Deconstruction of myth in The Purpose

Assignment: Paper No. - 04

Name: Patel kavita

Topic: Deconstruction of myth in The Purpose

Roll No. – 11

Semester: III

Batch: 2011- 12

Deconstruction of myth in The Purpose

First of all, let’s throw a glance on two terms, myth and deconstruction.

            Myth :

In classical Greek, "mythos" signified any story or plot, whether true or invented. In its central modern significance, however, a myth is one story in a mythology—a system of hereditary stories of ancient origin which were once believed to be true by a particular cultural group, and which served to explain why the world is as it is and things happen as they do, to provide a rationale for social customs and observances, and to establish the sanctions for the rules by which people conduct their lives. Most myths are related to social rituals—set forms and procedures in sacred ceremonies—but anthropologists disagree as to whether rituals generated myths or myths generated rituals

         Deconstruction :

As applied in the criticism of literature, designates a theory and practice of reading which questions and claims to "subvert" or "undermine" the assumption that the system of language provides grounds that are adequate to establish the boundaries, the coherence or unity, and the determinate meanings of a literary text. Typically, a deconstructive reading sets out to show that conflicting forces within the text itself serve to dissipate the seeming definiteness of its structure and meanings into an indefinite array of incompatible and undecidable possibilities. The consequence, in Derrida's view, is that we can never, in any instance of speech or writing, have a demonstrably fixed and decidable present meaning. He says that the differential play (jeu) of language may produce the "effects" of decidable meanings in an utterance or text, but asserts that these are merely effects and lack a ground that would justify certainty in interpretation. To Derrida's view, then, it is difference that makes possible the meaning whose possibility it necessarily baffles. As Derrida says in another of his coinages, the meaning of any spoken or written utterance, by the action of opposing internal linguistic forces, is ineluctably disseminated—a term which includes, among its deliberately contradictory significations, that of having an effect of meaning, of dispersing meanings among innumerable alternatives, and of negating any specific meaning. There is thus no ground, in the incessant play of difference that constitutes any language, for attributing a decidable meaning, or even a finite set of determinately multiple meanings, to any utterance that we speak or write.  Derrida's characteristic way of proceeding is not to lay out his deconstructive concepts and operations in a systematic exposition, but to allow them to emerge in a sequence of exemplary close readings of passages from writings that range from Plato through Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the present era—writings that, by standard classification, are mainly philosophical, although occasionally literary. He describes his procedure as a "double reading." Initially, that is, he interprets a text as, in the standard fashion, "lisible" (readable or intelligible), since it engenders "effects" of having determinate meanings.

T. P. Kailasam will always be remembering as the father of modern kanada play, the man of genius whose plays are revolutionary. The kanada stories by their refreshing realism and modernity and free it once from the literary unrealities that possessed it.

                       Kailasam’s interest in the epics was a result of his life long search for greatness in the world of man. The search for greatness in human nature says shree D.V. Gundappa was a natural indignation in Kailasam. It was his greatest desire to be able to see the inner strength of heroes like Bhishma, Drona, Eklavya and Karan. He saw likewise in the Tavarekere group of stories, the greatness hidden in the common man Kailasam would often deliberately create around himself the atmosphere of drabness and dirt so that he could see the pure and the beautiful even better. One must become; he used to say a guttersnipe. He should sit there and gaze at the sky and the sun, and the world around him.

At the center of each of his plays in an epic hero who emerges much greater and more flawless than in an original myth. The Purpose play in two acts is about Eklavya, the great Nishada, youth, whose devotion to his Wolf-infested forest. Eklavya’s tragedy arises out of the conflict between those two loyalties of his and the consequent betrayal of his ‘purpose’ (the destruction of the wolves) to which he is led by his noble act of sacrifice to preserve the honour of his guru, an act of which renders him impotent against the wild beast.

In this two act play the writer, Kailasam Deconstruct the myth which is there in original Mahabharata. In the play, here the Eklavya is main character or protagonist in play; while in Mahabharata Arjuna is main character. The inspiration behind all these plays is invariably the greatness of a hero – Eklavya, Karna, Krishna etc.

This exercise demanded on perceptions of the conception of myth itself as also of Kailasam’s plays. We also noticed various factors involved in the transmission of myth, which assumed concrete shapes within disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, philosophy and most of all, the literary world.

