter
to be a crimein themselves;theybecome a sourceof pollutiononly afterthe
identityof Laius as thevictimis established.Throughout, thetruemeasureof
Oedipus' moralstatureis theintensity of thequest he undertakes to determine
the actual natureof the eventsthathave occurred.
When the messengerfromCorinthreveals thatOedipus was not reallythe
son of Polybusand Meropebuthad been rescuedfromdeathby exposurewhen
he was a baby, JocastawarnsOedipus to go no further in his investigation.
Still failingto understandthe reasonsforhis wife's dismay,Oedipus knows
onlythathe mustuncoverthetruthat all costs. He refusesto allow theherds-
man, who was witnessboth to his exposureand to his slayingof Laius, to
avoid the painfulanswerswhichhe graduallyperceiveswill doom him. It is
herethatwe see Oedipus at theheightof his integrity, as he refusesto retreat
fromthe truththatwill cause him infinite pain.
The rage in whichhe blindshimselfand his insistencethatCreonthrusthim
fromthe city are his appalled reactionsto the horribledeeds thathe has un-
wittinglycommitted.If he has been unsuccessfulin avoidingthe actionsthe
oracle has foretold,it is not because of any moralflawwithinhim, but only
because his humanfacultieswereinsufficient to fathomtheforcesthatgovern
the universe.In a moral sense he is completelyinnocentof the crimesthat
have been committedbecause he did not will themand strenuously soughtto
avoid them.In his beliefthathe could evade the oracle, and in his mistaken
judgmentsof Teiresias and Creon,he did make seriousintellectualerrors,but
theywere morallyjustifiablemistakeswhichothergood men who were not
"perfectin virtueand justice" mightalso have made.
We assert,therefore, thatOedipusis spoudaiosbecause he has alwaysstriven
to accomplishmorallyjustifiablegoals: he fledfromCorinthwhenit seemed
possible thathe mightcommitterriblecrimesagainstthosehe assumedto be

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO, HAMLET,AND ARISTOTELIAN TRAGEDY 147

his parents;he exertedhimselfwithoutlimitin seekingaid forthe suffering

people of Thebes; and withtotal integrityhe broughtto lightthe cruel truth
about himself.In his responseto difficult
circumstances, Oedipus did make a
numberof serious intellectualerrorsof the kind to whichmortallimitations
make men prone. Underprovocation,he displayedfromtime to time those
flashesof rashnessand angerwhichinsurethatwe do notview himas a man
who is "perfectin virtueand justice" butwhichstilldo nothave theeffectof
subvertingour respectforhim. Because he is spoudaios and makes only in-
tellectual,notmoral,errors,we perceivetheterrifying collapse of his fortunes
as undeservedand thuscan feelpityforhis greatfallfromhappinessto misery.
Because we respecthis moralstature,we feel fearthathis fatecould be ours.
And because each stepin theplotis triggeredrealisticallyby an understandable
humanemotionwhichleads by necessityand probabilityto the nextstep, we
eventuallyarriveat a persuasiveillumination of the meaningof pityand fear
in humanexistence.2
III

That Othello is spoudaios is provenin a numberof ways in the play. Des-

demonaspeaks in Othello's favorwhenshe announcesthatshe saw "Othello's
visage in his mind" and fell in love withhis deep graces in spite of all the
externalreasonsthatmighthave been expectedto keep themapart.Even more

