Humans are a greedy species. Our tendency to constantly search for materialistic things is a flawed part of our nature. Money, status, power and admiration. Possessing these things can inflate our ego to the point where we feel unstoppable and unable to understand our faults and mistakes. The tragic hero is the most identifiable component of a tragedy and is described by Aristotle as someone “who is not eminently good and just,-yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. ” William Shakespeare’s two plays ‘King Lear’ and ‘Macbeth’, Orson Welles’ ‘Citizen Kane’ and Ridley Scott’s ‘Gladiator’ are all significantly connected. This is because the four tragic heroes of these texts – Lear, Macbeth, Kane and Maximus – all similarly possess hubris as their hamartia. Aristotle believed that “young men and the rich are hubristic because they think they are better than other people” and this statement certainly applies to the four tragic heroes. In this essay, I will explore how these characters demonstrate hubris as a common flaw to give insight into human nature and warn the audience not to make similar mistakes. 

The title character of  ‘King Lear’ begins as a foolish but well-respected king. After gifting ownership of his kingdom to his two false-hearted daughters, he loses his power, wealth and sanity. Lear has many flaws and they all stem from him exhibiting hubris. Because of the divine right of the king, nobody questions Lear’s decisions. This has caused Lear to become excessively proud and always believe that he’s right. In act one, it’s evident that Lear’s hubris blinds him from realising the potential consequences of his actions. When choosing his successor, Lear bases his judgement on how well his daughters flatter his ego, asking them”… Which of you shall we say doth love us most?/ That we our largest bounty may extend.” Lear decides to punish Cordelia for failing to comply with his demands and Kent openly objects to this decision. Lear’s hubris is demonstrated when he states “come not between the dragon and his wrath…”. Lear compares himself to a dragon, a ferocious creature known for its short temper and intimidating appearance. Shakespeare uses this metaphor to show the extent to which Lear exaggerates how intimidating and powerful he is. Lear’s god complex is used as an extreme example for the audience to measure how prideful or arrogant we may come across to others. He warns us about how foolish we can appear for being so unaware of ourselves and how others may perceive us. Lear later warns Kent that the “bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft…”, which is another metaphor used by Shakespeare to further establish Lear’s hubris. Lear threatens Kent by ordering that he stand down or he will suffer a terrible punishment as if a bow is drawn and he could shoot at any moment. Shakespeare uses this metaphor to indicate that Lear could easily relax, lower his bow and not let go of the arrow. However, Lear’s hubris forces him to give in to his impulsive anger and not back down. Lear chooses to shoot his arrow and banishes his most loyal follower because he is too proud to acknowledge that Kent is right. Shakespeare’s purpose of having Lear possess hubris is to teach us how easy it is for hubris to interfere with our ability to make the correct judgement. All of us are prideful to some extent and nobody is perfect. In the spur of the moment, we can make a terrible mistake and through Lear we understand how easily preventable these mistakes can be if we have a great sense of awareness of ourselves. Shakespeare encourages us to take one long look in the mirror and better ourselves so we don’t end up like Lear.

Macbeth is another prime example of a tragic hero who demonstrates hubris. In ‘Macbeth’, he is portrayed as an overly ambitious and self-centred man. Macbeth selfishly murders anyone in his way to ensure that he becomes King of Scotland. Macbeth has a great deal of pride and self-confidence in order to convince himself that his ambitious plan will work. Similar to how Shakespeare uses metaphors in King Lear, metaphors are used in the play to demonstrate how hubristic Macbeth is. Macbeth states that “I have no spur/ To prick the sides of my intent, but only/ Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself/ And falls on the other -“. Macbeth compares himself to a jockey on a horse, who has no ‘spur’ to control his burning ambition. His only incentive is to leap forward and rely on his luck and confidence. Shakespeare uses this metaphor so that the audience understands that ambition can be deadly when we neglect the possibility of failure. He warns us about the dangers of miscalculating success and encourages us to second guess ourselves before leaping forward. Even after all of his allies have turned against him, Macbeth continues to believe that he will win against all odds. Macbeth maintains his hubris until his death, stating that “The mind I sway by, and the heart I bear,/ Shall never sag with doubt, nor shake with fear.” At this point in the play, Macbeth is progressively becoming more and more deluded and places no doubt that he will defeat his enemies. Shakespeare is showing that Macbeth is desperately trying to uphold this perception that he is fearless and is in complete control of his mind. Just like Lear, Macbeth is driven insane and is faced with the harsh reality that he has caused the deaths of his family and friends. In the same way that Lear’s hubris makes him believe that everything will play out in his favour, Macbeth’s hubris makes him persistently believe that he will obtain what he desires without being punished. Shakespeare’s overall intent of Macbeth possessing hubris is to warn the audience of the dangers of lacking self-awareness and to encourage us to evaluate our choices before chasing our ambitious desires. We learn through both Lear and Macbeth that constantly boasting of how powerful and successful we are can inhibit us from understanding the reality of a situation. In this way, the lessons that the audience learns from the two texts are very similar. This is because they both follow this traditional idea of the tragedy genre that the audience must gain knowledge through the tragic hero’s suffering. This is a more philosophical purpose of the genre as a whole, to educate society so we don’t fall for the innate trappings of being human.