 In the Play, Kailasam draws Eklavya, with marginalized character as modern alternative or exemplar for reshaping society, this dissertation has discovered more topics for the study. One of them is the construction of women especially as mothers, in the lives of these heroes. The concept of motherhood for most nationalist writers were associated with the crucial role of procreating and rearing a special breed of man the role extended, to the man folk to reconstruct the motherland. Thus, central principle of structure in the purpose is the contrast between two kinds of purpose. The righteous symbolized by Eklavya and the pursuit of personal  ambition as seen in partha, the question of Purpose looms large in Karma as well.

        

  

Dryden’s Contribution in Translation Study

Assignment: Paper No. - 04

Name: Patel kavita

Topic: Dryden’s Contribution in Translation Study

Roll No. – 11

Semester: III

Batch: 2011- 12

      Dryden’s Contribution in Translation Study

The Life of Ovid being already written in our language before the Translation of his Metamorphoses. The English reader may there be satisfied, that he flourished in the reign of Augustus Cesar; that he was Extracted from an Ancient Family of Roman Knights; that he was born to the Inheritance of a Splendid Fortune; that he was designed to the Study of the Law, and had made considerable progress in it, before he quitted that Profession, for this of Poetry, to which he was more naturally formed. The Cause of his Banishment is unknown; because he was himself unwilling further to provoke the Emperor, by ascribing it to any other reason, than what was pretended by Augustus, which was, the Lasciviousness of his Elegies, and his Art of Love. This true, they are not to be Excused in the severity of Manners, as being able to corrupt a larger Empire, if there were any, than that of Rome: yet this may be said in behalf of Ovid, that no man has ever treated the Passion of Love with so much Delicacy of thought, and of Expression, or searched into the nature of it more Philosophically than he. Deeds, it seems, may be justified by Arbitrary Power, when words are questioned in a Poet. There is another ghess of the Grammarians, as far from truth as the first from Reason; they will have him Banished for some favours, which, they say, he received from Julia, the Daughter of Augustus, whom they think he Celebrates under the Name of Corinna in his Elegies. But he, who will observe the Verses which are made to that Mistress, may gather from the whole contexture of them, that Corinna was not a Woman of the highest Quality.

First, that of metaphrase, or turning an author word by word, and line by line, from one language into another. Thus, or near this manner, was Horace his Art of Poetry translated by Ben Jonson. The second way is that of paraphrase, or translation with latitude, where the author is kept in view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense, and that too is admitted to be amplified, but not altered. Such is Mr Waller’s translation of Virgil’s Fourth Æneid. The third way is that of imitation, where the translator (if now he has not lost that name) assumes the liberty not only to vary from the words and sense, but to forsake them

both as he sees occasion; and taking only some general hints from the original, to run division on the ground-work, as he pleases. In short, the verbal copier is encumbered with so many difficulties at once that he can never

disentangle himself from all. He is to consider at the same time the thought of his author, and his words, and to find out the counterpart to each in another language; and, besides this, he is to confine himself to the compass of numbers, and the slavery of rhyme. It is much like dancing on ropes with fettered legs: a man may shun a fall by using caution; but the gracefulness of motion is not to be expected: and when we have said the best of it,  its but a foolish task; for no sober man would put himself into a danger for the applause of escaping without breaking his neck.

Translation is a kind of drawing after the life; where every one will acknowledge there is a double sort of likeness, a good one and a bad. It is one thing to draw the outlines true, the features like, the proportions exact, the colouring itself perhaps tolerable; and another thing to make all these

graceful, by the posture, the shadowing  and chiefly by he spirit which animates the whole. I cannot without some indignation look on an ill copy of an excellent original: much less can I behold with patience Virgil, Homer, and some others, whose beauties I have been endeavouring all my life to imitate, so abused, as you may say to their faces, by a botching interpreter. There are many who understand Greek and Latin, and yet are ignorant of their mother-tongue. The properties and delicacies of the English are known to few; It is impossible even for a good wit to understand and practice them, without the help of a liberal education, long reading, and digesting of those few good

authors we have amongst us, the knowledge of men and manners, the freedom of habitudes and conversation with the best company of both sexes. Thus it appears necessary that a man should be a nice critic in his mother-tongue before he attempts to translate a foreign language.

Neither is it sufficient that he be able to judge of words and style; but he must be a master of them too; he must perfectly understand his author’s tongue, and absolutely command his own. So that to be a thorough translator, he must be a thorough poet. Neither is it enough to give his author’s sense in good English, in poetical expressions, and in musical numbers. For, though all these are exceeding difficult to perform, there yet remains an harder task; and it is a secret of which few translators have sufficiently thought that is, the maintaining the character of an author, which distinguishes him from all others, and makes him appear that individual poet whom you would

interpret.   

