Monin, Kathleen 1
The Bard and the Philosopher:
Considering Shakespeare in the Context of Greek Drama
To any scholar of the dramatic arts, the link between Shakespearean theater and that of
the Greeks is obvious. Not only are Shakespeare’s plays written in such a way that echoes the
style and themes of ancient performing arts, but the Bard also makes explicit references to Greek
mythology and culture. Thus, the Aristotelian definition of tragedy is highly relevant to the study
of Shakespeare’s classic tragic plays. Three of Shakespeare’s most infamous tragedies, Julius
Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet, not only fit the Philosopher’s definition, but also contain
situations that are driven by hamartia, peripeteia, and anagnorisis, Aristotle’s three ideal causes
for tragic events. However, Aristotle’s idea of the tragic drama served a far great purpose than
merely inspiring or providing a guideline for Shakespeare’s work. Studying Shakespearean
tragedy through the lens of Greek philosophy shows Shakespeare’s purpose for his plays:
achieving the emotional experience of catharsis in his audience.
One does not have to delve into the personal or educational life of William Shakespeare
to notice the major playwright’s extensive knowledge of Greek theater. Many of Shakespeare’s
plays were first introduced in his Globe theater, which, having a curved stage for the audience to
gather around, was similar to the Sanctuary of Dionysus, where the works of Greek writers such
as Euripides and Aeschylus were performed (Taplin, 10). What is more, the flag of
Shakespeare’s Globe theater, which was raised to indicate whether or not a play was in progress,
was illustrated with the figure of Hercules bracing his back against a globe of the world—this
image depicts of one of the twelve tasks of Hercules, a Greek myth. What is more, the texts of
the plays themselves also offer references to the Greeks, such as this excerpt from Hamlet: “My
Monin, Kathleen 2
fate cries out,/And makes each petty artery in this body/ As hardy as the Nemean lion’s nerve”
(1.4.82-84). The Nemean lion was a creature with golden fur that could not be slain by mortal
weapons, which Hercules was instructed to kill for another of his twelve tasks. Shakespeare,
however, was not simply referencing the Greeks with his plays to make himself appear more
cultural or educated. The philosophy of Greek drama illustrates the exact purpose for which
Shakespeare was writing his tragedies.
Without the context of the Greek’s vision of tragedy, it’s difficult to concretely ascertain
the purpose of Shakespeare’s plays. In the Elizabethan period, Shakespeare’s tragedies were
performed for entertainment, as very few of his audience members were educated scholars. In the
present day, though his plays are still performed for pleasurable viewing, they are often exploited
in search of deep literary meaning. While these tragedies have definite literary value, it cannot be
established that they were written specifically to be analyzed by intellectuals. This is because no
writer would attempt to pen a future literary masterpiece while copying the plot of another play.
In the seventeenth century, there was no copyright system to protect the works of artists. Thus,
many of Shakespeare’s plays contain unoriginal content. Hamlet, arguably Shakespeare’s most
infamous tragedy, follows the story of a young man who wants to avenge his father. Hamlet’s
father was poisoned by his uncle, and the protagonist kills and torments numerous secondary
characters before finally exacting his revenge. A ghost, a play within a play, a letter that
drastically turns the mechanics of the plot, a love interest committing suicide, and a character
talking to a skull are some of the most characteristic elements included in Hamlet. They are,
incidentally, also devices that appear in Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy, another play that
was produced around the year 1592, whereas the earliest record of Hamlet is from around 1603.
What is more, another play whose author is unknown, Arden of Feversham, also bears a similar
Monin, Kathleen 3
plotline of murder by poison, revenge, and suicide. Thus, it is clear that Shakespeare was not
trying to create a new, original tragedy to impress his critics and audience members. In fact,
plays from the Elizabethan era often illustrated stories that were familiar to the common people,
as was the case in Greek tragedy. Ironically, Hamlet, The Spanish Tragedy, and Arden of
Feversham all bear similarities to the tragedy Agamemnon in Aeschylus’ Oresteia. In light of the
similarities of these plays, one can presume that they were intended merely for the public’s
entertainment. The Greek prospective of tragedy, however, provides a deeper look into
Shakespeare’s intentions.
