In chapter three of Leech's The Critical Idiom: Tragedy (henceforth abbreviated to Tragedy), the traditional Aristotelian view of a tragic hero is defined as an exalted person, usually of high rank, who is held because of said rank "in a recognizable position.” eminence” (34). Eminence is a key element of being and recognizing an Aristotelian tragic hero, because it is eminence that gives the hero his defining characteristic of superiority over others. Leech cites Aristotle who defines these tragic heroes as being “better than us” in terms not only of social status but also of essence (34). “What is important is the feeling of complete, or at least unusual, realization of the powers and tendencies peculiar to man. Orestes kills his mother, Oedipus marries his mother and kills his father, Medea kills her children: yet in a sense they are more fully themselves than men and women dare to be," writes Leech, " We must also remember: that in Greek theater, the actor was a distant, masked character... He represented the people... But he represented a king or a hero... he necessarily provoked fear, the feeling to be “above” while falling” (34). This sense of uplift is what defines the titular protagonist of Webster's The Duchess of Malfi (TDM) as a tragic hero, at least according to Leech's interpretation of an Aristotelian tragic hero. Here is a high-ranking woman, a noblewoman, who by birth occupies a different space from that of the ordinary person, who ends up being stripped of her innate superiority by the hands of seemingly unpredictable forces. Webster's Duchess fits Leech's interpretation of Aristotelian tragic heroes perfectly in that she not only has noble blood and powerful force in her life, she also seems to be doomed by fate in a similar way to the classical Greek tragic heroes to whom Leech draws attention in Chapter Three of Tragedy. Like her classical Greek predecessors, the Duchess suffers "the fall" necessary to spoil the work's protagonist as a tragic hero in Aristotle's sense. “There is always a fall, and the tragic writer is inevitably concerned with the way in which it occurs. Aristotle insisted that this happened through “hamartia,” an error of judgment that enabled disaster. This has always been generally interpreted as implying a kind of ‘poetic justice’…” writes Leech (38). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay However, this is where Leech disagrees with Aristotle when it comes to defining a tragic hero. Leech echoes the sentiment that Aristotle's approach to defining tragic heroes might be too restrictive, because in Nevertheless, although Leech addresses the idea of ​​the Aristotelian concept of the tragic hero, it is too restrictive in that Aristotle fails to recognize that “the tragic burden can be shared.” » (45). Leech uses Mortimer from Edward II's Marlowe and Brutus and Cassius from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar to demonstrate how the "tragic position" can be shared despite the focus on the main character; and it is with this relationship between characters like Mortimer and Edward and Brutus and Caesar that the full depth of a tragedy is realized (45). The fact that the tragic burden is shared between other characters in a work seems to be the case in The Duchess of Malfi where the play seems to be as much about the murderous but pitiable Bosola as it is about the duchess. Although Bosola does not bear the traditional attributes of a tragic hero --- Bosola does not possessof noble rank or does not have an essence of superiority --- Bosola is still tragic in the sense that her situation seems just as helpless as that of the Duchess. As in Leech's examples of plays where the tragic burden is shared, The Duchess of Malfi does not venture too far from this notion; in fact, the symbolism of the circles present in the work seems to encourage the shareability of the work's tragic burden. Although Bosola and the Duchess are pitted against each other as two competing forces, with Bosola being described by Antonio as an opportunistic courtier who "doesn't care what he wants" while the Duchess is compared to the beautiful and virtuous "the right noble duchess", Bosola and the duchess seem to share the same unfortunate fate which seems to be demonstrated through the symbolism of the circles in the play (1.1. 25-35, 1.2. 110-115). The symbols that the circles represent in The Duchess of Malfi are ideas such as marriage, the dichotomy between trust and distrust, sovereignty, private worlds and secrecy. From Act 1 onwards, circles are included to represent a range of ideas and begin to make their mark as an overarching symbol in the play beginning with the secret marriage between Antonio and the Duchess. In Act 1 Scene 3, the Duchess, proclaiming that her wedding ring was a cure for one of Antonio's bloodshot eyes, says that her ring is "very sovereign" and that she "has sworn to never part with it. husband” (1.3.110). The word sovereign in this context means that the ring has healing attributes but still carries a connotation of royal power[1] due to the nobility of the Duchess. The double meanings of the word sovereign may also illustrate how the Duchess views her position as Dowager of Amalfi in relation to her ability to circumvent social conventions by marrying someone below her rank and expecting that