Doctor Faustus – As a Tragic Hero

Assignment: Paper No. - 04

Name: Patel kavita

Topic: Doctor Faustus – As a Tragic Hero

Roll No. – 11

Semester: III

Batch: 2011- 12

      

        Doctor Faustus – As a Tragic Hero

‘Tragic Hero’ is a literary term and specially applied to tragedy. The term is used for Greek literature and especially it is associated with great three dramatists: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Aristotle has broadly defined the term with special reference to Greek Tragedy. Let’s thrash out, what is tragic Hero? What are the characteristic of Tragic Hero? How can we apply Tragic Hero to Greek Dramas?

 The term Tragic Hero is relevant to Modern Hero of   the drama. What types of circumstances do make the character Tragic? The Greek terms like Catharsis, Hamartia, Anagnorisis, Peripetiea, are deeply rooted in Tragic Hero. Aristotle has broadly defined the term with special reference to Greek Tragedy.

          Dr. Faustus  the protagonist of Christopher Marlowe's great tragedy can be considered as a tragic hero similar to the other tragic characters such as Oedipus or Hamlet. Dr. Faustus who sells his soul to Lucifer in exchange of twenty four years of knowledge ought to have some special features in order to be considered as a tragic hero. But first of all let me present Aristotle's definition of a "Tragic hero" and then I will elaborate on each element in relation to the tragedy of "Dr. Faustus".

     The action makes Hero Tragic. So, there should be a mistake or fault. Such a fault is always portrayed by action not by character. Without action there cannot be a Tragedy in the life of the character. Tragedy always happens, if the character has any evil, too much goodness, lack of taking good judgments, pride or over-confidence, etc. So, Tragic Hero should have certain good and evil qualities. He should have the amalgam of goodness and badness. Then and then, conflict takes place. Conflict is another side of Tragic Hero.

According to Aristotle, he should have certain kinds of good and bad qualities. M.H. Abrams remarks:

“…He is thoroughly good nor thoroughly

bad but a mixture of both; and also that

this tragic effect will be stronger if the

Hero is ‘better than we are.’ in the sense

that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth.”

                                            (A Glossary of Literary Terms-322)

Doctor Faustus, a talented German scholar at Wittenburg, rails against the limits of human knowledge. He has learned everything he can learn, or so he thinks, from the conventional academic disciplines.

"Oh, what a world of profit and delight,

Of power, of honour, of omnipotence,

Is promised to the studious artizan!"

By comparing himself with a "studious artisan," Faustus hopes to gain all worldly pleasures and goods as the fruits of scholarly work.  He does not understand, however, that scholars study for personal enlightenment, not material gain.

All of these things have left him unsatisfied, so now he turns to magic.

"A sound magician is a demi-god.

Here, tire my brains to get a deity."

         Faustus realizes that by practicing the dark arts, he will have supreme power in the world.  This is the turning point in his transition from scholar to sorcerer.

A Good Angle and an Evil Angel arrive, representing Faustus' choice between Christian conscience and the path to damnation. The former advises him to leave off this pursuit of magic, and the latter tempts him. From two fellow scholars, Valdes and carnivals Faustus learns the fundamentals of the black arts. He thrills at the power he will have, and the great feats he'll perform. He summons the devil Mephistophilis. They flesh out the terms of their agreement, with Mephostophilis representing Lucifer. Faustus will sell his soul, in exchange for twenty-four years of power, with Mephistopheles as servant to his every whim.

"Till swol'n with cunning of a self-conceit,

His waxen wings did mount above his reach,

And melting, heavens conspired his overthrow."

                   

           The chorus indirectly alludes to the myth of Icarus and Daedalus and compares Faustus to the foolish Icarus.  Daedalus and Icarus were father and son, respectively, and were trapped in the famed labyrinth of Crete.  To escape, Daedalus fashioned wings made of wax and feathers so that they could fly off the island.  He warned his son to stay safely between the ocean and the sun, as the water would weigh down the feathers and drown him while the sun would melt the wax.  Icarus did not heed his father's advice, strayed close to the sun and plummeted to his death.  The chorus compares Faustus to Icarus because he too foolishly rejects the safe middle ground.  Instead, he aspires for things that are not meant for mortals, and is thus predestined to be doomed.