2
That Oedipus represents in the Oedipus Tyrannusthespoudaios heroto thefullestdegreehas
been recognizedby most,if notall, critics.One of the mostsensitiveand insightful appraisalsof
his characterand situationis givenby BernardKnox, Oedipusat Thebes(New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press, 1957), pp. 194-96. Knox writes:"The closingnoteof thetragedyis a renewedinsistence
on the heroicnatureof Oedipus; the play ends as it began, withthegreatnessof the hero. But it
kindof greatness.It is now based on knowledge,not, as before,on ignorance,and
is a different
this new knowledgeis, like thatof Socrates,a recognitionof man's ignorance.. . . Oedipus is
symbolicof all humanachievement: his hard-wonmagnificence, unliketheeverlasting magnificence
of the divine, cannot last, and while it lives, shines all the more brilliantagainstthe somber
backgroundof itsimpermanency. Sophocles' tragedypresentsus witha terribleaffirmation of man's
subordinatepositionin the universe,and, at the same time,witha heroicvisionof man's victory
in defeat. Man is not equated to the gods, but man at his greatest,as in Oedipus, is capable of
somethingwhichthe gods, by definition, cannotexperience;the proudtragicview of Sophocles
sees in the fragilityand inevitabledefeatof humangreatnessthe possibilityof a purelyhuman
heroismto which the gods can never attain,for the conditionof theirexistenceis everlasting
victory." A perceptivestatement of Oedipus' moralexcellence and essentialinnocenceis given
by ThomasGould, "The Innocenceof Oedipus:PartIII," Arion,5 (1966), 478-525. Gould writes,
p. 486: "Sophocles could believe, then,thatOedipus was undoneby externalthingsand that
Oedipus was in no way responsibleforthismisery.. . . Thereis nothingto preventus fromseeing
whatkindof man theprotagonist of thestoryis-complicated, unique,conscientious,impetuous,
brilliant-even if his major goals are hideouslyfrustrated in the end." Most major criticsfully
recognizethe spoudaios qualityof Oedipus, but one findsfromtimeto timean undercurrent of
criticismthatseeks to fixmoralblame on Oedipus forthe horribledeeds he has committedand
his rash outburstsof violenttemper.An excellentrefutation of thispointof view is providedby
Kurtvon Fritz,Antikeund moderneTragbdie(Berlin, 1962), pp. 7-8. Von Fritzwrites:"Auch
von Oedipus wirdgesagt,er sei schuldig,und auch hieristes deutlich,dass er keinvollkommener
Weiser ist, dass auch er an der menschlichenUnvollkommenheit teil hat, die nach Aristotleles'
Meinungvon dem Helden einerTragodieuntrennbar ist. Abersonstwirdin Sophokes' Stuckalles
getan, um zu zeigen, dass er an den beiden schrecklichenDingen, die er getan hat, subjectiv
unschuldigist. Er weiss nicht,dass er seine Muttergeheiratethat. Nachdemer von dem Orakel
gewarntwordenwar, hat er, wie er glaubt,sich absichtlichvon seinen Elternentfernt, um die
Erfullungzu vermeiden.Ebenso weiss er nicht,dass es sein Vaterwar, den er an dem Kruezweg
get6tethat. Es ist oftgesagtworden,seine Schuldbesteheeben darin,dass er den Fremdenget6tet
habe und seine Strafebesteheeben in der Entdeckung,dass der vermeintliche Fremdesein Vater

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 148 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

important is thejudgmentof his fiendishantagonist,lago, who notesthat"the

Moor is of a freeand open nature,thatthinksmenhonestthatbut seem to be
so" (I.iii.393-94). Here lago lays the groundwork forour evaluationof the
moralstatureof Othelloand forourunderstanding oftheintellectualerrorwhich
will undo him. lago gives furthertestimony on thispointwhenhe assertsthat
The Moor, howbeitthatI endurehimnot,
Is of a constant,loving,noble nature;
And I dare thinkhe'll proveto Desdemona
A mostdear husband.
(II. i.282-85)

lago goes on to assertthathe will "make the Moor thankme, love me, and
rewardme formakinghim egregiouslyan ass and practicingupon his peace
and quiet even to madness" (II.i.302-5). This praisefroman enemybringsto
our attentionOthello's vulnerability to intellectualerror,a vulnerabilitywhich
derivesfromthe veryvirtueswhichdistinguishhim.
We observeOthello's moralgoodnessand his attendant susceptibilityto in-
tellectualerrormostvividlyin thekeyscene in whichlago plantstheseeds of
destructive jealousy (III.iii.93-277). lago beginsby castingsuspicionon Cas-
sio's relationshipto Desdemona. He thendirectstheconversation to a sardonic
warningagainstjealousy, "the green-eyedmonsterwhichdothmockthemeat
it feeds on." Othello, who began the scene withoutthe slightestnotionof
jealousy, is drivenby lago's innuendoto a passionatewarningthathe will
never endurethe tormentof jealousy but will act to destroyits cause. This
promiseof retributive actionis preciselywhatlago has hoped to elicit. Now
thathe knowsthatOthellois emotionallyaroused,he openlyaccuses Desde-
monaand Cassio of adultery.He assertsthatthe"best conscience"of Venetian
women"is notto leave't undone,butkeep't unknown."Withsavage cruelty,
he suggeststo Othello thatit arguedan unnaturalnatureforDesdemona to
refusemarriagewiththoseof herown countryand social positionin orderto
marryOthello,and thatit is all too likelythatshe now repentsof herdecision
and desiressomeonemorehandsomeand sociallyacceptablethanOthello.Oth-
ello is unable to perceive those potentqualities of characterwithinhimself
whichDesdemona so sensitivelyadmired,and his innocenttrustof othermen
puts him at the completemercyof lago. In such circumstances the malignant
spiritof lago reduces Othello to uttermisery(III.iii.300-479). He displays
Desdemona's handkerchief, therebyprovidingOthellowithcircumstantial "ev-
idence" of her infidelity, and thenclaims to have been presentwhen Cassio
spoke in his sleep of his relationswithDesdemona. lago embroidersCassio's
purporteddreamuntilthe good Othello,is almostmad. He thendeliversthe
crowningblow by tellinghim thathe saw Desdemona's handkerchief, which
he himselfhas just stolen,in Cassio's hands. Now Othello's soul belongsto
lago, and theysweara pactto killDesdemonaand Cassio. Thus, by a plausible
process thatappears mostnecessaryand probableto Othello,lago workshis
cunningplot.

