Every literature analysis requires a vast amount of work and should consist of the main points of the plot discussed in a professional way. In Sophocles’ play, Oedipus, the king of Thebes, plays the role of a tragic hero struggling with an unsolvable, fatal problem. The idea expressed by Aeschylus presents the senselessness of fighting with one’s destiny. The readers see that the play meets all the criteria put forward by Aristotle for a truly tragic work. Hamlet is at war with the fate that took his father, but he is fighting with himself in an attempt to give answers to impossible questions. According to the information provided the reader rises with the question dealing with the resiliency of both Hamlet and Oedipus and what does it mean to them.
Oedipus by all means tries to avoid the fulfillment of the prediction. This is Sophocle’s hero problem; it gives the hero motivation. Hamlet’s dilemma is deeper and morally more sophisticated, it is the sum of all his mental tosses (Megna et al.). It is still mystical, that is, unsolvable, but, unlike the problem of Sophocle, it is amenable to research and analysis. This information shows how and thanks to the tragedy genre, it gradually acquires characteristic signs of degeneration. With the growth of the general culture, unsolvable problems in the life of humanity are becoming less and less valuable and precious. Man is becoming increasingly accustomed to the imperfection of the world, which once seemed fundamental.
The tragedy of Sophocle heals the souls of those who unsuccessfully try to resist their own fate. In this way, he creates a rapport with people who are impressed by the work. But he does this in a different manner from that of Shakespeare. It materializes the fears of such people, thereby relieving the accumulated tension. “Hamlet”, however, infused with the Christian idea of salvation, gives hope. In addition, Shakespeare, in his play, addresses the issues of humanism not only in terms of philosophy but also directly to the reader. By creating a character that the audience empathizes with, he sends a message to the world, creating situations in which everyone would act the same way with fundamental moral principles. (Megna et al.). The interests of maturing humanity are gradually shifting to a free-thinking personality. Moreover, this, accordingly, is expressed both in the philosophical (that is, mental) and cultural (that is, spiritual, intuitive-sensual) spheres of social life.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, even acting as an avenger for his father, is singled out from ancestral ties as a self-determined personality. Hence, Shakespeare has a different meaning of “fate”, a different type of tragedy is described in comparison with the Sophocle. Orestes knows the true state of things from the beginning, and his duty is clear to him. Hamlet, on the other hand, begins with ignorance of the circumstances of his father’s death. Thus, through premonitions, vague suspicions, recognition, then through verification and confirmation of the private truth about the crime committed, he can reach the comprehension of the world of his “fate” in which such a crime was possible. The work of Sophocles, Oedipus the King, belongs to the genre of ancient tragedy. The tragedy is characterized by a personal conflict, as a result of which the main character comes to the loss of personal values necessary for life – an integral part of it is catharsis (Lee). When the reader passes the suffering of the characters through himself, it causes him emotions that elevate him above the ordinary world.
In the tragedy of Sophocles, the main character is the ruler of Thebes – King Oedipus. He gets into the problems of every resident of his city, sincerely worries about their fate, and tries to help them in everything. Judging it has a different meaning, according to which man has a tragic end, but he is a creator in his way of life. On the contrary, majestic and monumental: all his life, he acted morally. He left his native home, going to no one knows where so as not to fulfill the predestined villainy. And in the final, he asserts his dignity by self-punishment. Oedipus acts incredibly bravely, punishing himself for crimes that he committed unknowingly (Lee). His punishment is cruel but symbolic. He puts out his eyes with a brooch and sends himself into exile so as not to be near those whom he has defiled by his actions.
Thus, the hero of Sophocles is a person conforming to moral laws, striving to act according to morality. A king who admits his own mistakes and is ready to be punished for them. His blinding is the author’s metaphor. Thus, he wanted to show that the character is a blind toy in the hands of fate, and each of us is just as blind, even if he considers himself sighted (Lee). Readers do not see the future; they are not able to find out our fate and intervene in it, so all our actions are pathetic throwing of a blind man, nothing more – this is the philosophy of that time.
However, when the hero goes blind physically, he sees spiritually. He has nothing to lose, all the most terrible things have happened, and fate has taught him a lesson: trying to see the invisible. After such trials, Oedipus is freed from lust for power, arrogance, and God-fighting aspirations. It leaves the city, sacrificing everything for the benefit of the townspeople, trying to save them from the plague. In exile, his virtue has only strengthened, and his worldview has been enriched: now he is deprived of illusions, a mirage created by obliging vision under the influence of the dazzling rays of power Exile became a path of liberation for the hero, where he could clear his thoughts and accept his path, the only right one (Lee). If one talks about Hamlet, then throughout the work, he follows his sense of revenge, goes to his goal, and achieves it. He dies in battle from poison, consumed by this feeling of revenge and not realizing that this feeling is destructive.
In conclusion, the main It should be noted that the techniques used by the writers in their works are radically different. The characters created by the writers find themselves not only in other circumstances but also have a different philosophy embedded in the work. It is inappropriate to compare the two works of genius, and therefore it is impossible to state with complete certainty which author did better in the role of revealing the hero and demonstrating his brutal fate The fate of man is a question that philosophers have been asking for more than a hundred years. For everyone, this concept is disclosed differently, as is shown in the example of two iconic works. Hamlet’s mental anguish reflects the general mindset of humanists of that period. Their worldview is in crisis and is faced with the reality of life, which holds much more evil, injustice, and contradictions than they imagined. Their faith in man’s spirituality, inner perfect beauty, creative tension, and desire for truth and goodness is failing. According to the level of spiritual development of a person, as it turned out, is negligibly low, they are commanded mainly by the body. Both characters lived tragic lives, telling their stories and showing future generations an example of what human destiny can be.
Works Cited
Lee, Sun Hyung. “A Study on Oedipus as an Eclecticist in Oedipus the King.” The Journal of Humanities, vol. 77, 2020, pp. 97–121, Web.
Megna, Paul, et al. “Hamlet” and Emotions. Cham, Switzerland Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.