In contrast to King Lear and Macbeth, ‘Citizen Kane’ is a more modern take on the tragedy genre. The film centres around Charles Foster Kane, a poor young boy who is forced into the elite upper-class world to live the ‘American Dream’. While Kane is at the top of his game, he yearns for others to love and admire him but is unwilling to love others in return. Kane becomes so entranced by this wealthy lifestyle that he loses sight of how valuable human connection is. After choosing his mistress over his wife, son and political career, his empire begins to crumble and Kane is left a lonely and unloved man. As Kane gains momentum in his pursuit of fame and success, he claims that “I felt like a kid in a candy store. Well, tonight, six years later, I got my candy. All of it…”. Kane compares himself to a child in a candy store to express how overwhelmingly satisfying it feels to have everything that he desired when he was young. Eating too much candy can harm one’s health and having so much wealth and power can have a similarly negative effect. It leads to someone becoming overly satisfied with themselves and become addicted to collecting materialistic possessions. Welles uses this simile to warn us that when presented with everything that we desire, we should be cautious of becoming greedy and reckless like Kane. Just like Lear, Kane’s self-centred and prideful personality is brought to attention by the people closest to him. When Leland is interviewed he states that “…all he really wanted out of life was love. That’s Charlie’s story, how he lost it. You see, he just didn’t have any to give. Well, he loved Charlie Kane of course, very dearly…”. At this point, the audience realises that when you set aside Kane’s charismatic and seemingly perfect nature, he’s actually just a very selfish and careless person. This sounds familiar when comparing Kane to Lear. They both choose to value materialistic possessions over human connections and crave tangible signs of affection to inflate their pride or ego. Because of their hubris, Kane and Lear cannot give others love and kindness and this ends up pushing people away from them. As a consequence of choosing to make decisions which solely benefits themselves, both of the tragic heroes lose close relationships and suffer from abandonment. Both Welles and Shakespeare intend for the audience to understand how much we should treasure human connections over materialistic possessions. Once we reach death, it is the impact on others that will remain as part of our legacy as opposed to the valuable objects that we possessed. In terms of the wider function of the genre, we increase our ability to better manage our emotions. This relates to the ‘knowledge through suffering’ aspect of the tragedy genre. We diminish sinful emotions like wrath, greed and pride in favour of healthier emotions like empathy, compassion and love. We learn not to follow Lear and Kane’s examples and that expressing these healthy emotions will send us on a path to prosperity – where we are loved and cared for by others.

Gladiator’s Maximus is very different from the typical Aristotelean tragic hero. There is no denying that he demonstrates hubris, however, unlike the other three tragic heroes, Maximus isn’t materialistic, overly- ambitious or unable to value human connection. Maximus begins his journey as a Roman general at the height of power and prosperity. After refusing to serve the new emperor Commodus, Maximus loses his family, status, identity and eventually his own life. This downfall occurs because his hubris makes him unable to set aside his rigid morality, join Commodus and defeat him from ‘the inside’. In Gladiator’s opening, Scott expertly establishes Maximus’ hubris through the use of dialogue. In just a few minutes, the audience understands Maximus’ character-type and how prideful he is. A key moment which demonstrates Maximus’ hubris is when Quintus is questioning the ranges of the catapult, where Maximus responds by stating “the range is good”, which is followed by “it is acceptable, do you agree?”. Scott uses Maximus’ condescending tone and confidence in his decision to show that Maximus is too proud to allow his decisions to be criticised. The audience understands how this arrogance can affect others. Maximus’ treatment towards Quintus was likely a factor which caused Quintus’ betrayal later in the film. Scott, therefore, teaches the audience that being arrogant and feeling more entitled can harm us if we are not careful. Later, Maximus proposes to his soldiers that “what we do in life echoes an eternity”, which further establishes his hubris. He feels like his achievements will be remembered forever and he encourages his army to hold the same view despite how unrealistic this ideology is. Each soldier is merely a pawn in a larger game and is ultimately disposable and therefore Maximus’ statement is false. By uttering this, his pride is fueled at the cost of giving all of his soldiers a false sense of hope, which demonstrates that just like Lear, Maximus can act selfishly. As a consequence of possessing hubris, all four tragic heroes lose close relationships, however, unlike the others, Maximus dies surrounded by crowds of loyal followers. This is because Maximus is genuinely a good person who wants the best for his country and people and merely lacks the self-awareness to realise his flaws. Scott warns the audience to be highly cautious of how overly protective humans tend to be to maintain our moral high ground. Sometimes altering our own moral compass can be beneficial to our future and our moral obligations don’t have to be so concrete. In terms of the wider purpose of the genre, just like the other texts, we gain knowledge from Maximus’ mistakes. We realise that being so constrained by our morality can be just as harmful as not following any moral conscience. Across all texts, the same message is displayed, that possessing any type of hubris can lead to grave consequences.

In conclusion, one of the main purposes of ‘King Lear’, ‘Macbeth’, ‘Citizen Kane’ and ‘Gladiator’ is to teach by example that pride in any capacity can be dangerous. All of us are prideful and some are more so than others but possessing hubris is when this pride becomes dangerous. Hubris greatly increase our tendency to make mistakes and the tragic heroes of the four texts all demonstrate different ways in which hubris can harm us. The four creators all similarly want to teach us the same lesson. They wish for audiences to gain a greater level of awareness of these dangerous human flaws after watching these plays and films. Tragedies allow anyone regardless of their age or era to reflect and improve and that is why the genre has remained timeless.