Mille i pensieri che vagano nella mente in cerca di definizione.
Tutti mi fanno fremere, tremare…
Alcuni fanno paura, altri danno un po’ fastidio.
Altri ancora fanno scivolare un brivido per tutto il corpo.
Al levar del sole, all’improvviso.
Inaspettata gloria dei sensi.
Quel brivido,
lo sento scorrere per le vene,
lo sento accarezzarmi i nervi,
lisciarmi la mente,
lambirmi la pelle.
Tutto e’ ed esiste in quel brivido.
Unico, solo e irripetibile,
Tomas, Teresa, Sabina e Franz.
Ed ecco che sfioro quella leggerezza,
che tuttavia non mi e’ assolutamente insostenibile.
Filed under: XX CENTURY HEROES
Many contemporary authors have struggled in the attempt of finding a way to keep the myth of the tragic hero alive in today’s modern society. Why is it so hard? Isn’t there any place left for tragic heroes? Isn’t there any place left for heroes at all? And if so, what are the reasons for the tragic death of tragic heroes?
In order to analyze this issue and find the answers to the questions mentioned above, I am first of all going to try defining the following: What is a hero? What is “tragic”? And finally, what is a tragic hero? Thus I am going to study the difference between a classical tragic hero and a modern one only to subsequently pursue the study of how “tragic” heroism has changed accordingly. Consequently we will be able to conclude, that in order for these authors to keep their tragic heroes alive, they have had to adapt them to modern society and create a whole new definition of “hero” and “tragic”.
What is a hero? According to the British encyclopedia a hero is “a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility and strength” – “the principal character in a play or movie or novel or poem” – “someone who fights for a cause” [1]. All these definitions are obviously right, nonetheless, within these definitions, through the history of literature, there have been many different heroes with different heroic characteristics. So, let us analyse them.
For instance starting from classical Greek mythology and literature, the hero was: “a being of great strength and courage celebrated for bold exploits; often the offspring of a mortal and a god” [2]. We certainly recall heroes such as Ulysses, or Achilles. But as we move on, in classical Greek tragedy the hero, is someone driven by fate and destiny: “A man who has achieved, or who has the ability to achieve, greatness but who through a weakness, or tragic flaw in his character, falls into the depths of misery and often to his death. (…) it is for the gods not him to decide when his expiation is complete.”[3] Further in time though Heroes started changing. The idea of heroes being noble, “high” and courageous people, and the idea of fate driving heroes’ life started fading away. This is when authors started struggling to find or define heroes.
In 1818, Lord Byron, in his romantic age, started working on his satirical poem: Don Juan. If we look at his first canto we see that Lord Byron searches desperately for a hero, yet in vane. He finds no man or woman of “high” moral values, nor of any particular courage. He finds plenty in the past, but in his present there are none. So he chooses “his old friend” Don Juan. He has no courage; he is an unattractive villain, a libertine who thinks of himself as a gentleman; an immoral or even worst an amoral. No “heroic virtue” but many dark qualities. Nevertheless he is the “hero”. This author created a hero of his own: the Byronic Hero [4]-[5]. At the end of the same century this “pessimism” changes into realism, followed by naturalism: an extremely accurate way of reporting reality as it is, depriving literature form symbols and myths.
In 1885, Emile Zola, in a naturalistic age, writes Germinal. By now, heroes are no longer noble men, nor are they virtuous. They are the common human beings of everyday life. They are the working classes, the ones “always covered in coal!”. Ordinary people are heroes, whereas those with money are the villains who live on the sufferance and hard work of those below them.[6]
Moving on to 1886, Thomas Hardy writes: The Mayor of Casterbridge, his hero is “the man of character”, Michael Henchard. This hero once again differs from the previous ones. And again, he lacks nobility, moral values, and courage. All he has is his guilt and his character. Guilt is what drives his actions, it is Henchard’s harmatia: “the tragic flaw that represents a fatal weakness that causes the downfall of a protagonist in tragedy. (…) the result is action or inaction, that leads to destruction or death” [7]. Character is what stops him from an eventual “salvation”. As Novalis said: “Character is Fate” [8].
By the time we reach Juno and the Paycock, by Sean O’Casey, in 1924, the hero and the idea of it are dead. Mr. Boyle is supposed to be the protagonist, the (one would hope) hero, of the theatre piece for he is the “Captain”. Unfortunately he turns out to be a drunken, lazy, liar, who does nothing special, says nothing special, nor cares about anything special. He is as much a hero as he could be a villain. And instead of fighting for something he caries on repeating: “It would be better for a man to be dead” [9]. The death of heroes can be justified by the fact that “The whole world’s in a state o’ chassis’”. There is always less meaningfulness, and always less will to fight for a cause. There is no more place for tragic heroes, there is only place for tragic and drama. Yet if ever there is a hero, that might be Juno, who in the end by leaving her husband and sacrificing herself, will probably help things get better, for Mary, Boyle’s daughter, as Elisabeth, Henchard’s daughter, is pregnant, and an unborn child not only represent innocence but also hope.
Hemingway too has this hope and therefore tries to create a new hero. A real hero. Robert Jordan. Not a noble man but indeed a one of moral values, of virtue, courageous, strong, and willing to fight for a cause in a country that is not even his. For Whom the Bell Tolls written in 1940 is Hemingway’s proof that heroes still exist. Regrettably, even though Jordan’s fate saves him from death, as we previously remarked it is no longer fate that drives the modern hero, but it is character that does. Thus Jordan goes back on the fields, challenges death once again, and finally dies. The fact that he was conscious and “chose” in someway his destiny, definitely makes the hero less heroic and less tragic! Hence, even an author like Hemmingway does not really succeed in giving the modern world a real tragic hero.
Ultimately we can see as we move on, that from a noble, strong, courageous, “high”, moral hero, we fall into the image of an ordinary as opposed to noble, vicious as opposed to virtuous, weak as opposed to strong, man. And in the latter case, we can further see, an honest and good attempt of finding a tragic hero in an age where there are none.
If the tragic hero has indisputably changed, so has “tragic” heroism. In ancient Greek mythology the tragic hero was fighting despicable gods and horrific demons and monsters. In times he would be successful, in others he would die. His “tragic” heroism was unquestionable. In classical Greek literature the tragic hero or heroin would fight against the unfightable. He or she, would fight against destiny, fate, gods though often punished by their own hubris. (“Arrogance; excessive self-pride and self-confidence. Hubris, a Greek term for insolence, referred to the emotions in Greek tragic heroes that led them ignore warnings from the gods and thus invite catastrophe. Hubris is that form of hamartia that stems from overbearing pride and self-assumed superiority”[10]). The fact that they were fighting against something bigger than them, or even the unfightable, more often for justice but sometimes for love and seldomly out of self interest, was what made the “tragic” heroism.
Moreover, once we arrive to the romantic heroes, or to Hardy’s, or Casey’s or Hemingway’s for instance, the “ tragic” heroism is only issued by them being victims of them selves and of their character. This leads us to believe that there is more “tragedy” than heroism in them. Henchard’s death is one of the few that seem to have meaning, in the sense that readers expected him to die, and what is more his death makes the plot move on. As we saw in classical “tragic” heroism, the death of the hero always has a purpose, might it be more or less evident. Nevertheless, as we pass on to Robert Jordan we see he was speared by destiny, there was no more reason to go back as everyone was safe already, yet he chooses to do so and died. This death does not contribute to the unfolding of the plot, and it doesn’t even contribute to the saving of anything. It is merely a “choice” driven only by Jordan himself, his character. His death is thus, useless and meaningless. This will open the doors to the post war meaninglessness of life and of the world itself, the “Nothing to be done” of Samuel Beckett [11]. It also opens the doors to other great absurd authors and plays, such as The Dumb Waiter by Harold Pinter or La Cantatrice Chauve by Eugene Jonesco and other contemporaries.