gewesen ist. Aber das heisstden Sinn des Stuckesvollig verkennen.Niemandin der klassischen
Zeit des Griechentums hattees als ein Verbrechenbetrachtet-geschweige denn ein Verbrechen,
das nach einer solch furchtbaren Strafeverlangt-wennjemand an einem einsamenOrt, wo es
keine Polizei und keine Gerichtsordnung gibt, einen Fremden,von dem er sich angegriffenund
bedrohtfulhlt,erschlagt.Hier gilt,ganz grobgesprochen,die Regel: werzuerstschiesst,bleibtam
Leben. JederMann aus Texas wurdedas heutzutagenoch ohne weiteresverstehen,und es ist

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO,HAMLET,
ANDARISTOTELIAN
TRAGEDY 149

Skillfullyand diabolically,lago has his way withthe "noble nature" of

Othello.Thatgreatnobilityappearsin all itsgrandeur,ironicallythoughit may
seem, in thefinal,fatalconfrontation
betweenOthelloand Desdemona(V.ii. 1-
90). Othello wishes to servejustice by takingDesdemona's life beforeshe
betraysanyoneelse. The depthof his love is seen in the sadlybeautifullines
whichserve as preludeto the terribledeed:

It is the cause, it is thecause, my soul.

Let me notnameit to you, you chastestars!
It is the cause. Yet I'll not shed herblood,
Nor scar thatwhiterskinof hersthansnow,
And smoothas monumental alabaster.
(V.ii. 1-5)

Her greatbeautyand his deep love remain,butjustice demandsthatshe pay

the supremepenaltyforher supposedinfidelity. When Othelloconfronts her
withthecircumstantialevidence-i.e., withthe "necessaryand probable" ev-
idence thathas damnedher to destruction-shesteadfastly maintainsher in-
nocence and leads Othelloto explainhis actionin theseterms:
o perjuredwoman!thoudost stonemy heart,
And mak'stme call whatI intendto do
A murder,whichI thoughta sacrifice.
(V.ii.63-65)
It is in the word "sacrifice"thatwe see thetruenatureof Othello's love. For
in takingDesdemona's life he does not act to destroybutto preservethepro-
foundbeautyand integrity of therelationship.Whenhe has smothered herand
findsher not quite dead, he showsthatit is love, not hate,thathas motivated
himin theanguishedwords"I thatam cruelam yetmerciful;I wouldnothave
thee lingerin thypain" (V.ii.89-90).
In thefinalscene of theplay (V.ii.282-371), Othellocalls himselfan "hon-
orable murderer."For "naughtdid I in hate,butall in honor." This is a judg-
mentthateveryoneon stage affirms. It soon becomes manifestthatit is lago
who has been the diabolical cause of all the evil thathas transpired.But lago
refusesall invitationsto explainthedestruction he has caused. He has woven
a plausible web of necessityand probability, and in doingso he has destroyed
Othello. Whentheentiretruthis known,Othellotakeshis own life,sayingas
he falls upon Desdemona's body: "I kissedtheeere I killedthee. No way but
this,killingmyselfto die upon a kiss." It is Cassio who offersus the play's
finalevaluationof Othello. He says, withawe ratherthanbitterness,"he was
greatof heart."3 1
The entireaction of the play atteststo the factthatOthellois a spoudaios
heroof thetyperequiredby theAristotelian definition
of tragedy.It is because
his own moralstatureis so great,and because duplicityand evil are so alien

anzunehmen,dass die Athenerdes ffinften Jahrhunderts

von solchenZustandenzeitlichundrdum-
lich noch nichtso weit entferntwaren,dass sie andersempfunden hdtten."
3 As Jane Adamson has recentlymade quite clear in Othello as
Tragedy:Some Problemsof
Judgement and Feeling (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1980), therehave always been, and
therecontinueto be, two fundamentally opposed approachesto the analysisof Othello. One, as-
sociatedwithBradley,stressesOthello'snobilityof character,whiletheother,conveyedin a rather
savage assault on Bradleyby F. R. Leavis, emphasizesOthello's moralculpability.Adamsonin-
telligentlybalances the two views and thusremainstrueto the Aristotelianrequirement thatthe

