The Tragic Hero of the Post―Classical Renaissance

[a]　Department　of　Communication　Studies，　Christian　Service　University　College，　Kumasi，　Ghana.

*　Corresponding　author.

Received　18　October　2012；　accepted　20　December　2012

Abstract

English　drama　spearheaded　by　William　Shakespeare，　is　dominated　by　the　Post-Classical　Renaissance.　Pre-renaissance　drama　in　England　was　essentially　allegorical　plays　extolling　Christian　values.　This　paper　therefore　critically　looks　at　how　Shakespearean　tragic　hero　is　defined　and　portrayed.　The　paper，　using　textual　analysis，　provides　extracts　from　William　Shakespeare’s　King　Lear　as　the　main　text　to　present　King　Lear　as　tragic　hero.　The　study　shows　that　the　post-classical　renaissance　period　portrays　the　tragic　hero　on　the　basis　of　weakness　of　character　and　is　different　from　the　Aristotelian　concept　of　tragedy　as　hamartia，　a　going　wrong.

Key　words：　Shakespeare；　Renaissance；　Moral　theory；　King　Lear

Asuamah　Adade-Yeboah，　Adwoa　S.　Amankwaah　（2012）.　The　Tragic　Hero　of　the　Post-Classical　Renaissance.　Studies　in　Literature　and　Language，　5（3），　-0.　Available　from：　http：///index.php/sll/article/view/j.sll.1923156320120503.996　DOI：　http：///10.3968/j.sll.1923156320120503.996

INTRODUCTION

Contrary　to　Greek　classical　tragedy　in　which　the　tragic　fall　has　nothing　to　do　with　moral　flaw　（character），　the　Shakespearean　tragic　hero’s　character　（moral　flaw）　is　so　crucial.　This　is　so　because　the　meaning　of　hamartia　as　understood　in　the　Aristotelian　sense　in　respect　of　the　tragic　hero，　underwent　a　profound　change，　during　the　Renaissance　period.　The　Italian　scholars　of　the　period　misrepresented　the　concept　of　hamartia　and　translated　it　as　“a　weakness　of　character”.　They　therefore　propounded　the　moral　theory　and　insisted　on　the　reading　of　the　tragic　hamartia　as　being　inherent　in　the　character　of　the　hero.　In　the　light　of　this，　the　tragic　flaw　theory　was　popularized　and　became　more　acceptable　in　characterizing　the　post-classical　renaissance　tragic　hero.　With　the　advent　of　the　English　renaissance，　theatre，　which　became　public，　was　a　tradition　handed　down　from　the　classical　period.　Therefore，　it　was　the　belief　that　when　a　prince　fell，　that　fall　was　tantamount　to　the　fall　of　Lucifer.　The　victim　was　forever　doomed　and　was　excluded　from　eternity.　That　was　the　Christian　concept　of　tragedy.　Ludowyk　（1997）　has　indicated　that　Elizabethan　plays　and　tracts　were　based　on　the　ideas　of　the　wheel　of　fortune　and　the　fall　of　Princes　and　the　English　tragic　hero　was　further　influenced　by　Machiavelli.

Roche　（1981）　contends　that　the　play　King　Lear　is　meant　to　show　the　plight　of　man　in　Pre-Christian　times　and　that　Shakespeare　has　had　to　make　changes　in　the　play　to　give　it　the　required　shape.　He　defined　tragic　knowledge　as　a　set　of　critical　assumptions　about　the　triumph　of　the　tragic　hero　in　defeat.　It　posits　that　a　tragic　hero　attains　a　kind　of　knowledge　that　redeems　him　from　his　suffering，　and　reconciles　his　claims　to　the　world　he　leaves　impoverished　for　his　loss.　Christianity　and，　therefore，　the　belief　in　original　sin　and　man’s　innate　corruption　took　the　place　of　the　Greek’s　belief　of　instant　retribution.　This　belief　in　divine　providence，　a　God-sent　intervention　to　reversing　a　bad　situation，　is　characteristic　of　the　Elizabethan　era.　Hence　the　concept　of　fate　in　Sophocles’　King　Oedipus　which　creates　despair，　in　King　Lear，　there　is　hope　and　faith　when　at　the　end　of　it　all　the　forces　of　evil　are　absolutely　destroyed.