The definition of a tragedy, according to Aristotle’s Poetics, is: “the imitation of an
action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in language with
pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic,
not in a narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its
catharsis of such emotions” (1450a, 4-8) Many of Shakespeare’s tragic plays fit the parameters
set out in this definition. The brutal stabbing of Caesar, an historical event, is fairly noncontestable as being “serious, and also, having magnitude, complete in itself.” Furthermore,
when Romeo is smitten with Juliet, he spouts colorful language in her praise: “But, soft, what
life through yonder window breaks?/ It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!/ Arise, fair sun, and kill
the envious moon/ Who is already sick and pale with grief, That thou, her maid, art far more fair
than she” (2.2.2-6). This is only one of countless examples of “language with pleasurable
accessories” in Shakespeare’s plays. As for being “brought in separately in the parts of the
work,” each of Shakespeare’s dramas consists of a very specific formula of five acts. In the first
two acts the characters and the conflict are introduced. In the third act there occurs a certain
“point of no return,” some occurrence that effects the outcome of the rest of the play. An
Monin, Kathleen 4
example of this would be Romeo killing Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet, or Caesar being murdered
in Julius Caesar. Finally, the fourth and fifth acts include the climax and resolution of the
conflict. The next part of the definition, “incidents arousing pit and fear,” is exemplified widely
throughout Shakespeare’s plays. Ophelia going crazy and drowning herself, Portia cutting her
own leg to show Brutus her strength, and Romeo poisoning himself when Juliet was merely
sleeping, not dead, are only a handful of pitiable, frightening instances occurring throughout
these tragedies. However, the most vital component of Aristotle’s definition, the one that
impacted Shakespeare’s work the most, is the last phrase: “wherewith to accomplish the catharsis
of such emotions.” Provoking catharsis within his audience members is the main goal behind
Shakespeare’s tragic plays, and the main reason his works have endured for centuries.
The philosophy behind the term “catharsis” is that the tragic scenes being performed
before the eyes of a trouble human being will evoke a deep emotion, one so deep that it causes
him to release all of his own fear and sadness, and be relieved of them. In the notes to his
translations of Aristotle’s poetics, James Hutton provides an explanation of the effects of
catharsis: “Tragedy achieves in the spectator through its specific emotions, pity and fear, the
pleasurable effect we recognize generally as the “purgation” or relief of such emotions” (1450a,
note 4). Catharsis, while not always mentioned by name, is the reason modern methods of
entertainment such as novels and films include heart wrenching deaths and losses. Shakespeare’s
plays accomplish catharsis perfectly, as they are specifically designed to reach his audience on
an emotional level. Aristotle says that “The effect of fear and pity may be created by spectacle;
but it may also be created by the very structure of events, and this method has priority and is the
way of a better poet. For the plot should be so constructed that even without seeing the play,
anyone who merely hears of the events unfold will shutter and feel pity as a result of what is
Monin, Kathleen 5
happening” (1453b, 1-6). Thus, the terrible demises and misfortunes that occur in his tragedies
are not brutal exercises of violence to satisfy the imagination of the fallen man. Instead, they are
intended to stir the emotion, and provide an opportunity for the audience to react to the struggles
of mortal men. Then, when the curtain is shut and the actors take their bows, the audience
member is left refreshed, relieved at having been given the opportunity to release his emotional
burdens.
In order to establish catharsis, Aristotle believed that there were three main causes of
tragedy that could stir this reaction in a man. In poetics, he writes that the ideal plot will follow a
man who is implied to be neither inherently good nor inherently evil. Furthermore, he says that
the plot should involve a change from fortune to misfortune, one that is: “occasioned not by
depravity, but by some great mistake” (1453a, 29). This mistake, called ἁμαρτία, hamartia, in
ancient Greek, is not a tragic flaw possessed by the character, but an error of human judgment.
Shakespeare utilizes hamartia in Romeo and Juliet, a play that exemplifies the circumstances
described by Aristotle. Romeo, the protagonist, is not an evil character, but is clearly not the
prime example of a virtuous man either. He demonstrates hamartia in his character through his
rash actions, and blasphemous attitude. Romeo is of the house of Montague, which is involved
with a deadly feud with the house of Capulet, of which Juliet is a daughter. Romeo boldly
attends a dance at Capulet’s house, where he first sets eyes on Juliet. He falls in love with her
almost immediately, and hails her as a saint, and showers her blasphemously flattering language:
“O! then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do;\ Then pray, grant thou, lest my faith turns to
despair” (1.5.106-107). Despite the risks involved with such a union, Romeo sneaks onto the
Capulet’s property to woo Juliet further, and eventually to two marry. The main tragedy of this
play is that Juliet’s father has pledged her to marry another man, Paris. In order to keep her union
Monin, Kathleen 6
with Romeo both secret and faithful, Juliet feigns her own death. Romeo, not hearing that Juliet’s
demise was merely staged, poisons himself in her tomb. Juliet awakens to her husband’s body,
and thrusts herself upon his sword in sorrow. The tragic events of this play did not occur because
of evil intention on any one character’s part, but through mistakes and what should have been a
non-life threatening flaw in character, making them all the more deplorable. Thus, they evoke a
greater catharsis.