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

to his nature,thatOthellobecomesso easy a victimfortheskillfullago. Only

because of his "constant,loving,noble nature"is Othellocapable of making
the seriousintellectualerrorsthatlead to destruction
forDesdemonaand him-
self. We mustsurelyfeel pityforhis undeservedfate. And we mustfeel fear
thatin the handsof such an evil geniusas lago each of us would be capable
of makingthe same intellectualerrorsas those thatdoom Othello. lago has
totallyrestructuredOthello's world,creatinga persuasivemirageof necessary
and probablecauses and effectsthatdrivesOthelloto murderDesdemona.
IV

We have now discussedtwoplays whichillustrate theideal Aristotelianpat-

ternof tragedy:the fall fromhappinessto misery,caused by a seriousintel-
lectual error,on the partof a hero who is worthyof respectand whose fate
consequentlyevokes pityand fearas appropriateaudienceresponses.
Before we proceedto Hamlet, a few wordson the natureof heroic action
are in order. If we ask what it means to be "noble" (spoudaios)-i.e., to
possess one of the essentialrequirements of Aristoteliantragedy-we must
answerthatit fundamentally meansto demonstrate thequalityof arete (human
excellence and virtue).In its purestformthisqualitymaybe seen in theIliad
whenAchilles, acceptingfullresponsibility forhis friendPatroklos'death,de-

tragichero be held tightlyin the tensionbetweenarete and hamartia.Her admonitionis thatwe

neitheradjudicatebetweentheseviews nordismissthem,butratherthatwe understand "thateach
answersto somethingimportant in theplay." I thinkthatalmosteveryoneis agreedthatOthello's
vulnerabilityto lago is his hamartia.The questionat issue is whether thishamartiais an intellectual
or a moralfailing.In myreadingof thetextOthello'snobilityof characterand intellectual hamartia
are affirmed. This evaluationof Othello's characteris basicallyin harmonywiththejudgmentsof
a numberof othercritics.For example,A. C. Bradleystatesin ShakespeareanTragedy(London:
Macmillan and Co., 1904), pp. 189-91: "So he comes beforeus, dark and grand,witha light
upon him fromthe sun wherehe was born;but no longeryoung,and now grave,self-controlled,
steeledby theexperienceof countlessperils,hardshipsand vicissitudes,at once simpleand stately
in bearingand in speech, a greatman naturallymodestbutfullyconsciousof his worth,proudof
his servicesto the state, unawed by dignitariesand unelatedby honours,secure, it would seem
against all dangersfromwithoutand all rebellionfromwithin.And he comes to have his life
crownedwiththe finalgloryof love, a love as strange,adventurousand romanticas any passage
of his eventfulhistory,fillinghis heartwithtenderness and his imagination withecstasy. . .. This
characteris so noble, Othello's feelingsand actionsfollowso inevitably fromit and fromtheforces
broughtto bearon it, and his sufferingsare so heart-rending, thathe stirs,I believe,in mostreaders
a passion of mingledlove and pitywhichtheyfeel forno otherhero in Shakespeare.
Helen Gardner,"The Noble Moor," Proceedingsof-theBritishAcademy,41 (1955), 192, writes
in a similarvein: "But the fundamental reason,I think,forOthello's appearingof limitedinterest
to manycriticstodayis ourdistastefortheheroic,whichhas foundlittleexpressionin ourliterature
in thiscentury,withthesplendidexceptionof thepoetryof Yeats. In Othellotheheroic,as distinct
fromthe exemplaryand the typical,whatcalls out admirationand sympathy in contrastto what
is to be imitatedor avoided, theextraordinary in contrastto therepresentative, directlychallenges
theimagination.Thereare variousways in which,in discussingHamlet,KingLear, and Macbeth,
we can evade thechallengeof theheroic.In Othellowe cannot." ReubenBrower,Hero and Saint:
Shakespeareand the Graeco-RomanHeroic Tradition(New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1971), p.
28, also senses Othello's nobilityas well as the ironyof his existentialsituation:"Of one thing
we can be certain,thatShakespeareis conveyingthroughthe metaphorof damnationone of the
essentialmoralexperiences,thepainfuldiscoverythathumanimpulsesforgood can bya mysterious
process turninto somethingevil and destructive.If we face towardthe othergreatimage of the
play-the hero-we mustresistoversimpledistortions, just as whenwe attendexclusivelyto the
imageof suffering goodness. Othellowas 'valiant,' and 'noble,' buthis heroicsimplicity was also
heroicblindness.That too is partof the 'ideal' hero,partof Shakespeare'smetaphor."