Critics such as his brothers eventually accept his point of view. with time ("Yet if they know, time will be easy / Will disperse the storm (2.1.170-176). This illustration of the Duchess's naivety in this circumstance, perhaps more in hindsight rather than when the story unfolds in the text, may be a symptom of a larger problem relating to the characterization of the Duchess: her pride, proclaiming her ring as sovereign, both in terms of healing and royal abilities, may be seen as an example of how the Duchess uses the privileged space she occupies to persuade her lover to accept her proposal. In "Spiritual Echoes of The Duchess of Malfi", Hunt criticizes the behavior. of the Duchess regarding her treatment of religion and her interactions with her brothers and Cariola; and Hunt suggests that the Duchess's "proud creation of her destiny independent of conventional morality by courting Antonio and marrying him singularly may make her an admirable prototype of autonomy” (175). However, due to the ease with which the Duchess dismisses Cariola's judgment of the Duchess's attitude towards the Church and the manner in which Cariola declares the Duchess "crazy" due to her disregard of Ferdinand's "warnings and of the social context that she, Antonio and their children must experience. , the Duchess's seemingly high regard for her own perspective may be the central feature of her harmartia in its subtle suggestion of a "problematic ambiguity" in her character (175). In light of Hunt's assumptions, the symbol of the circle further draws attention to this possibility of hubris being the root of the Duchess's hamartia; especially since the symbol of the circle integrates other concepts beyond marriage and sovereignty, such assanctuary, secrecy and the dichotomy between trust and distrust. When Antonio asks what the couple should do about the Duchess's brothers who will despise their marriage, the Duchess replies "Think not of them./ Any discord without this girth/ Is only to be pitied and not feared" this to which Antonio, perhaps out of sincere belief that his brothers will eventually accept their marriage, agrees with her (1.3. 169-174). The word the Duchess uses, circumference, implies the feeling that the Duchess draws a boundary that immediately separates the people she trusts (Cariola and Antonio) and those she distrusts (the Cardinal and Ferdinand). In doing so, the Duchess established a new order within her household. The word circumference[2], similar to sovereignty, has a double meaning which can represent either the very room in which the Duchess is married, or the embrace of the couple themselves, which, again, raises the question of know how the Duchess perceives herself and recalls the “problematic ambiguity”. to his character mentioned by Hunt. By establishing this new order where everything that suits her is inside the circumference and everything that she does not judge is outside, the Duchess creates a private world, a sanctuary, where she can flourish without the hindrance of unwanted actions and opinions. ; and, in creating such a boundary, the Duchess has, whatever her intention, established a dichotomy between those she trusts (Cariola and Antonio) and those she distrusts (The Cardinal and Ferdinand). Due to her actions, the Duchess can be seen as naive and proud because, as she later discovers, she allowed one of the most untrustworthy people in her circle into her private world where he would betray her later. With the establishment of the Girth, her sanctuary, and her private world, the Duchess may have extended her authority beyond her natural abilities. However, the establishment of circles as private worlds is not unique to the sanctuary the Duchess created with Antonio and Cariola. The play presents a strong dichotomy between trust and distrust in the way each of the other characters are grouped in relation to each other so that they too share a private world. Ferdinand and the Cardinal have their own circle composed of Castruccio, Silvio, Pescara, Malateste and Julia with Bosola as mediator between the circle of brothers and that of the duchess. Antonio and Delio have their own separate circle in which Delio, similar to Bosola but not as unhappy, drifts from the circle of Ferdinand and the cardinal back to Antonio to help his dear friend. In a way, Bosola and Antonio share their own circle in that Bosola, desperate to save Antonio's life in Act V and avenge him later, shares his own circle although it seems to contain a highly spiritual component where Bosola desires a way to redeem. himself as the following lines demonstrate: “Oh poor Antonio, although nothing is more necessary/ For your domain than pity, yet I find/ Nothing so dangerous./...Well, good Antonio,/ I will seek you out, and all my care will be/ To keep you safe from harm.../ I will join you in a most just vengeance;/... O Penance, let me truly taste your cut, / » (5.3.312 -330). The circles as symbols of private worlds further illustrate Leech's suggestion that relationships between characters with opposing, perhaps downright hostile, perspectives showcase the ability of these relationships to reveal the depth of tragedy in plays like The Duchess of Malfi, because they show how the tragic burden spreads to each character depending on the world they occupy. When the Duchess is.