National University of Modern Languages

DRAMA

Topic: HAMARTIA, KING OEDIPUS and Our own leaders

Assigned by: Sir Salim Surani

Submitted by: Moin Uddin Ahmed

1

Table of Contents

Page No.

What is Hamartia 3

Different interpretation of Hamatria 3

Appetite for Destruction 4

Existence of Man 4

Hamartia in Oedipus the King  5

Modern day victims of Hamartia 7

Bibliography 8

2

What is Hamartia?

Hamartia (Ancient Greek: ἁμαρτία) is a term developed by Aristotle in his work Poetics. The term can simply be seen as a character’s flaw or error. The word hamartia is rooted in the notion of missing the mark (hamartanein) and covers a broad spectrum that includes accident and mistake, as well as wrongdoing, error, or sin In Nicomachean Ethics, hamartia is described by Aristotle as one of the three kinds of injuries that a person can commit against another person. Hamartia is an injury committed in ignorance (when the person affected or the results are not what the agent supposed they were). This form of drawing emotion from the audience is a staple of the Greek tragedies. In Greek tragedy, stories that contain a character with a hamartia often follow a similar blueprint. The hamartia, as stated, is seen as an error in judgment or unwitting mistake is applied to the actions of the hero. For example, the hero might attempt to achieve a certain objective X; by making an error in judgment, however, the hero instead achieves the opposite of X, with disastrous consequences.

Other interpretation of Hamartia

However, hamartia cannot be sharply defined or have an exact meaning assigned to it. Consequently, a number of alternate interpretations have been associated with it, such as in the Bible hamartia is the Greek word used to denote "sin." Bible translators may reach this conclusion, according to T. C. W. Stinton, because another common interpretation of hamartia can be seen as a “moral deficit” or a “moral error” (Stinton 221). R. D. Dawe disagrees with Stinton’s view when he points out in some cases hamartia can even mean to not sin (Dawe 91). It can be seen in this opposing context if the main character does not carry out an action because it is a sin. This failure to act, in turn, must lead to a poor change in fortune for the main character in order for it to truly be a hamartia.

In a medical context, a hamartia denotes a focal malformation consisting of disorganized arrangement of tissue types that are normally present in the anatomical area.

Aristotle once said that a hero's downfall must be a result of some tragic flaw within the character. This flaw was known as hamartia in the Greek world of Aristotle. Since Aristotle greatly admired Oedipus the King, many people believe that Oedipus must have had a prominent and complex hamartia. Discovering Oedipus' hamartia within the play is not an easy task. In fact, it is impossible to point out Oedipus' hamartia since I do not believe that he has one. Everything that he says or does throughout the play is justifiable in one way or another. There is always some logical explanation behind his thoughts and actions and, thus, Oedipus does not have a tragic flaw in his character.

There are a number of different points that one can analyze and claim to be Oedipus' hamartia. For instance, some people may examine Oedipus' bad temper and label this as the flaw that leads to his downfall. Oedipus becomes enraged at Teiresias' claim that he is the one who murdered Laius and he begins to believe that this is an attempt by Creon to overthrow him. Despite Oedipus' anger in this situation, his reaction can be justified. First of all, Teiresias' allegation that Oedipus is the killer is absurd to him since he would never murder a king. Also, it seems logical that Creon would be behind such a scheme since he would be next in line to the throne. Therefore, Oedipus' bad temper cannot be considered his hamartia.

3

Appetite for Destruction

Of all the tragedies that Greek playwright Sophocles created in his illustrious career, the one that stands out as his masterpiece, and quite possibly one of the greatest of all the Greek tragedies is Oedipus the King.   The tragedy focuses on the life and downfall of the unfortunate King Oedipus, who was condemned by the oracle at an early age to murder his father and marry his mother.   Despite the oracle’s grim prediction, Oedipus was responsible for his own downfall due to his overly proud and impetuous attitude, and his own intellect and diligence. In the polis of Thebes, Oedipus was the not only the king but he was also the hero of the community.   The security and health of the community depended on him and he was expected to meet every urgent crisis with a plausible solution.   He was celebrated for acting decisively and making decisions and then acting on them.   With all his past accomplishments and achievements, Oedipus developed a strong sense of confidence, which fueled his over inflated ego.   Unfortunately, when circumstances did not turn out in his favor, such as in his conflict with Tiresias the blind prophet, Oedipus became rigid and refused to see the problem on any one else’s terms except his own.   Oedipus only wanted things to go the way he thought they should go.   Whatever stood in his way he tried to overcome publicly and without any compromise from the opposing party, which was illustrated in his argument in front of the palace with Creon over the murder of the former King Laius.   Ultimately his attitude of confidence with no compromises contributed to his disastrous and sad end.   In most cases, intelligence and diligence are valuable traits to possess, but for Oedipus they contributed to his eventual downfall.   Oedipus was known for being extremely intelligent and was very talented at solving riddles.