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO, HAMLET,ANDARISTOTELIAN
TRAGEDY 151

voteshimselfwithouthesitationto avengingthatdeath,even at thecost of his

own life. Hektor,too, manifestsarete. Aftertemporarily being overcomeby
terrorin the face of an attackby Achilles,he concludesthathis goal mustbe
not simplyto live but rather,even at the peril of his life, to performsome
noble and gloriousdeed thatwill be remembered forever.The areteof Achilles
and Hektorconsistsin theirwillingnessto take fullresponsibility fortheirac-
tionsin thecontextofcircumstances whichdefinetheirdignityas humanbeings.
They are bothwillingto pay thehighestprice,so thattheirlives will have, to
the greatestdegreepossible, nobilityand meaningfulness. Neitherleaves it to
anotherpersonor to chance to determinehis statusas a hero.
In Sophocles' OedipusTyrannus, Oedipusmanifests areteat thehighestlevel.
We see his dignitymostclearlywhen,afterrepeatedwarningsthathe should
inquireno further intothedetailssurrounding Laius' murder,he confronts the
herdsmanwho begs so fervently not to be allowed to fitthe finalpiece into
the puzzle. When the herdsman,in a finalact of compassion,warnsOedipus
of the terriblesecrethe is about to reveal, Oedipus heroicallyrespondsthat,
no matterhow bittertheconsequencesare forhimself,he mustknowtheherds-
man's awful message. Oedipus sacrificeshis immediatehappinessand tran-
quilityto embracea grimtruthwhichultimately, althoughpainfully,becomes
his salvation.Othelloin turndemonstrates aretewhenhe passes fataljudgment
upon himself:

Whenyou shall theseunluckydeeds relate,

Speak of me as I am. Nothingextenuate.
Nor set down aughtin malice. Then mustyou speak
Of one thatloved not wisely,but too well;
Of one not easilyjealous, but, beingwrought,
Perplexedin theextreme;of one whose hand,
Like the base Judean,threwa pearl away
Richerthanall his tribe....
(V.ii.341-48)

These two heroeshave been requiredby the circumstances of theirlives to

takeseriousactionsthataffectboththeirown lives and thelives ofotherhuman
beings. They have committed seriouserrorsin regardto theseactions(forAr-
istoteliantragedynot only requiresarete but also hamartia),but theirarete
transcendstheirhamartia,fortheydeal withtheircircumstances, theirmis-
calculationsand theoftenfatalconsequencesof theirmiscalculations,
withdignity
and integrity.They rise to the challengesthatconfront themand take action
when action is required.So it is nota deus ex machinaor a manifestation of
chance whichresolves theirdifficulties. And when, as inevitablyhappensin
Aristoteliantragedy,theyare shownto have been misguidedand theirown
terrible,personalhamartiais finallyilluminated, theyaccepttheirtragicstatus
withdignity.They have done all thata humanbeing could do in the face of
forces,divine or diabolical, thattranscendedtheirhumanstrengths and limi-
tations.

V
How does Hamletfitintothisaretelhamartia pattern?The firstresponsewe
observe in him is his intuitionthatsomethingevil lurksbehindhis father's
death and the all-too-rapidmarriageof his motherand Claudius:

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

O thatthistoo too sullied fleshwould melt,

Thaw, and resolveitselfintoa dew,
Or thatthe Everlastinghad not fixed
His canon 'gainstself-slaughter....

It is not norcannotcome to good,

But breakmy heart,forI musthold my tongue.
(I.ii.129-32, 158-59)

Then afterhavingbeen enjoinedby the Ghostto avenge his murder,he tells

us that
The timeis out of joint. 0 cursedspite,
That ever I was bornto set it right!
(I.v. 188-90)

Neitherof these statements remindsus of Achilles and Hektor,Oedipus and

Othello. These heroes,whenconfronted withchallenges,became immediately
(although not always active
consistently) heroes seekingwithall theirpower
and talentto overmaster thecircumstancesthatchallengedthem.Withconscious
resolve theymoved againstthe forcesthatthreatenedthemand showed no
hesitationor inclinationto brood over the unfairnessof the conflictin which
theyfoundthemselves.
Even whenHamlethas fixedupon a plan to expose his uncle througha play
in which the eventsof his father'smurderwill be represented, we have him
saying
Am I a coward?
Who calls me villain?breaksmy pate across?
Plucks offmy beard and blows it in my face?
Tweaks me by thenose? Gives me the lie i' th' throat
As deep as to the lungs?Who does me this?
Ha, 'swounds,I shouldtake it, forit cannotbe
But I am pigeon-livered and lack gall
To make oppressionbitter,or ere this
I shouldha' fattedall theregionkites
Withthisslave's offal.Bloody, bawdyvillain!
Remorseless,treacherous, lecherous,kindlessvillain!
0, vengeance!
Why,whatan ass am I! This is mostbrave,
That I, the son of a dear fathermurdered,
Promptedto my revengeby heavenand hell,
Must, like a whore,unpackmy heartwithwords
And fall a-cursinglike a verydrab,
A stallion!Fie upon't,foh! About,my brains.
(II.ii.556-73)

