Outlining Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy, a brief discussion on the definition of tragedy can be delivered. According to the Theory of Tragedy, it is a kind of literature that presents replication of several serious actions of different magnitudes compiled with each brand of artistic as well as linguistic embellishment (Jeong-Hyok Seo). In addition to that, the literature has been divided into many parts in the form of continuous actions sometimes not descriptive. At the end of the play, the several incidents create distinct misfortune and fear that ends in accomplishing grief. Considering the tragedy as a literary genre, Aristotle was convinced that Sophocles’ Oedipus the King was a perfect example of a tragedy (Owen et al.).
On the other side of the flip, Arthur Miller, one of the modern tragedy writers, developed the definition of tragedy as the exaltation of catastrophic actions of heroic skepticism. According to Arthur Miller, classical tragedies had been only applicable to the traditional tragic fate of noble-born personality (Price et al.). Creating an argument against traditional tragedy, Miller had shown that normal persons or common man could be featured in tragedy. Considering the approach of a common man as the catastrophic protagonist, Miller had shown how an individual could fight to earn the equitable place. Therefore, as a tragedy theorist, Miller produced common man as tragic heroes.
The paper will discuss the dramatic plot of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman in order to identify the basic similarity and the difference between the two tragedies. Prior to the discussion, it would be perfect to admit that both of the two tragedies have been based on a tragic, heroic theme that leads to dramatic irony of the two main characters destined to die (Gerhard). In the very next section, the review of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman has been discussed as follow.
The review of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King
The dramatic irony of the fate of Oedipus has been presented in the tragedy Oedipus the King. The fate of Oedipus was sealed when a fortune teller had identified Oedipus, the son of King Jocasta and Queen Laius, to be the killer of his father. Hearing this, King ordered to kill his son, but fate had decided something else for Oedipus. Later in the drama, he was brought up by the royal family of King Polybus of Corinth, but destiny had not left him. As Oedipus came to know that he would be the assassin of her father, he left the country. Meanwhile, as the consequences of the play, unknowingly Oedipus killed his father and his soldiers. Averting his destined fate, the first of the predictions went to be true. Oedipus lost the fight against his destiny.
The inevitability of fate has written all around the plot that could not be overcome by the heroics of Oedipus. The dreadful truth of his life had come true as he executed his father and married his mother. Recognizing the scenes of suffering and emotional identity of mistakes made by Oedipus, a complex plot had been created to establish the processes adopted by Oedipus to change his fate. At the end of the literature, Oedipus led to his own downfall as ignorance has played a massive part in it. Being ignorant of the circumstances, Oedipus could not be accused morally blameworthy (Owen et al.). In the tragedy, Sophocles presented Oedipus as an archetype of the human circumstances. Eventually, Oedipus had blinded himself accusing of the sins.
The review of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman
Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman is an example of the modern tragedy of a common man who was devastated by his continuous problematic life. The survival of an ordinary man has been portrayed in Miller’s play. The tragedy written by Miller contains all ingredients of human problems such as personal, social, professional and family challenges to deal with in order to stay alive. The realness of the problems has made the tragedy more creative to the readers. Coming to the drama, the story revolves around Willy Loman, a salesman by profession and his family. Defining the time of the story, the drama presents a critical day of the life of Willy Loman that leads to his misery.
Identifying Willy’s problems on the job and financial circumstances, Linda, Willy’s wife asked the boss to relocate Willy’s job to the local, regional office at New York. Being confident about his working efficiency, Willy believed that a new job would solve all his problems in life. In the later part of the drama, Willy can be found to talk to himself in a vicious way, and the attitude of Willy raised the tension of his children Biff and Happy. Linda informed her children about their financial instability, but she figured out to have everything on track very soon. The belief and confidence in tomorrow would make the night easy for the family.
But the circumstances had changed dramatically as Willy was terminated from his job. Returning from his job, Willy had begun to hallucinate and started to speak with imaginary people. Destroyed by the termination, Willy went to meet his children in a restaurant. But, the sad news had put an end to the smiles on the faces led to unrealistic fate (Price et al.). At night, Willy discovered that his son, Biff was also a failure as he did not meet his expectations. Later that night after realizing Biff’s love for his father, Willy committed suicide so that the compensation from the insurance can contribute to his son’s success. Meanwhile, this is how the fate of Willy was sealed to death.
Similarities and difference in the two tragedies
The comparative analysis of the two here mentioned tragedies can reveal both the similarities and the distinct differences to one another. In terms of similarities, there are three major points to be considered as follow.
The similarity in the protagonist: Understanding the rich set of dramatic elements in both the dramas, the protagonists depicted in the tragedies were characterized by an elementary detachment from realistic veracity (Gerhard). Both the tragic heroes are buffered from realism. Meanwhile, both Oedipus and Willy had struggled to change their fortune in vain. The inevitability of fate had eventually directed to their destiny.
Self-inflicted impairment: At the climax stage of the tragedies, both the tragic heroes had managed to achieve self-inflicted impairment out of their guilt and failure to avoid their fate. Oedipus had blinded himself, and Willy committed suicide to compensate for his failure.
Considering the differences in the playwright’s own intent, Death of a Salesman portrayed the nasty paradox of human survival (Price et al.). The conventional survival of human life and the endurance of social problems and failure led to the emotional ending of Willy.
On the other flip, Oedipus had been portrayed as a traditional catastrophic protagonist whose fate had been sealed as he was born. After that, it was the hide and seeks game to avoid the destiny of fate. In the end, Oedipus had to meet the fate by killing his father and marrying her mother in the consequences of fate.
Therefore, understanding the in-depth scenario of both the dramas, one must admit that Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman have appropriately presented the oracular destiny to be sealed by fate. Being a modern tragedy, Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman has shown the tragedy of common man and his destiny-defining an innermost critical concern. One the other hand, Oedipus the King had been developed to show the fight against the climax of fate and surpass the misery regarding the same.
Work Cited
Gerhard, E. Schultz. "The Differences Between Classical Tragedy And Romantic Tragedy". The Classical Weekly 18.3 (2004): 18. Web.
Jeong-Hyok Seo,. "The Comparison Of Aristotle's And Hegel's Theory Of Tragedy".hegelstudienhegelyeongu null.30 (2011): 223-247. Web.
Owen, William H. et al. "Sophocles' Oedipus The King And Oedipus At Colonus". The Classical World59.9 (2006): 313. Web.
Price, Steven et al. "Miller: 'Death Of A Salesman'". The Modern Language Review 92.4 (2007): 963. Web.