Existence of Man

Since the beginning of time, man has used various methods on which to pass down stories, beliefs, and myths which explain different aspects of life.From oral tradition, to pictographs, to clay tablets, and onto paper, allcompose the world of literature. Literature has always been an infinite realm ofideas, morals, and trains of thought.   Although the sphere of literature isencircled with extreme diversity of thought, its core is focused on one theme:man. All literature carries with itself three main characteristics: it iswritten by man, for man, and about man. Oedipus the King, the great Greektragedy by the unparalleled philosopher, Sophocles, is no exception toliterature's domain. It deals with one king, Oedipus, and his plight to avengethe death of his predecessor, King Laios. In his determined search to find themurderer, he establishes a proclamation which would demand the banishment andeven the death of the murderer. In his ironic action, the reader discovers thatthis murderer that Oedipus is so determined to discover is none other thanOedipus himself. In adhesion to the definition of literature, this tragic plotreveals to the reader three main commentaries about the nature of man: mancannot escape his past, pride is the sin which leads man to greater evils, andalthough the life of man is in itself a positive good, there will always be ashadow of terrible tragedy that falls across it.

4

All throughout literature, many works have portrayed characters who carry with them a dark and gloomy past, and try to tear this shameful history oftheir lives from the books of their life. Unfortunately, this is impossible dueto the fact that the past is a precursor to the present which, in turn,determines one's future. It is one's past that makes one what he or she is today.For example, if an individual committed ruthless acts such as theft or murder,was not caught by the law, and later realizes that that...

The events in Oedipus the King, written by Sophocles, show an underlying relationship of man's free will existing within the cosmic order or fate that the Greeks believed guided the universe. Man was free to choose and was ultimately held responsible for his own actions. Both the concepts of fate and free will played an integral part in Oedipus' destruction. Although he was a victim of fate, he was not controlled by it. Oedipus was destined from birth to someday marry his mother and to murder his father. This prophecy as warned by the oracle of Apollo at Delphi was unconditional and inevitably would come to pass, no matter what he may have done to avoid it. His past actions were determined by fate, but his adventures in Thebes were controlled by his own free will.From the beginning of this tragedy, Oedipus took many actions leading to his own downfall. He could have endured the plague, but out of compassion for his suffering people, he had Creon go to Delphi. When he learned of Apollo's word, he could have calmly investigated the murder of the former King Laius, but in his hastiness, he condemns the murderer, and in so, unknowingly curses himself. "Tis a just zeal for the cause of that slain man. And right it is in me that ye shall see me fighting that cause for Phoebus and for Thebes". In order for Sophocles' play to be categorized as tragic, the tragic hero had to have some sort of a flaw. The hero's tragic flaws are the qualities, which ultimately lead to his downfall. Oedipus' pride, ignorance, insolence towards the gods, and unrelenting quest for the truth ultimately contributed to his destruction. When Terrisias told Oedipus that he was responsible for the murder of Laius, he became enraged and calls the old oracle a liar. He ran away from his home in Corinth, in hopes of outsmarting the gods divine will. Like his father, Oedipus also sought ways to escape the horrible destiny told by the oracle of Apollo.

Hamartia in Oedipus the King 

According to the Aristotelian characteristics of good tragedy, the tragic character should not fall due to either excessive virtue or excessive wickedness, but due to what Aristotle called hamartia. Hamartia may be interpreted as either a flaw in character or an error in judgement. Oedipus, the tragic character in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, certainly makes several such mistakes; however, the pervasive pattern of his judgemental errors seems to indicate a basic character flaw that precipitates them. 

Oedipus’ character flaw is ego. This is made evident in the opening lines of the prologue when he states "Here I am myself--you all know me, the world knows my fame: I am Oedipus." His conceit is the root cause of a number of related problems. Among these are recklessness, disrespect, and stubbornness. 

5

Short temper

Oedipus displays an attitude of recklessness and disrespect throughout the play. When he makes his proclamation and no one confesses to the murder of Laius, Oedipus loses patience immediately and rushes into his curse. Later, he displays a short temper to Tiresias: "You, you scum of the earth . . . out with it, once and for all!," (ll. 381, 383) and "Enough! Such filth from him? Insufferable--what, still alive? Get out--faster, back where you came from--vanish!"

Stubborn

If an unwillingness to listen may be considered stubbornness, certainly Oedipus would take advice from no one who would tell him to drop the matter of his identity, among them Tiresias, the shepherd, and even Jocasta. Even after Oedipus thinks he has received a reprieve from the fate he fears when he hears that Polybus is dead, he does not have the sense to keep still. "So! Jocasta, why, why look to the Prophet’s hearth . . . all those prophesies I feared . . . they’re nothing, worthless," he says. To the shepherd, Oedipus certainly has no respect for the man’s age when he tortures him. Oedipus’ cruelty indeed literally squeezes his own demise out of the shepherd: "You’re a dead man if I have to ask again . . . I’m at the edge of hearing horrors, yes, but I must hear!"