But even thisverytemperate doubts

actionis unableto clearawaythepersistent
and fearsthatseparateHamletfromthe epic and tragicheroeswe have men-
tionedpreviously.In III.i.60-88, we have themostfamousof all soliloquies,
and it is notone thatwould have been spokenby Achillesor Hektor,Oedipus
or Othello:
To be, or not to be-that is the question:
Whether'tis noblerin the mindto suffer

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO, HAMLET,AND ARISTOTELIAN TRAGEDY 153

The slingsand arrowsof outrageousfortune

Or to take armsagainsta sea of troubles,
And by opposingend them.To die, to sleep-
No more-and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache,and the thousandnaturalshocks
That fleshis heirto. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutlyto be wished. To die, to sleep-
To sleep-perchance to dream:ay, there'stherub,
For in thatsleep of deathwhatdreamsmay come
Whenwe have shuffled offthismortalcoil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makescalamityof so long life.
For who would bear the whipsand scornsof time,
Th' oppressor'swrong,the proudman's contumely
The pangs of despisedlove, the law's delay,
The insolenceof office,and the spurns
That patientmeritof th' unworthy takes,
Whenhe himselfmighthis quietusmake
Witha bare bodkin?Who would fardelsbear,
To gruntand sweat undera wearylife,
But thatthe dreadof somethingafterdeath,
The undiscoveredcountry,fromwhose bourn
No travellerreturns,puzzles the will,
And makesus ratherbear thoseills we have,
Than flyto othersthatwe knownot of?
Thus consciencedoes make cowardsof us all,
And thusthe nativehue of resolution
Is sickliedo'er withthe pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of greatpitchand moment
Withthisregardtheircurrentsturnawry,
And lose thename of action.

It is thisseparationof himselffromthepotentimperativeof actionwhichsep-

aratesHamletfromtheheroicstatusof Othelloand Oedipus.Indeedin III.iii.73-
95, when Hamlethas a chance to confront his enemydirectlyand heroically,
he findsa reason not to carryout his father'sinjunctionforvengeancewhich
is totallyalien to theworld-viewof theseheroes.And later,whenHamlethas
his interviewwithhis motherand hearsthe voice of the hiddenPolonius, he
acts withoutestablishingthe conditionsof an heroic confrontation.He thus
findsthathe has killed thesillybutharmlessold counselorratherthanhis real
enemy.This is quitedifferent fromtheconscioussearchfordirectconfrontation
thatmarksthe careersof the heroeswe have mentionedpreviously.
Even afterthe Polonius scene whenHamletis morecertainthanever of the
rectitudeof his angeragainstClaudius,we findhimin thesame moodas earlier
in the play:

I do not know
Why yet I live to say, 'This thing'sto do,'
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength,
and means
To do't. Examplesgross as earthexhortme.
Witnessthisarmyof such mass and charge,
Led by a delicateand tenderprince,
Whose spirit,withdivineambitionpuffed,
Makes mouthsat the invisibleevent,
Exposingwhatis mortaland unsure

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
154 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

To all thatfortune,death,and dangerdare,

Even foran eggshell.Rightlyto be great
Is not to stirwithoutgreatargument,
But greatlyto findquarrelin a straw
When honor'sat the stake. How standI then,
That have a fatherkilled, a motherstained,
Excitementsof myreasonand my blood,
And let all sleep, while to my shameI see
The imminent deathof twentythousandmen
That fora fantasyand trickof fame
Go to theirgraveslike beds, fightfora plot
Whereonthe numberscannottrythecause,
Whichis not tombenoughand continent
To hide the slain? 0, fromthistimeforth,
My thoughtsbe bloody,or be nothingworth!
(IV.iv.43-66)

There has been no real changeor developmentin Hamletby thispointin the

play, and the fearof actionstilldominateshis thoughtin a way thatstrongly
contrastswiththeattitudes ofAchillesand Hektor,Oedipusand Othello.Finally
in Act V, it is not Hamlet who createsthe circumstancesforthe finalcon-
frontation,butmerechance,theaccidentof a plotengineeredby Claudiusand
Laertesgoing awry.The resultis a haphazardformof justice thatvisitsdeath
upon all of the majorcharacterswithoutany kindof heroicconfrontation. In
V.ii.368-75, Horatiotells exactlywhatthismeans whenhe says:

And let me speak to th' yetunknowingworld

How thesethingscame about. So shall you hear
Of carnal,bloody,and unnaturalacts,
Of accidentaljudgments,casual slaughters,
Of deathsput on by cunningand forcedcause,
And, in thisupshot,purposesmistook
Fall'n on th' inventors'heads. All thiscan I
Trulydeliver.

