HAMARTIA

The Greek word (for Hamartia) /____________, literally means some error or frailty, Aristotle, discussing the tragic hero, states that he should be a man “not pre-eminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice and depravity but by some, error.” Oedipus’ error is twofold: the slaying of his father in the result of impetuousness; the marrying of his mother the result of ignorance. Thus Hamartia which Aristotle attributes to the tragic hero has a special function. It provides a cause for the tragedy, which is necessary if the audience is to accept the action as credible. Tragedy which takes place for no reason would not satisfy the native sense of justice which works strongly in most men; it is obvious that it is the requirement of the audience which dictates the operative principles of the play. A cause has to be given, but if the cause is entirely satisfactory, then the misfortunes of the hero will be seen only as something deserved and just, and there will be no sense of tragedy. Hence the tragic flaw must be something relatively innocuous, the cause must be a small one, and the effect must be great. The vast cataract of tragedy is released through the small aperture of the hero’s mistake or error of judgment.
The emphasis is on error rather than sin, or an act unskillful but not morally culpable. This does, however, raise the point that where a man is unaware of what he is doing, the sense of moral law may be no excuse, but it is a strong mitigating factor. There may be occasions when the tragic flaw is not obvious, or where it may be argued that the hero had no choice, hence could hardly be held responsible for his actions. A case in point is Oedipus who is fated to do exactly what he does, so that fault, if any, would seem to be that of fate rather than of Oedipus. Clearly if a man cannot help but do what he does, he is not culpable, any more than a tiger is to be blamed for killing a goat and eating it: However, this is probably what Aristotle desires; the audience should not blame the man for his downfall, otherwise there would be no pity for him.
Alternately, it may be said that it is an ‘error’ to be selected by fate for the burden of tragedy. Fate, it is argued, singles out certain men for the heaping on of high tragedy. In hardy it is the man who aspires, as it is in Marlowe. The old Greek vice of hubris, over weaning pride, invites the reprimand of fate. A man can only be good if fate permits him to do so; conversely if fate wills it otherwise even the best of men can only be bad. This offers some kind of explanation for Oedipus’s calamites; although an unsatisfactory one, because it may be pointed out that the prophecies about his actions preceded his birth, so he never really had a chance.
A third interpretation is that there is a kind of cosmic order which erupts every now and then, choosing its victim at random and without mercy. The tragic flaw merely becomes the open door through which it makes its attack. There are some kinds of men who are so conditioned and pre-disposed that they are likely to make the wrong choice even when they have the option of doing something else. Such are the men who, despite the right of free choice, will embark unseeingly upon a wrong course. Socrates stated that once a man knew what was right, he could not make a wrong choice; Aristotle refuted this in his Ethics. It is quite possible for men to act wrongly knowing fully well what is right. Such actions would exclude injuries done to others unwittingly, or through ignorance or negligence, but would include violence committed under emotional stress and, of course, deliberate choice of wrongdoing in the face of the moral conscience and the promptings of society.
The question of intention is also relevant. If a man intended no harm but harm was caused, this would be no vice, even if the harm was great. Nevertheless this is an error ___ a frequent one if we remember the saying, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and a fit cause for tragedy. It cannot be argued that Macbeth may have had the welfare of Duncan’s kingdom at heart, that he really thought by removing a weak king he would be doing good to the country. The fact is that his one action of murder brought down a whole flood of tragedy upon himself and his associates.
(It is ignorance of particulars which matter. A general rule of hospitality to a tired traveller would be to offer him a glass of cool water, and the intentions __ in offering it to him may be the very best. But he may have a weak heart and die as a result, so it is ignorance in this particular case which causes harm and according to Aristotle, must involve pain and repentance, but is the kind of mistake that deserves pity and forgiveness.
Then there is the kind of error which invites wrongdoing by others. There is the ‘victim’ kind of character who brings out the dormant criminality in other. Lear might be shown to suffer no other fault than senile dotage, but he is ripe for exploitation by his evil daughter and ever for rebuke by his good daughter. Tess in Hardy’s novel demonstrates no immoral inclination, yet her very passiveness invites disaster. The Greek hero is not shown as a passive stoic, but as a courageous, strong-willed character that fights back. Tragic stature is achieved in the struggle; it is the struggle which gives fiber and meaning to morality.
Remorse is essential for expiation. There must come a moment of reckoning and realization; only then is the circle drawn close, the moral cycle complete, the act of justice meaningful.
Ideally, if a man does ten paisa worth of wrong, he should be responsible of his action up to a price of ten paisa. If he commits some insignificant blunder out of ignorance and with no intention of doing so, he should be exempted from responsibility and punishment altogether. This is hardly ever so at a terrestrial lever, but if the blunder is against the supernatural, then the consequences far outweigh the cause. The ancient Mariner commits an outrage against the supernatural when he shoots the Albatross, an act of sacrilege towards God’s creation. The punishment is frightening. It would seem, then, that the tragic vision would doom man to a repetitive sound of blundering, suffering and expiation through martyrdom or death. The vision is infinitely more barbarous than the ‘eye for an eye’ dictum of the Old Testament; fate demands more than just an eye in payment for an eye; it will take several eyes in return, and will involve all the family members and associates of the wrongdoer as well. If Hamlet’s flaw is indecision, why should innocent people like Polonius, Ophelia, and Laertes suffer? Unless it is argued that their tragic flaw is that they are associated with a man who is already marked out by fate to be the centre of a round of tragedy.
We have seen that the tragic hero should display goodness, strength of mind and a tragic flaw. He should also be appropriate, that is a man suited to the situation, true to life, so that we can recognize him as a man and thus sympathize with him, and consistent. The last requires that we should be able to recognize him as the same man at the end of the play who is to be found at the beginning. This does not mean that his ideas and outlook should show no change; Hamlet before he leaves for England is confused and unsure of himself, calm and fatalistic when the returns to Denmark; Macbeth is a paragon of virtue before he murders his king, and a demon thereafter. Yet the changes which occur cause no inconsistency in the character – in fact, the changes are expected by the audience, so no incongruity is felt.