After his recognition and reversal, Oedipus exclaims "The hand that struck my eyes was mine, . . . I did it all myself!" He is not only referring to his self-inflicted mayhem, but also the chain of events that led to his demise. Creon later comments that "it’s better to ask precisely what to do." In contrast to this observation, apparently this is precisely what Oedipus should have done. 

Each of these events, when isolated, may be excused as a simple mistake. However, when viewed as a whole, a pattern emerges among these mistakes. The cumulative effect is indicative of an underlying character flaw. Oedipus’ hamartia may most directly be his mistakes, but ultimately these mistakes flow from his ego. For Oedipus, hamartia certainly refers to a flaw. 

6

Modern day victims of Hamartia

Modern researches on leadership have testified to what Aristotle had pointed out nearly two thousand five hundred years back. One predispositional element of personality determining failure of a leader, he had identified was hubris. What is it? It is a self-induced intoxication of overly inflated ‘ego’. It is a big ‘I’. One looms larger than his size. It is a tendency to attribute qualities to oneself which are god-like. The pervasive megalomania makes one immune to the limits of one’s power. It breeds arrogance. To sustain this belief system, one has to ‘act’ in order to convince himself that he is endowed with invincible power. Heavens will fall, if I am unseated from power, is the kind of logic used to bolster delusional pride. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s famous utterance: “Himalayas will weep in the event he was removed,” is symbolic of that type of leadership which in the Aristotelian sense is the tragic trait of many vanquished leaders.

Let us take the example of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who despite his intellect and insight did not play his cards well, dealing with General Ziaul Haq, to be able to save his skin. In other words, being a first rate politician, he behaved like a typical incompetent General who has a predilection for frontal attack. General Ziaul Haq on the other hand known for his mediocrity as a General, played a politician’s role. This was an ironic reversal of roles. If Bhutto had eased out Ziaul Haq’s own fear of the grave through a political finesse and dexterity perhaps, the later would not have gone to the extent of physically getting him eliminated. What is intended to convey that Bhutto’s failure was essentially that of over inhaling power and perception of being a sacred cow - and thereby being indispensable. General De Gaulle was right in contending that the graveyards are full of indispensable men.

It may be pertinent to recall how similar was the fate of three charismatic leaders - who cumulatively contributed to the fall of Dhaka in 1971, entailing colossal human tragedy. Shaikh Mujeeb - Bangla Bandhu - wielded power of enormous magnitude. But one has to look at his ignominious end. There was hardly anyone to lift his dead body for religious burial rites. He lost all his kith and kin, except for one daughter, who survived only because she was not on the scene. Incidentally, now she is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s tragedy of being hanged, is very poignant indeed, as he was undoubtedly a popular leader endowed with rare intelligence. To make matters worse, he lost two of his sons through murder, and his daughter Benazir Bhutto, the political heir is experiencing the worst humiliation of being branded a corrupt politician - ousted twice as Prime Minister. The fate of the iron lady of India - Indira Gandhi, who lost two of her sons and her own life, was no different. (killed by truwted sikh guards) All these cannot be simply dismissed as chance events of history. But running through them is the force of nemesis - silent but inexorable. Perhaps nature abhors any propensity to overstep power threshold, to enter into the domain, which is essentially divine.

In Mian Nawaz Sharif’s case, the failure was due to lack of proper understanding that propelled him towards wrong actions. He is a victim of humartia - a false notion that by assimilating power into his hands he would be very secure. It was a cardinal mistake, as man of power is usually ruined by power. Depriving institutions of the freedom do not ensure security. Karl Pepper, very rightly counselled: We must plan for freedom and not only for security, if for no other reason then that only freedom can make security secure. A frontal attack on the freedom of Parliament made a mockery of democratic norms. The judiciary robbed of its freedom looked sterile and impotent to deliver justice. The President was reduced to a robot like entity. When the axe fell on the Army, it had to boomerang as passivity is no trait of any fighting machinery. It was a failure to understand - hamartia, compounded by the blind spot and not paying heed to the ground realities-anagnosis.

7

Quaid-e-Azam vs Quaid-e-Azam

Nelson Mandela vs Whites

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto vs Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

Musharaf vs chudhary iftikhar 9/3/2010 and again 3/11/2007

Benazir Bhutto vs Benazir Bhutto 27/12/2007

Indra Gandhi vs Indra Gandhi

Bibliography:

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/june/fail-political.htm

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/sphinx.htm

http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Oedipus/14789?topic

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=8934

8