Here we have a massivebreakdown in necessityand probability,as "chance,"

like a deus ex machina,bringsthisplay to a conclusion.Surelywe do nothave
here a tragicactionin the traditionof Oedipus Tyrannusor Othello,whereit
is the hero's strongconvictionsand powerfuldemandsthatlead to the tragic
denouement.Nor can we have a finalclarification of pityand fear-i.e., a
catharsis-because in Hamlet it is not the arete of the hero thatleads to a
conclusiveresolution,butonlya seriesof accidentsthatshoweruniversaldeath
on all the participants.Hamletis in manyways a passive and patheticfigure
ratherthanan active and tragicone. Like the heroesof manyotherplays that
have been called tragedies,he is a victimof externalforcesand of his own
youthand disinclinationto assume a directresponsibility foravenginghis fa-
ther's murder.Oedipus and Othello soughtto controltheirdestiniesand to
confront threatsto themin a vigorousand directmannerthatis alien to Hamlet.
This characteristic qualitativelyseparatesOedipus and OthellofromHamlet.
At thecore of an Aristoteliantragedyis humanarete,resonating withdignity
and nobilityeven whenhumanintelligenceand sensitivity at theirhighestlevels
fail to deal successfullywithextremechallengesand confrontations. The rep-
resentationof such humanarete and the illumination of its essentialnaturein

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OTHELLO, HAMLET,AND ARISTOTELIAN TRAGEDY 155

such plays as Oedipus Tyrannusand Othelloevoke profoundemotionsof pity

and fear and leave us witha feelingwhichI would call tragicoptimism.In
plays such as Hamlet, wherehumanarete remainsonly potential(we recall
Fortinbras'observationthatHamlet"was likely,had he been put on, to have
provedmostroyal"), the feelingwithwhichwe are leftis, I urge,ratherdif-
ferent.The emotionwe experiencein Hamlethas been bestexpressedby A. C.
Bradley,althoughhe wouldnotagreewiththedistinction I have madebetween
Hamletand whatI call Aristoteliantragedy.Bradleydescribesthe "centreof
the tragicimpression"in a Shakespeareantragedyas follows:4
This centralfeelingis theimpressionof waste. WithShakespeare,at anyrate,the
pityand fear which are stirredby the tragicstoryseem to unitewith,and even
mergein, a profoundsenseof sadnessand mystery, whichis due to thisimpression
of waste. "What a piece of workis man," we cry; "so muchmorebeautifuland
so much more terriblethan we knew! Why should he be so if this beautyand
greatnessonlytortures itselfand throwsitselfaway?" We seem to have beforeus
a typeof themystery of thewholeworld,thetragicfactwhichextendsfarbeyond
the limitsof tragedy.Everywhere, fromthecrushedrocksbeneathour feetto the
soul of man,we see power,intelligence, lifeand glory,whichastoundus and seem
to call for our worship.And everywherewe see themperishing,devouringone
anotherand destroying themselves,oftenwithdreadfulpain, as thoughtheycame
into being forno otherend. Tragedyis the typicalformof thismystery, because
thatgreatnessof soul whichit exhibitsoppressed,conflicting and destroyed,is the
highestexistencein ourview. It forcesthemystery uponus, and it makesus realize
so vividlytheworthof thatwhichis wastedthatwe cannotpossiblyseek comfort
in the reflectionthatall is vanity.