Previous　studies　on　the　tragic　heroes　of　the　classical　and　neo-classical　periods　have　shown　the　metamorphosis　of　the　tragic　hero　and　differences　in　definitions　for　the　two　eras.　There　is　scant　information　on　the　post-classical　renaissance　portrayal　of　the　tragic　hero.　This　paper，　therefore，　fills　this　gap　and　also　provides　a　cursory　comparison　of　the　tragic　conception　of　the　different　eras.

1. APPROACH

The　study　of　Shakespearean　work　of　art　reveals　at　least　two　levels　of　reading；　where　the　theatre　student　will　read　（the　plays）　for　situation，　the　literature　student　will　read　for　symbolic　significance，　for　thematic　strands，　for　intellectual　nuance　（Brown，　1990）.　This　paper　delves　into　the　selected　plays，　using　the　method　of　close　reading　which　is　best　found　in　previously　described　textual　analysis　approach　（Adade-Yeboah　&　Ahenkora，　2012；　Adade-Yeboah，　Ahenkora　&　Amankwah，　2012；　Termizi　&　Ching，　2012；　McCaw，　2008；　Atkins，　1983）.

2. ANALYSIS　AND　DISCUSSION

2.1 The　Renaissance　Story　and　the　Hero

The　drama　King　Lear　（1670），　is　one　of　the　tragic　plays　heavily　saturated　with　cruelty　and　untold　sufferings.　But　there　is　also　relief　and　mitigating　effects　brought　about　by　love　and　sympathy　sincerely　offered　which　in　turn，　bring　about　sincere　repentance.　These　untold　sufferings　are　equally　encountered　in　Shakespeare’s　Hamlet.　King　Lear　begins　with　a　prose　“exposition”，　an　idle　conversation　about　the　partition　of　a　kingdom　and　the　bastardy　of　a　son.　Its　tone　is　casual　jocular　and　polite.　Everything　is　initially　patterned

one　making　obvious　errors　which　he　obviously　will　rue，　these　others　emerging　as　the　good　and　the　evil　in　almost　geometrical　symmetry，　with　the　inevitable　sisters

three，　the　two　elders　chosen　though　wicked，　the　younger　rejected　though　virtuous.　King　Lear　as　a　tragic　protagonist　is　cast　in　the　mould　of　the　Aristotelian　principle.　He　is　a　man　of　noble　birth　with　normal　frailties　possessed　by　heroes　like　Hamlet　or　Ceasar.

Shakespeare　conceives　King　Lear　in　the　context　of　original　sin　rather　than　the　“hamartia”　of　king　Oedipus.　King　Oedipus　has　no　tragic　flaw；　any　flaw　he　may　have　in　his　character　is　not　tragic　in　the　sense　that　it　is　not　made　directly　responsible　for　the　tragic　situation.　The　tragic　flaw　is　a　common　feature　of　most　Elizabethan　protagonists.　Hence　in　King　Lear，　we　see　Cordelia　return　to　England　just　in　time　to　arrest　her　father’s　slide　into　disease　and　unhappiness.　In　the　post-classical　period　of　the　Renaissance，　tragedy　still　tells　the　story　of　a　fall　of　a　Prince　like　King　Lear.　The　difference　here　is　that　the　Renaissance　story　is　without　hamartia　and　an　element　of　fate　（moira）　which　are　crucial　in　the　case　of　Sophocles’　Oedipus.　King　Lear　is　therefore　portrayed　as　being　personally　responsible　for　his　fall.　As　noted　by　Roche　（1981），　the　play　is　meant　to　show　the　plight　of　man　in　pre-Christian　times　and　that　Shakespeare　has　had　to　make　changes　in　the　play　to　give　its　required　shape.　Roche’s　contention　is　that　without　the　Christian　dimension　to　the　pagan　tragedy，　the　reconciliation　between　Lear　and　Cordelia　cannot　be　possible.　In　dividing　his　kingdom，　Lear　hopes　for　the　best　but　he　finds　this　to　be　impossible.　He　is　deceived，　and　in　death　he　is　deluded　by　something　he　cannot　hope　for.

