Hamlet and Macbeth as Shakespearian Versus Greek Tragedies Essay

Tragedy, a literary genre, has undergone sufficient change over textual history. This can be seen most extensively in the change of narrative conventions and how far the themes of the text can be seen as a reflection of contemporary society.

There are several ever present traditions in tragedies. One of these is that the protagonist of the tragedy brings about their own downfall (most often death) through their own actions. These actions are normally arising from their tragic flaw, which is an undesirable element of their character, like Macbeths ambition or Hamlets indecisiveness. In Greek tragedy, the tragic flaw was linked to Aristotles concept of Hamartia. Rather than the tragedy directly from a flaw in the protagonists morality or personality, the tragedy unfolds from an error made by the protagonist. This isnt to say that the Hamartia leads from the tragic flaw (such as in The Persians, where Xerxes decision to invade Greece comes from Hubris), but that it isnt required to be the cause.

Hamlet can be seen as a Shakespearian tragedy in this respect, as it is very much the flaw in his indecisiveness that causes his lack of action to drive the play, perhaps shown best in Act 3, Scene 3 where he decides to not kill a defenceless Claudius, despite spending much of the play finding evidence of this guilt, and just before immediately murdering a man who he thought was Claudius. Macbeth, on the other hand, is much more in line with Greek tragedies, as it isnt his ambition that acts as his flaw (established early in the play that in moderate amounts it is a positive trait, shown by his high station in the battle against Norway, which also shows his loyalty), but the acts he commits as a result, such as the killing of Duncan or following the Witches directly bring about his downfall.

Another significant difference in Shakespearian and Greek tragedies is to what extent the events in the play are pre-destined. In Greek tragedies, events occur entirely at the whim of the fates and Gods, shown in Oedipus, where the central prophecy is followed despite the actions of many of the characters. Shakespearian tragedies, however, tend to have much less focus on destiny or the fates. This is partially due to a smaller focus on God(s), as this was banned during Shakespeares time.

Hamlet again follows Shakespearian traditions, as there is very little predestination. The events are very much controlled by Hamlet, rather than any sense of prophecy or divine will, shown by events only proceeding when he has the will to act. There is, however, a surprising focus on matters of religion (or at the very least, the supernatural) influencing events. Hamlet is initially moved to act by the ghost of his dead father, and spends much of Act 1, Scene 5 wondering whether it is an agent of Heaven or Hell, or indeed the ghost of his dead father, and later confronts it again in the bedroom scene of Act 3, attempting to justify his actions to it. Where does he say it MIGHT be predestination?

Macbeth is much more in line with the predestination of Greek tragedies. While Macbeth is still given the freedom to act, there is a very central prophecy and Macbeth never has any realisation that his own actions have led to his downfall (there is a lack of dramatic irony related to his flaw), and he doesnt seem to have any real control over his situation, shown by his ever decreasing grasp of reality towards the later acts in the play.

I consider Hamlet to be a strong example of Shakespearian tragedy, due to its much more typical use of a tragic flaw and lack of focus on predestination and the fates. While there are certainly more Greek aspects present, they are small in contrast to its more extensive Shakespearian tragedy rules. Macbeth, on the other hand, is much more a hybrid of the two theatre styles, having elements of both Shakespearian tragedy (in his tragic flaw bringing about his Hamartia) and Greek tragedy (in the sense of predestination).