In Hamlet I see the patheticwaste of high humanpotentialwhich Bradley

describes;but in the actionsof the centralfigureof thatplay, dominatedas
theyare by anguishedfearsthatstifleheroicresponses,I failto notethe"great-
ness of soul" whichBradleyobserves.For "greatnessof soul," whichI take
to be anotherway of expressingthe conceptof arete, we musttranscendthe
agonizedpathosof Hamlet'sexistentialhelplessness,whichfindsitsresolution
in a climax thatis generatedby chance and accident. Achilles and Hektor,
Oedipus and Othellobecome activeparticipants in theirdestiniesand are not,
like Hamlet,passive victimsof externalmisfortune. Theirfatesresultfroma
necessaryand probableinterplay betweentheirpersonalcharacterand external
circumstances;and fromthatinteraction betweencharacterand circumstances
we can learn somethingsignificant about the pitiableand fearfuldimension,
the high tragicdimension,of humanexistence.
Nowherein Hamlet do we heareven a faintecho of the genuinehero's re-
sponses to the challengeswhich confronthim-responses such as Achilles'
consciousand willingsacrificeofhis lifeto avengePatroklos'death;or Hektor's
decision to give meaningto his lifeby dyinggloriouslyso thatgenerationsto
come will rememberhim;or Oedipus' unflinching, courageousencounterwith
his own horrifyingdestiny;or, finally,Othello's brave self-appraisal:"Speak
of me as I am. Nothingextenuate.Nor set down aughtin malice. Then must
you speak of one thatloved not wisely,but too well."
The tone of Hamlet's commentaries is quite different."O thatthistoo too
sullied fleshwould melt,thaw,and resolve itselfintoa dew"; "The timeis

I
ShakespeareanTragedy,pp. 28-29.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

out of joint. 0 cursedspite,thatever I was bornto set it right!""... forit

cannotbe but I am pigeon-liveredand lack gall to make oppressionbitter,or
ere this I should ha' fattedall the regionkiteswiththisslave's offal"; "And
thusthe nativehue of resolutionis sickliedo'er withthepale cast of thought,
and enterprisesof greatpitchand momentwiththisregardtheircurrentsturn
awryand lose thenameof action"; "I do notknowwhyyetI live to say, 'This
thing'sto do. . . .' " These are Hamlet's commentsthroughout the play and
theyare reversednot by any courageousand majesticaction on his part,but
ratherby whatHoratiocalls "accidentaljudgments. . . casual slaughters. . .
and purposesmistook."
What differentiates HamletfromAchilles, Oedipus, and Othellois thathis
areteis morea potentialthanan actualforcegivingmomentum to theunfolding
denouementof theplay. The decisionof Achillesconsciouslyto choose a short
but glorious life over a long and ingloriousone, of Oedipus to discoverthe
realityof his existentialsituationalthoughthatknowledgethreatens to destroy
him,and of Othelloto curetheagonyof his psychicpain (howeverflawedhis
understanding of its real cause is) and thento pass the severestjudgmenton
himself,are all actionsexpressiveof maturearete. These charactersare truly
spoudaios, and thehamartiatheyenduredoes notsubverttheirheroicstature.
Hamletis buffeted by windsof evil thatcontrolhimand are neithertamed,as
in Achilles' case, nor shapedand directedby himin ignorance,as in thecase
of Oedipus and Othello.5
We feel morepitythanfearforHamlet's helplessnessin the face of an evil
thatis terminated by an accidentof fortuneratherthanby a consciousact of
humanwill. His story,then,is a portrayalof the pathos,not the tragedy,of
the humancondition.

I Hamlet has been studiedfroman infinity of perspectives,and it is neithergermaneto my

purpose,nor even possible, to reviewherethe scholarlyliterature on the subject.It has been my
intentionmerelyto providean analysisof Hamletfroman Aristotelian perspective-a perspective
which requiresus to focus on the relationshipbetweenarete and hamartiain the tragichero's
character.This approachcan also be foundin Shakespeareanstudies,as I have notedin my ref-
erenceto JaneAdamson'sfinestudyof Othello(see fn.3). Yet therehave also been someprominent
dissentersfromwhat I considerthe authenticAristotelianview thatbotharete and hamartiaare
necessaryrequirementsfor the tragichero. PeterAlexander,Hamlet: Father and Son (Oxford:
OxfordUniv. Press, 1955) writes(p. 113): "All these (Bradley,Aristotle,and Sophocles) insist
or are said to insiston the centrality
of the doctrineof hamartia;yet,whenwe come to examine
themforourselves,Bradleyand Aristotle,althoughtheydo offerus an interpretation of tragedy
based on such a doctrine,yet add such qualifications thatwe mightinsistthattheyprovideat the
same time its refutation.Indeed the varietyof experienceon whichthe whole effectof tragedy
depends-catharsis to use Aristotle'sterm-does not reston the faultsbut the virtuesof men."
HarryLevin, The Questionof Hamlet (New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 1959), p. 134, approves
of Alexander'sviews on thissubject: "In shifting the emphasisfromhamartiato arete, fromthe
detectionof the hero's faultsto the admirationof his virtues,and especiallyto the centraleffect
of catharsis,ProfessorAlexanderequilibratesa themewhichhas been conspicuousfor the one-
sidednessof itspreviousinterpretations." I do notconsiderAlexander'sdiscussionas quotedabove
a balanced analysisof the actual relationshipbetweenhamartiaand arete in tragedy,norone that
is in harmonywithAristotle'sactual views on hamartiaand catharsis.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions