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