Aristotle describes another method through which tragedy can evoke catharsis as use of
ἀναγνώρισις, anagnorisis: "a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate
between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune” (1452b, 9-11). Shakespeare
employed this tactic as well; it is exemplified in Julius Caesar when Marc Antony discovers the
plot behind Caesar’s assassination. Antony, like Romeo, is neither portrayed as good nor evil. In
the play, however, several members of the Roman Senate devise a plot and assassinate Caesar.
Upon recognizing the treacherous nature of the situation, Antony arranges the deaths of the
Senators. First, he speak to the crowds at Caesar’s funeral, using clever and sarcastic oration to
turn the opinion of the public against the conspirators: “I tell you which you yourselves do
know,\ Show you sweet Caesar’s wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,\ And bid them speak for me:
but were I Brutus,\ And Brutus Antony, there were an Antony\ Would ruffle up your spirits, and
put a tongue\ In every wound of Caesar, that should move\ The stones of Rome to rise in
mutiny” (3.2.228-234). After this speech, Antony does not merely wait for the mobs to pursue
the guilty parties—he ensures the deaths of his enemies by writing a list of names and calling for
the execution of every man on it. By the end, many characters have met bloody ends which stir
an emotional reaction in the viewers. The tragedies occurred not because of an evil man’s evil
actions, but because of a turn of events that caused him to inflict these tragedies.
Monin, Kathleen 7
The third catharsis-rendering cause of tragedy described by Aristotle and taken advantage
of by Shakespeare is περιπέτεια, peripeteia. This is concept alludes to the reversal of fortunes in
a play, how a character falls into a situation through no fault of his own, but by manipulations of
events by the author. Aristotle addresses this topic by saying that is: “a change from one state of
affairs to its exact opposite, and this…should be in conformance with probability or necessity.”
(1452b, 1-3). The very premise of Hamlet is an example of Shakespeare’s use of this technique.
Being a character of fairly neutral moral standing, Hamlet has a fairly stable life. He’s the son of
the king, attends an international school, and has a faithful, attractive young woman to court. His
situation darkens, however, when Hamlet’s father dies and a ghost tells him that his guilty of his
father’s murder. This reversal of fortunes causes Hamlet to slip quickly into a troubled state, and
because of his actions, by the end of the play he, his mother, his uncle, his girlfriend, and nearly
every other character is dead. Had he not been thrust into such a dire situation by the events of
the play, Hamlet most likely would not have engaged in any of these tragic, immoral actions.
But, because he was affected by a terrible scenario that was out of his control, the events of the
play strike the audience with a deep sympathy for him and the other characters, and Shakespeare
has achieved catharsis once more.
While the influence of Greek culture and drama is apparent in the works of Shakespeare,
without the perspective of Aristotle and his views on tragedy, the true purpose served by William
Shakespeare’s tragedies may not be apparent. The three plays Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar,
and Hamlet fully illustrate how Shakespeare used Aristotle’s philosophy to improve his plays.
By presenting fearful and pitiable incidents occurring to a neutral human character,
Shakespeare’s plays are meant to “accomplish its catharsis of such emotions.” When considering
Monin, Kathleen 8
the effect the Bard’s tragedies are having on the world more than four hundred years later, one
can safely assume that he was successful.
Resources:
Aeschylus, and Ted Hughes. The Oresteia. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1999.
Print.
Monin, Kathleen 9
Anonymous. “Arden of Feversham.” Five Elizabethan Tragedies. Ed.McIlwrath, A. K.
London: Oxford University Press, 1952. 246-324. Print.
Aristotle, and James Hutton. Aristotle's Poetics. New York: Norton, 1982. Print.
Kyd, Thomas. “The Spanish Tragedy.” Five Elizabethan Tragedies. Ed.McIlwrath, A. K.
London: Oxford University Press, 1952. 135-240. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.” The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Oxford
University Press, 1957. 870-907. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Julius Caesar.” The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London:
Oxford University Press, 1957. 820-845. Print.
Shakespeare, William. “Romeo and Juliet.” The Complete Works of William Shakespeare.
London: Oxford University Press, 1957. 764-794. Print.