 In a comic relief scene, we learn that Faustus' servant Wagner has gleaned some magic learning. He uses it to convince Robin the Clown to be his servant.

           Before the time comes to sign the contract, Faustus has misgivings, but he puts them aside. Mephostophilis returns and Faustus signs away his soul, writing with his own blood. The words "Homo fuge" (Fly, man) appear on his arm, and Faustus is seized by fear. Mephostophilis distracts him with a dance of devils. Faustus requests a wife, a demand Mephostophilis denies, but he does give Faustus books full of knowledge.

           Some time has passed. Faustus curses Mephostophilis for depriving him of heaven, although he has seen many wonders. He manages to torment Mephostophilis, he can't digest mention of God, and the devil flees. The Good and Evil Angel arrives again. The Good Angel tells him to repent, and the Evil Angel tells him to stick to his wicked ways. Lucifer, Belzebub, and Mephostophilis return, to intimidate Faustus. He is cowed by them, and agrees to speak and think no more of God. They delight him with a pageant of the Seven Deadly Sins, and then Lucifer promises to show Faustus hell. Meanwhile, Robin the Clown has gotten one of Faustus' magic books. Faustus has explored the heavens and the earth from a chariot drawn by dragons, and is now flying to Rome, where the feast honoring St. Peter is about to be celebrated. Mephostophilis and Faustus wait for the Pope, depicted as an arrogant, decidedly unholy man. They play a series of tricks, by using magic to disguise themselves and make themselves invisible, before leaving.

             Magically reparaling Faustus’ leg by knight-dealer and betraying him by selling him a horse made of grass is very comic but seriously depicted.

“O, my leg, my leg! – Help, mephistophelis!

Call the officers, - My leg, my leg!”

               Such a trivial and ridiculous scene looks like very awkward and exhausted but on another side it is a slowly and steadily downfall of Dr.Faustus. By presenting such a scene, the moral intent of Marlowe is that more we take life lightly more we fine our damnation nearer to us. The title of the play is itself denotes Faustus’ tragic past that is chronologically described and horribly winded up. They are also astonished that how a doctorate person becomes a victim of his own destiny, having much ambition and longing for infinite knowledge of the entire world.

         

            How does Faustus’ own circumstances make him tragic? Is more important. The key fact is that tragic flow makes man tragic. For instance, Hamlet’s great two soliloquies and constant delay behind avenging his father’s murder and at last, very few dialogues of Hamlet to Harotio create empathy among the audience. Don’t we find such a great pity towards Faustus? His soliloquies are also pin pointed. Something that is over-solitary, anguish and dismal, tears, striving to repent, that only one hour and then half an hour of the midnight intensify Faustus’ state of mind. M.H.Abrams observes,

“Christopher Marlowe’s Dr.Faustus opens

with a long expository soliloquy, and concludes

with another which expresses Faustus’ frantic

mental and emotional state during his belated

attempts to escape damnation.”

                We can say that it is a Moral Frailty of the Character, and we have a proverb,

“Time and tide wait for none.”

          The Chorus returns to tell us that Faustus returns home, where his vast knowledge of astronomy and his abilities earn him wide renown. Meanwhile, Robin the Clown has also learned magic, and uses it to impress his friend Rafe and summon Mephostophilis, who doesn't seem too happy to be called. At the court of Charles V, Faustus performs illusions that delight the Emperor. He also humiliates a knight named Benvolio. When Benvolio and his friends try to avenge the humiliation, Faustus has his devils hurt them and cruelly transform them, so that horns grow on their heads.

          Faustus swindles a Horse-courser, and when the Horse-courser returns, Faustus plays a frightening trick on him. Faustus then goes off to serve the Duke and Vanholt. Robin the Clown, his friend Dick, the Horse-courser, and a Carter all meet. They all have been swindled or hurt by Faustus' magic. They go off to the court of the Duke to settle scores with Faustus. Faustus entertains the Duke and Duchess with petty illusions, before Robin the Clown and his band of ruffians arrives. Faustus toys with them, besting them with magic, to the delight of the Duke and Duchess.

            Faustus' twenty-four years are running out. Wagner tells the audience that he thinks Faustus prepares for death. He has made his will, leaving all to Wagner. But even as death approaches, Faustus spends his days feasting and drinking with the other students. For the delight of his fellow scholars, Faustus summons a spirit to take the shape of Helen of Troy. Later, an Old Man enters, warning Faustus to repent. Faustus opts for pleasure instead, and asks Mephostophilis to bring Helen of Troy to him, to be his love and comfort during these last days. Mephostophilis readily agrees. Later, Faustus tells his scholar friends that he is damned, and that his power came at the price of his soul. Concerned, the Scholars exit, leaving Faustus to meet his fate. As the hour approaches, Mephostophilis taunts Faustus. Faustus blames Mephostophilis for his damnation, and the devil proudly takes credit for it. The Good and Evil Angel arrive, and the Good Angel abandons Faustus. The gates of Hell open. The Evil Angel taunts Faustus, naming the horrible tortures seen there. The Clock strikes eleven. Faustus gives a final, frenzied monologue, regretting his choices. At midnight the devils enter. As Faustus begs God and the devil for mercy, the devils drag him away. Later, the Scholar friends find Faustus' body, torn to pieces.

Faustus cannot bear the reality. He does not wish to die. He becomes like a madman. There is a failure of Christianity at the end of the drama because Faustus fails to repent. He cries out but no one is ready to listen. His moral failure leads him towards the woe-begone condition. At the end Lucifer damns him forever. The ultimate lesson is that if we try to change our label from “Human being” into “God”, ultimate truth will be a punishment and that is terrible damnation.

      

           The end of the Faustus is really horrible as well as troublesome for him. Faustus doubts in god’s existence and that is a worst thing for me. Eternal damnation is a result of suspicion in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Faustus is a tragic common man.

Tragic Hero

          

Assignment: Paper No. - 04

Name: Patel kavita

Topic: Tragic Hero

Roll No. – 11

Semester: III

Batch: 2011- 12

Tragic Hero

‘Tragic Hero’ is a literary term and specially applied to tragedy. The term is used for Greek literature and especially it is associated with great three dramatists: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. Aristotle has broadly defined the term with special reference to Greek Tragedy. Let’s discuss, what is tragic Hero? What are the characteristic of Tragic Hero? How can we apply Tragic Hero to Greek Dramas?

 The term Tragic Hero is relevant to Modern Hero of   the drama. What types of circumstances do make the character Tragic? The Greek terms like Catharsis, Hamartia, Anagnorisis, Peripetiea, are deeply rooted in Tragic Hero.

  The action makes Hero Tragic. So, there should be a mistake or fault. Such a fault is always portrayed by action not by character. Without action there cannot be a Tragedy in the life of the character. Tragedy always happens, if the character has any evil, too much goodness, lack of taking good judgments, pride or over-confidence, etc. So, Tragic Hero should have certain good and evil qualities. He should have the amalgam of goodness and badness. Then and then, conflict takes place.

  Tragic Hero is always looked like serious, sad, conscious and hasty. Aristotle says about Hero of the Play that the Tragic Hero should be from Royal class, aristocratic family. There may be a reason behind it. Higher categorized Hero that tragedy always has strong effect if main character is from high pedestal then and then fall is taken place. The commonness in the character does not raise that much tragic effect as portrayed in “Death of a Salesman”.  There should be an awful end and it should raise two important emotions like pity and fear among the audience. In Aristotelian concept the Tragic Hero must fall from height of prosperity and glory. M.H. Abrams remarks:

                “…He is thoroughly good nor thoroughly

   Bad but a mixture of both; and also that

           This tragic effect will be stronger if the

              Hero is ‘better than we are.’ in the sense

      That he is of higher than ordinary moral worth.”

According to Aristotle, there should be four prime characteristics of Tragic Hero. He is good, must be appropriate to the character, a realistic and must be consistent. By good, Aristotle means that he should have a moral purpose. There should be appropriateness in his character.

Aristotle observes four attributes that are

                            i.            The hero must not purely a virtuous and true to life.

                       ii.      He should not be totally bad person. But there should not be 

          a combination of good qualities and bad qualities.

                       iii.            He is a rather good man that comes to bad end.

                       iv.             He should be a purely a virtuous and thoroughly bad.

   

      In ‘Hamlet’ the character speaks,

“To be or not be, that’s the question.’

Here, ‘to be’ is Hamlet’s morality while ‘not to be’ is his badness. Because he wanted to accomplish his goal of taking vengeance, to kill Claudius was moral task that was given by his father while not to kill is like a sin that Hamlet makes him free. 

‘The misfortune’ always is a remarkable phenomenon in the great vista of Greek drama. The people used to believe in destiny at that time so that they showed on the stage.

Now, we acquainted of characteristic tragic hero according to Aristotle that he must be of high rank and royal person. And what the king or prince of high rank makes a mistake and he is punished harshly, is dramatized.

There should be a sudden panic, dangers, sadness, solemnity, sensational incidents and at the end there is ultimate death.

There is one striking feature to be discussed is Aristotle believes that character are not important but actions are more important. In The Oedipus Rex, there is a sign of something suspicious that would have been taken place but it remains mystery. Gradually it is revealed and creates tragic emotion among the victimized character. For example in this play, Tierasias reveals the truth but does not directly discloses it speaks in round and round, see following dialogues,

“I pity you; for one day men will taunt you with

These very words!”

“The only person plotting against you is you yourselves.”

Such dialogues are very striking, commendable and highly serious. The dramatist has gradually creates tragic solution of murder of the king Laius.

Tragic hero of Greek drama is always moved from good to bad end because he is rather a good man. There is an undue pride in Oedipus when he announces certain orders. Even there is also great proud with humbleness in his dialogues,

“My people, you came to me to ask for help

You, if you listen to me, and do as I common you.”

In tragic drama there is an indication at the beginning of the story. It catches more effect of tragedy of the hero and at end it takes the figure of tragedy. The hero’s fault is now clarifies and because of his acceptance of his fault and punishment to himself leads towards the great affliction of life that is unbearable

Sometime, except his fault, other external things play a vital role. They are common people, his own relatives, messengers, chorus, etc. they are surrounded by him and make a serious impact on king’s tragedy.

There are for Greek terms which are deeply associated with tragedy and tragic hero. Hamartia, catharsis, Peripatiea and Anagnorisis are applied to tragedy. These whole terms work in the triangle figure of beginning, climax and end, see following figure

Beginning---Judgment---Hamartia---Climax--- Anagnorisis---

Falling---End

       Hamartia can be translated as a “tragic flow or error of judgment”. Even if the hero is purely virtuous man then we find the lack of fear or horror. But the hero is a mixture of both the qualities then somewhere he will make a blunder and this blunder may be because of his innocent or forgetting something. Aristotle asserts that three kinds of plot should be avoided.        

       i.            First, the plot in while a good person is going to misery from happiness since such events seem more odious than fearful or pitiable.

     ii.            Second, the plot in which a bad man going to misery from happiness because he does not arouses our pity and fear and appeals to none of our emotion.

  iii.            Third, in which a bad person going to misery from happiness, since it will also not arouse the feeling of pity and fear.

             The striking point to be discussed is that when tragic hero falls from his fortune becomes like a common man. Then and then we feel pity and fear toward him because we see ourselves in him and also feel that thank god we are not replaced by him and made a serious mistake of life. Otherwise we might have a serious as well as terrible end. This is called Hamartia or ‘hubris’.

Peripetiea and Anagnorisis are two essential features in the play. They are closely related to each other. Anagnorisis is a very indispensable device in all work of literature in which hero realizes what he is after all. The self-realization and discovery reveal of the fact are the closely meaning of Anagnorisis. When this device comes the hero cannot endure the reality. He feels sad and anguished. Same thing happens in Antigone or Oedipus.

Such an Anagnorisis comes at the climax and it is handled by chorus or other elderly experienced group of people or it may by one person or we can say that prophet are themselves an Anagnorisis that makes known to the king that Oedipus is a traitor of the state by mistake .so we can say that not circumstance but man himself is an Anagnorisis.

Peripatiea is a device or term that is outcome of Anagnorisis is most effective when it is connected with Peripatiea. M.H.Abrams puts that

“It is a reversal in his fortune from happiness to disaster.”

One can say that it is also the evils of circumstance that lead him from good to bad or bad to good. With Anagnorisis, it also occurs at the climax of the play. It is promoted by it (Anagnorisis). It is the turning point the action. It is a reversal fortune. Where does the hero become tragic?  The answer is that Peripatiea is stronger than the efforts of the hero. The tragic hero realizes that he is not good thoroughly but bad also.

To wrap up, the tragic hero is not really tragic but external conflict and misfortunes accuse him of being tragic. Destiny moulds his tragic character from happy to sad. So at end, can we say that tragic hero really a hero? Can we put it relevant to modern play? The difference behind ancient Greek dramas and modern dramas is that the ancient hero is at only one fault while the modern common hero is at so many mistakes. So these are the reversal qualities of tragic hero and various dramatic devices that are second side of him.