In conclusion, I think we can safely say that tragic heroes and “tragic” heroism do no longer exist in literature. In spite of many writers’ efforts there has been no success in providing us with a hero. The reason for this being is most probably the lack of heros or just even heroic figures in today’s world. It appears that there are no more great causes to be faught or better said to be worth fighting for. Dissillusion and deception are what drive human beings whose potential heroism is by consequence inhibited if not impeeded. Destiny appears to be something that we more or less chose or that our character leads us to chose. The notion of evil gods full of vengeance faded long time ago. All we are left with is one of the bloodiest centuries behind us and the great sense of meaninglessness that absurdism literature so well reports.
[1] The British encyclopedia and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hero
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hero
[3]Christopher Ingham, A Brief Introduction to Greek Tragedy, http://www.lessontutor.com/ciGreek.html
[4] Byronic Hero: “ A man of mysterious origins, ambiguous past, with a tendency towards all excesses and the sense of satiety deriving from them. The sensibility to nature and beauty, the love for a woman which is always connected with a tragic fate.”
[5] Mariella Stagi Scarpa, Literary Labyrinth, Vol. 2, SEI1996
[6] “Encyclopedia of Literary Critics and Criticism”, Paris, Nathan, 1995
[7] Christopher Ingham, A Brief Introduction to Greek Tragedy, http://www.lessontutor.com/ciGreek.html
[8] Thomas Hardy, The Mayor of Casterbridge, The Life and Death of a Man of Character, Penguin Classics, 2003, Chapter XVII p. 112
[9] Sean O’Casey, Juno and the Paycock, A Tragedy, London , French,1959
[10] Christopher Ingham, A Brief Introduction to Greek Tragedy, http://www.lessontutor.com/ciGreek.html
[11] Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, 1948
L’inesplicabile valore che abbiamo accreditato al denaro…
Questo valore sembra, nella maggioranza dei casi, superare altri tradizionali ed eterni valori quali famiglia, amicizia, umanità, se non, nel peggiore ma ben esteso dei casi, la vita stessa.
Nella paura di rischiare, perdere dei soldi siamo ridotti all’immobilità.
Se è vero che da una parte tale paura è scaturita dalla nostra consapevolezza di quanto sia difficile guadagnare il denaro necessario a sopravvivere, è altrettanto vero che dall’altra, l’importanza che gli attribuiamo è portata all’estremo.
Quest’importanza attribuita ci porta ad una cautela che altrimenti non avvremmo. La paura di non poter ottemperare ai nostri “bisogni” ci porta a seguire alla lettera un sistema implementato ed evoluto nei milleni. L’essere umano si è fregato da solo!
Ed ancora i risultati di questa cautela sono sbalorditivi.
Se nella preistoria, l’uomo, come tutti gli altri animali, apprezzava la sua necessità di cibo e rispondeva ad essa andando a caccia… Se nell’evoluzione della specie e nell’arco della storia l’uomo a continuato ad ottemperare alle sue necessità in ogni modo atto… Come siamo arrivati a credere che oggi l’unico modo atto sia scendere a compromessi con
nessuno, con un sistema ormai stagnante, e sacrificarsi nella maggioranza dei casi a svolgere quotidianamente un lavoro che non ci gratifica e non ci appaga, a vivere in uno spazio che non ci appartiene e in cui non ci sentiamo a casa e a decidere, seguendo il criterio del denaro, se avremo o no dei figli, o se ne avremo, quanti ne avremo, quale
numero di figli ci possiamo permettere, quale numero è sopportabile dalla quantità di denaro che riusciamo a guadagnare…?
Ed ancor più sbalorditivo: se un tempo l’obiettivo nella vita era l’ottemperanza ai bisogni primordiali, in un secondo tempo il raggiungimento attraverso il travaglio e l’ingegnio di sogni sempre realizzabili, con l’evoluzione e la consapevolezza che con essa l’ottemperanza ed il raggiungimento divenivano crescientemente ardui, l’essere umano si è portato a credere e quindi ad apprezzare, che il viaggio fosse più importante della destinazione, come per dire che il travaglio fosse più importante del raggiungimento.
Io, sono cresciuta con quest’ultima idea. E a dire il vero nella mia crescita non solo mi sembrava aver senso, ma ancor più mi appariva romantica e saggia nel contempo.
Ora, sono travolta dalla resa della specie. Ora, nel XXIesimo secolo, l’essere umano si è portato a credere che ancor più del viaggio o del travaglio ha importanza il sogno. Si è immobillizato. Quasi come arreso all’idea che l’ottemperanza ed il raggiungimento siano impossibili o comunque improbabili e quindi frustrato dall’interminabile viaggio e travaglio che sembrano portare da nessuna parte, si autoconvince che il sogno stesso sia la cosa più importante, totalmente a prescindere da se o no intraprendera il viaggio e se o no il viaggio lo porterà a destinazione.
Ed infine, e ancor una volta, ancor più sbalorditivo, l’abitudine a quest’idea ha fatto del suo sogno il suo padrone. Se qualcuno, chiunque, venisse a proporgli l’ottemperanza, la destinazione ed il raggiungimento, come realtà tangibili e probabili, se non certe, lui,
rifiuterebbe. Direbbe di no, e manterrebbe la sua fedeltà al fantomatico compromesso, svegliandosi ogni mattina per andare a svolgere quel lavoro che non lo gratifica e non lo appaga (1/3 della sua vita), vivendo in quello spazio che non gli appartiene e in
cui non si sente a casa (per tutta la sua vita), per poi, stremato, tornare a stare con chi ama e con i suoi figli contati per meno di un quarto della sua vita. Perchè lo fa? Per paura di perdere anche l’unica cosa che gli è rimasta: il sogno.
Discussing the problem of evil and freedom the first thing we need to do is to define both ideas as there mere existence is arguable. What is freedom and what is it to be free? What is evil and where does it come from? To answer these questions we will rely upon various definitions provided by some very influencial philosophers and thinkers, such as Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Rousseau and Kant. Jointly we will have to determine whether human beings are subject to determinism or whether they are capable of free will in order to establish if they can truly be free and if evil is something they succumb to or something they chose. Only then we will be able to comprehend the intrinsic relation between evil and freedom.
What is freedom and what is it to be free? The dictionary would simplistically define freedom as follows: “n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints; 2: immunity from an obligation or duty [syn: exemption]” [1], however when we move to the philosophical notion of freedom, the issue becomes more complex as its mere existence in questioned. According to determinism, there shall be no freedom as such because everything is predetermined. As a matter of fact determinism supports the theory of “essence” preceding “existence”, which practically means that nothing depends on us and any choice we think we are taking is actually a predetermined choice and hence could have not been different than what it is.
An extreme supporter of this theory is the French writer Diderot, who not only through his philosophical novels but also in his lifestyle, admitting the existence of determinism, does not search for self improvement and conducts a life of scenes and leisure surrendering to the dominant “will” which is not his, but perhaps God’s [2]. Determinism is also defined as follows: “in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes that preclude free will and the possibility that humans could have acted otherwise” [3]. Goethe puts it very simply in the following terms: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”[4].
On the other hand existentialists such as Sartre[5] prefer to believe that “existence” precedes “essence”, by this we mean the opposite of determinism. This theory believes that we create our own nature and therefore we are not predetermined in any way nor controlled by any superior nature or essence. Hence any choice we make strictly depends on us: On our common sense and our free will. This implies that freedom does exist. However it also implies that if freedom exists the price we pay for it is responsibility. As a consequence Sartre points out that the main characteristics of existentialism boil down to: facticity, anxiety and despair. Facticity, because we find ourselves in a world we can’t control and that is not controlled by any other entity. Anguish or anxiety is the sheer awareness of our own freedom, hence the responsibility of choosing our own nature and values. Despair because we can’t control the freedom of others. Nonetheless another interesting definition is given by Rousseau who suggests that human beings are free by nature: “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains”[6]. By this the writer means that while we are born free society takes freedom away from us. Civilisation has robbed us from our natural freedom: “While semi-civilized humanity looked to itself for its values and happiness, civilized human beings live outside themselves in the opinions and authority of others. The price of civilization is human freedom and human individuality”[7]. We can conclude by saying that if freedom does not exist the problem of evil does not exist either, as it would be something beyond our control. However if freedom does exist, as Sartre and Rousseau want to make us believe, then the problem of evil arises and curiosity in defining it is legitimate and necessary.
What is evil and where does it come from? Once again the dictionary would define evil as follows: “adj 1: morally bad or wrong; “evil purposes”; “an evil influence”; “evil deeds” [syn: wicked] [ant: good] 2: having the nature of vice [syn: depraved, vicious] 3: tending to cause great harm [syn: harmful, injurious] 4: having or exerting a malignant influence; “malevolent stars”; “a malefic force” [syn: malefic, malevolent, malign] n 1: morally objectionable behavior [syn: immorality, wickedness, iniquity] 2: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune: “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is often interred with their bones”- Shakespeare 3: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice: “attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world” [syn: evilness] [ant: good, good]”.
However philosophy would go beyond this definition and would try and analyse the origin of evil. To know what it truly is, we need to know what its origin is. If we believe in God, evil can’t be explained, for God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. Nevertheless Theodicy [8] explains evil by stipulating that it is a consequence of God giving human being “free will” and that it is then up to humans to chose between right and wrong, good and evil. If God did not allow for free will to exist, thus not allow for evil to exist either, humanity would be reduced to being meagre puppets. Joseph Conrad puts it this way: “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary, men alone are quite capable of every wickedness”[9]. Some atheists conversely believe that the existence of evil through “reductio ad absurdum” is enough to deny the existence of God. This means that however we look at it, evil depends on free will except for some determinists that would support the theory that an evil person would be determined to be evil thus could not be blamed nor changed. Yet the latter seems to me, an easy way out of the problem.
So, considering the previous, evil is only determined by free will, we could then say that the source of evil itself is human beings’ freedom: “The world is full of wickedness and misery precisely because it is based on freedom — yet that freedom constitutes the whole dignity of man and his world”[10].
The next question that automatically arises is why do human beings chose evil? According to Aristotle on freedom: “Men regard it as their right to return evil for evil — and if they can’t, they feel they have lost their liberty”[11]. Does this mean that men feel free only when choosing evil? Many philosophers have worried about this inclination of mankind towards evil. Dostoyevsky in “Notes from Underground”[12] worries that if human beings are free they will eventually destroy themselves. However not everyone agrees with this pessimistic view of mankind being so attracted from “evil”. As a matter of fact Rousseau sustains that human beings are born naturally good and it is society that corrupts them [13]. Progress, urbanization, technology, capitalism, competition, consumerism ect… have led human beings to be more individualistic hence selfish thus morally corrupt. According to him freedom should only exist within the law, so that everybody has equal rights to freedom, but those who impede this right by choosing “evil” shall be condemned.
[1] WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom
[2] Denis Diderot (1713-1784), Jacques le Fataliste, 1773
[3] Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=30594
[4] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, (1749-1832)
[5] Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Existentialism and Human Emotions, 1957
[6] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), The Social Contract, 1762
[7] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Discourse on Inequality, 1754
[8] Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, (1646 – 1716)
[9] Joseph Conrad, (1857-1924).
[10] Nikolai Berdyaev (1874 – 1948)
[11] Aristotle, (384 BC – 322 BC), Nicomachean Ethics, 340 B.C.
[12] Dostoyevsky, “Notes from Underground”, 1864
[13] Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences,1750