2.2 The　Tragic　Source

The　tragic　source　of　the　play　is　the　tragic　flaw　of　King　Lear　who　represents　human　frailty.　Thus　even　though　the　classical　Greek　structure　gives　it　the　appearance　of　a　pagan　tragedy，　King　Lear　is　Christian　in　spirit.　As　the　play　opens，　Lear　sets　in　motion　that　which　leads　to　his　tragedy.　His　first　action　as　the　play　opens　is　his　demand　that　his　three　daughters，　Goneril，　Regan　and　Cordelia　prove　their　filial，　fidelity　and　love：

Which　of　you　shall　we　say　doth　love　us　most？

That　we　our　largest　bounty，　may　extend

Where　nature　doth　with　merit　challenge　（l.i.　51-53）

The　reward　for　acceptable　declaration　is　an　equal　portion　of　their　father’s　kingdom　as　their　inheritance.　This　unusual　demand　looks　like　an　attempt　to　wrestle　from　his　daughters　something　they　withhold　from　him.　Regan　and　Goneril　pledge　their　strongest　love　and　loyalty，　Cordelia　answers　only　in　modest　and　in　honest　terms：

Unhappy　that　I　am，　I　cannot　heave

My　heart　into　my　mouth.　I　love　your　majesty.

According　to　my　Lord，　no　more　nor　less　（l.i.　91-93）

King　Lear　proves　to　be　a　gullible　parent　eager　to　believe　any　show　of　affection　and　is　thus　taken　in　by　flattery　of　Goneril　who　says　to　her　father，

Sir，　I　love　you　more　than　world　can　wield　the　matter；

Dearer　than　eyesight，　space，　and　liberty...

No　less　than　life...　（l.　55-57）.

In　the　same　sugar

coated　words　Regan　pours　out　her　heart　in　flattery：

I　am　made　of　that　self　mettle　as　my　sister，

And　prize　me　at　her　worth.　In　my　true　heart

I　find　her　names　my　very　deed　of　love；

Only　she　comes　too　short，　that　I　profess.　（1.1　69-72）

King　Lear　who　shows　gullibility　is　easily　deceived　by　these　false　declarations　of　Goneril　and　Regan.　This　is　shown　by　the　king’s　immediate　response：

To　that　and　thine　hereditary　ever

Remain　this　ample　third　of　our　fair　kingdom.

No　less　space，　validity，　and　pleasure　（l.　79-81）

On　the　contrary，　the　king　spurns　the　honest　declaration　of　Cordelia.　Her　attempts　at　rationality　go　sorely　against　the　grain　and　therefore　she　loses　her　inheritance　to　her　two　elder　sisters.　He　openly　tells　Cordelia：

Here　I　disclaim　all　my　paternal　care

Propinquity　and　property　of　blood

And　as　a　stranger　to　my　heart　and　me　（l.i.　113-115）

Cordelia　is　thus　given　to　marriage　without　a　dowry　against　Cordelia’s　honest　declarations.

2.3 Moral　Flaws　of　the　Elizabethan　Heroes

This　element　of　anger　portrayed　by　Lear，　which　is　a　moral　flaw，　is　typical　of　Elizabethan　heroes.　Such　anger　makes　them　hubristic.　In　Othello　（1670），　the　moment　Othello　learns　from　lago　that　his　wife　Desdemona　has　something　to　hide　from　him，　his　countenance　changes.　His　noble　speech　which　he　uses　to　woo　Desdemona　deserts　him　and　his　fury　betrays　his　emotional　imbalance.　King　Lear　confuses　his　role　as　father　with　his　role　as　monarch.　This　is　a　situation　which　leads　to　the　fallacy　of　assuming　that　power　and　love　are　not　only　one　and　the　same　thing，　but　also　interchangeable.　He　places　too　much　importance　on　the　answers　from　Regan　and　Goneril.　He　quarrels　with　them　and　this　quarrel　marks　the　beginning　of　his　suffering.　Goneril　insists　that　Lear　prunes　down　his　retinue　and　consequently　Lear　considers　this　to　be　a　profound　affront　to　his　dignity　and　his　authority.　As　a　king　he　must　not　be　ordered　about.　He　therefore　leaves　the　household　of　Goneril　in　a　towering　rage　for　Regan’s　abode　only　to　be　met　with　the　same　demand.　Apart　from　his　anger，　small　irritation　like　Kent’s　little　insults　accumulate　so　that　growing　tension　in　him　leads　to　his　frustrated　cry：

…O　Fool！　I　shall　go　mad　（2.　iv.　281）

What　Lear　suffers　seems　bound　up　with　his　guilt.　Similarly，　throughout　the　play　Macbeth，　the　hero，　Macbeth　continues　to　give　serious　thought　to　the　moral　aspects　of　his　actions，　and　he　is　in　no　sense　an　unfeeling　villain　without　conscience　or　sense　of　nobility.　This　is　shown　when　he　wants　to　talk　over　with　Banquo　about　the　prophecy　of　the　witches.

2.4 The　Heroes’　Mental　Torture

King　Lear’s　mental　torture，　frustration　and　his　unspecified　hatred　against　those　who　have　led　him　to　acquiesce　to　his　imprisonment　are　clearly　shown　in　his　speech：

He　that　parts　us　shall　bring　a　brand　from　heaven，

And　fire　us　hence　like　foxes.　Wipe　thine　eyes，

The　good　years　shall　devour　them，　flesh　and　fell，

Ere　they　shall　make　us　weep.　We’ll　see’　em　starved　first.

Come.　（5.iii.　22-26）

In　much　the　same　way，　Hamlet’s　tragedy　lies　in　the　fact　that　despite　his　efforts，　he　is　frustrated　in　proving　his　uncle’s　（Claudius）　guilt　to　the　world　as　he　plans　the　punishment　for　his　uncle.　His　uncle　is　too　much　of　a　match　for　him；　and　too　noble　and　intelligent　to　make　it　easier　for　Hamlet　to　take　one　opportunity　he　has　and　murder　him　like　a　common　assassin.　Another　tragic　aspect　of　King　Lear　is　his　hot　temper.　He　fails　to　appreciate　the　fact　that　young　people　have　their　own　lives　to　lead.　Even　though　Goneril　and　Regan　are　his　daughters，　it　is　best　to　try　and　accommodate　some　of　their　wishes.　Lear’s　refusal　to　see　this　clearly　shows　the　egoistic　tendencies　in　him.　His　rash　decision　to　rush　in　anger　into　the　wilderness　makes　him　hubristic.　Lear　therefore　rejects　shelter，　and　this　rejection　starts　the　decline　in　his　fortunes.　In　this　state　he　undergoes　a　spiritual　“pathe”　due　to　the　mental　torture，　as　well　as　physical　passion　due　to　physical　deprivation.

These　moments　of　awareness　and　tenderness　become　an　important　motif　in　the　play　as　Lear　directs　his　new　capacity　for　close　attention　to　the　naked　wretches　in　the　storm，　to　Edgar　and　later，　to　Gloucester　and　Cordelia.　The　denouement　therefore　takes　place　in　the　wilderness.　He　gains　an　understanding　of　the　flattery　and　wickedness　of　his　elder　daughters　and　this　actually　structures　the　move　from　ignorance　to　knowledge.　He　suddenly　appreciates　what　is　reality　and　what　lies　beneath　appearances.　Lear　realises　he　has　been　taking　the　semblance　of　love　for　the　real　thing　and　what　is　real　love　he　sees　it　as　indifference.　This　is　Lear’s　tragic　suffering　and　it　brings　about　his　insanity.

Hamlet　in　Hamlet　（1990）　can　be　seen　from　the　opening　lines　of　the　most　familiar　of　his　soliloquies

To　be，　or　not　to　be，　that　is　the　question

Whether　‘tis　nobler　in　the　mind　to　suffer

The　slings　and　arrows　of　out　rageous　fortune，

Or　to　take　arms　yet　against　a　sea　of　troubles

And　by　opposing　the　end.　To　die，　to　sleep

No　more，　and　by　a　sleep　to　say　we　end.

...The　heartache　and　the　thousand　natural　shocks

that　flesh　is　heir　to　...　（3.l　63-70）

The　“question”　is　formally　stated，　then　defined　in　terms　of　soliloquies　which　associate　the　agonies　of　the　spirit　with　those　of　the　flesh.　Thus，　by　combining　antithesis，　parallelism　and　paradox，　Hamlet　enables　the　reader　to　come　back　to　the　association　of　physical　and　spiritual　torment，　in　which　the　heart　of　the　hero　physically　“aches”　and　the　flesh　is　subject　to　“shock”.　Lear’s　inordinate　anger　only　intensifies　the　tragedy.　Even　when　he　is　sound　in　mind，　he　is　not　able　to　control　his　temper　judging　from　his　utterances　and　actions.　For　examples，　Kent　is　banished　for　taking　the　side　of　Cordelia，　and　Cordelia　is　given　off　in　marriage　without　a　dowry.　King　Lear’s　foolishness　in　giving　up　his　kingdom　and　his　authority　is　revealed　by　the　wise　cracks　of　the　Fool.　He　says：

Thou　shouldest　not　have　been　old　till　thou　has　been　wise　（l.v.　37）

What　is　more　pathetic　is　when　Lear　is　humbled　by　Cordelia’s　love　and　acknowledges　the　fact　to　her　that　he　is　a，

“Foolish　fond　old　man”　（4.　iii.　60）

Lear’s　tender　concentration　on　the　facts　of　pain　takes　on　a　special　strength　when　we　reach　the　play’s　final　scene.　Lear　is　ready　to　make　amends　and　therefore　Cordelia’s　undisguised　love　is　enough　to　soothe　Lear　on　waking　up　from　his　slumber.　Lear　whose　character　trait　reveals　light

heartedness　is　portrayed　in　his　anguish　and　crisis.　He　cries，

my　poor　fool　is　hanged　（5.　iii.306）

He　dies　immediately　after　the　death　of　Cordelia　but　he　dies　a　man　clothed　in　the　forgiveness　of　one　whom　he　has　wronged　so　grievously.　Hamlet　also　dies　as　a　victim　who　is　glued　to　his　purpose　which　has　made　him　“follow　the　king’s　pleasure”.　Therefore　Hamlet　declares：　“if　this　fitness　speaks　mine　is　ready”.　Fluchere　（1953）　previously　noted　that　the　personal　tragedy　of　Lear　and　Cordelia，　profoundly　human　though　it　still　is，　rises　to　the　universal　plane.　Intolerable　suffering　first　undermines　reason　and　the　abyss　into　which　it　can　fall　seems　even　deeper.　Lear　may　die　after　Cordelia　but　it　is　a　serene　death　which　the　dramatist　opposes　to　intolerable　injustices.

2.5 Terror，　Pity　and　Fear

Furthermore，　Lear，　like　a　god　simultaneously　creating　a　world　and　giving　it　away，　as　though　it　were　his　to　give，　says　to　Goneril，

Of　all　these　bounds，　even　from　this　line　to　this，

With　shadowy　forests，　and　with　champains　riched，

With　plenteous　rivers，　and　wide　-　skirted　meads，

We　make　thee　lady.　（1.　163-66）

Full　of　pomp　and　sway　of　his　office　at　the　moment　of　surrendering　it，　Lear　takes　pleasure　in　leaving　his　daughters　to　vie　in　public　for　his　affection.　He　expects　them　to　“perform”.　He　is　thus　conducting　a　battering　contest：　the　strongest　bidder　will　win　the　largest　price.　Words　are　to　be　taken　at　their　face　value.　From　the　outset　we　find　Lear　forbidding　in　the　wanton　indulgence　of　his　age.　But　our　sympathy　for　him　as　the　play　unfolds　cannot　be　hidden.　If　we　at　first　fear　for　him　because　of　his　age，　since　he　is　like　one　of　us，　we　are　soon　astonished　by　the　strength　of　his　feelings　and　by　his　endurance.　In　fact，　we　take　heart　and　reassurance　from　him.　Nevertheless，　terror　and　pity　also　thrive　in　our　response.　Terror，　because　this　can　confront　an　ancient　king　who，　living　in　a　terrestrial　paradise，　seemed　resilient　to　the　trials　to　the　rest　of　us.　Our　pity　because　such　suffering　can　be　extracted　from　him.　Yet，　in　spite　of　the　horror　Lear　shows　that　hope　exists　for　us　all　till　the　day　we　die.　Destined　to　being　King，　Lear　must　submit　to　the　terrible　situation　that　tears　from　his　role.　Lear，　a　king　who　is　supposed　to　establish　and　maintain　order，　rather　releases　the　forces　that　destroy　it，　and　must　seek　out　the　centre　of　the　chaos，　grapple　with　it　to　death.　He　has　the　nobility　to　do　so.　At　the　time　he　must　discover　the　chaos　and　the　madness　of　the　human　world，　the　savagery　lurking　under　words，　manners　and　clothes.　“Nothing”　obedient　to　his　early　command，　comes　between　this　dragon　and　his　wrath；　in　his　own　person　he　must　experience　that　entire　wrath　to　discover　what　treasure，　if　any，　lies　buried　within　and　around　him.　Lear’s　loneliness　is　as　a　result　if　his　abuse　of　power

his　kingship.

2.6 Lear　and　Oedipus　Compared

In　the　play，　even　though　the　causes　of　the　tragedy　are　due　to　Lear’s　inability　to　see　through　flattery　and　his　hubris，　there　is　also　the　suggestion　of　hamartia.　This　is　because　his　first　act，　the　decision　to　divide　and　share　out　the　kingdom　is　a　wrong　act，　though　his　character　plays　a　major　role　in　this.　However，　this　action　is　not　the　dominant　of　a　tragic　situation.　Unlike　king　Oedipus，　the　source　of　the　tragic　situation　is　clearly　traceable　to　Lear’s　moral　flaw.　Despite　the　basic　differences　in　their　characterization，　King　Oedipus　and　King　Lear　have　similarities.　Their　suffering　is　both　physical　and　mental　attended　by　torture　and　deprivation　as　well　as　exposure　to　the　vagaries　of　the　weather　after　their　unilateral　rejection　of　shelter.　The　two　characters　are　united　in　their　spiritual　blindness　until　they　move　from　ignorance　into　knowledge　in　both　cases.　The　poignancy　of　King　Lear　is　heightened　not　only　by　the　insanity　of　the　king　but　also　the　exposure　to　the　ferocious　elements　of　the　stormy　night.　Though　he　is　partly　to　blame　for　this，　it　is　a　trying　experience　for　such　an　old　man.

2.7 Lear’s　Uncanny　Vulnerability

The　two　provocative　statements　earlier　made　in　the　play　that　lead　us　beyond　the　immediate　dramatic　ambience　are　very　pertinent.　The　first　is　Gloucester　asking　to　kiss　the　hand　of　Lear，　and　the　answer　Lear　gives　is.

Let　me　wipe　it　first，　it　smells　of　mortality　（4.vi.132）

To　this　Golucester　replies，

O　ruined　piece　of　Nature！　This　great　world

shall　so　wear　out　to　nought.　（4.vi.133-134）

From　the　above　we　see　Lear’s　display　of　an　uncanny　vulnerability　in　emphasizing　his　mortality，　Gloucester　generalizes　on　a　fallen　（ruined）　nature　betraying　itself　to　nought　（with　a　pun　on　naughtiness）.　The　essential　elements　of　the　established　order　are　portrayed　in　king　Lear，　every　inch　a　king，　a　man　who　has　in　his　countenance　that　authority　which　his　followers　would　feign　call　master.　Indeed，　Lear　is　a　kingly　personage　in　his　own　right，　a　“natural　ruler”，　powerful；　strong-willed；　commanding；　courageous；　aristocratic　in　every　way；　and　possessed　of　a　natural　right　to　rule　which　is　reinforced　by　custom　and　legitimacy.　He　attracts　to　himself　the　ceremonies，　the　values，　the　trappings，　and　the　extended　family　of　the　old　social　order

the　court　Fool，　the　private　army　of　knights　and　the　faithful　servants.　In　king　Lear　and　his　court，　Shakespeare　characteristically　blends　elements　of　“British　mythology，　medieval　Feudalism，　and　Renaissance　benevolent　despotism　to　create　a　composite　image　of　an　older　order　which　exists　in　mystic　communion　with　God　and　with　the　order　of　the　cosmos”　（Kerman，　1981）.

The　spectacular　tragedy　here　is　derived　from　Lear’s　endurance　and　resistance，　both　so　mighty　that　they　summon　forth　ultimate　force　or　violence.　He　experiences　the　universe　at　a　depth　and　height　that　sweeps　away　all　lesser　considerations.　Weiss　（2008）　view　of　the　tragedy　of　Lear　is　that　while　force　is　on　our　side，　it　is　delectable　but　once　it　cannot　make　use　of　us，　it　tosses　us　aside；　patience　or　resignation　seems　to　be　the　only　resort.

CONCLUSION

This　study　identified　the　need　to　understand　the　portrayal　of　the　tragic　hero　of　the　Shakespearean　post-classical　era.　As　a　post-classical　tragic　hero，　Lear　is　portrayed　as　being　personally　responsible　for　his　fall.　In　both　the　classical　and　post-classical　Renaissance　periods，　tragedy　still　tells　the　story　of　a　fall　of　a　prince.　The　difference　is　that　the　Renaissance　story　is　without　hamartia　and　an　element　of　fate　（moira）　but　these　are　very　crucial　in　Greek　tragedy.　The　concept　of　fate　（moira）　in　the　Greek　classical　period　gives　way　to　Christian　faith　in　the　post　classical　period.　Shakespeare　conceives　of　King　Lear　in　the　context　of　original　sin　rather　than　the　hamartia.

REFERENCES

Adade-Yeboah，　A.，　Ahenkora，　K.，　&　Amankwah，　A.　S.　（2012）.　The　Tragic　Hero　of　the　Classical　Period.　English　Language　and　Literature　Studies，　2（3），　10-17.

Adade-Yeboah，　A.，　&　Ahenkora，　K.　（2012）.　The　Tragic　Hero　of　the　Neo-Classical　Period.　International　Journal　of　Humanities　and　Social　Science，　2（14），　104-108.

Aristotle　（1956）.　On　the　Art　of　Poetry.　Classical　Literary　Criticism.　London：　Penguin　Books　Ltd..

Atkins，　D.　G.　（1983）.　Reading　Deconstruction：　Deconstructive　Reading.　Lexington：　University　Press　of　Kentucky.

Brown，　J.　R.　（Ed.）.　（1990）.　Studying　Shakespeare：　A　Case　Book.　London：　Macmillan　Education　Ltd..

Fluchere，　H.　（1953）.　Shakespeare.　London：　Longman.

Kerman，　A.　B.　（Ed.）.　（1981）.　On　King　Lear.　Princeton：　The　University　Press.

Ludowyk，　E.　F.　C.　（1977）.　Understanding　Shakespeare.　Cambridge：　Cambridge　University　Press.

McCaw，　N.　（2008）.　How　to　Read　Texts：　A　Student　Guide　to　Critical　Approaches　and　Skills.　London：　Continuum.

Roche　Jnr.，　T.　P.　（Ed.）.　（1981）.　Tragic　Knowledge　in　King　Lear.　On　King　Lear.　Princeton：　The　University　Press.

Shakespeare，　W.　（Ed.）.　（1670）.　King　Lear.　Harmonds　Worth：　Penguin　Books　Ltd..

Shakespeare，　W.　（Ed.）.　（1670）.　Othello.　Harmonds　Worth：　Penguin　Books　Ltd..

Shakespeare，　W.　（Ed.）.　（1990）.　The　Tragedy　of　Hamlet，　Prince　of　Denmark.　Longman：　Longman.

Weiss，　T.　（2008）.　The　Poetics　of　King　Lear.　London：　John　Murray.