This is our second lecture in the course Shakespeare theChristian. In this lecture, we continue the topic of ourfirst lecture and consider the third of the three objectionsto a Christian approach to Shakespeare. The firstobjection was that Shakespeare’s plays do not present aChristian ethic. The second was that Shakespeare’splays are not specifically religious. We offered briefanswers to both of these objections in our previouslecture. Now it is time to consider the third, andperhaps the most important objection, that Christianityand tragedy are incompatible.

I say that this may be the most important objectionbecause there is so much discussion of tragedy, going allthe way back to Plato and Aristotle. As a dramatic formtragedy has its own special attraction and its ownspecial riddles. The greatest riddle may be the very factthat we are attracted to tragedy. Why should we getpleasure from watching other people’s lives fall apart?What is it about tragedy that is entertaining? This is oneof the basic questions about tragedy that has to beconsidered.

But before we think about detailed questions, we haveto ask what exactly tragedy is. We have to ask thequestion, because much of the debate about tragedyconcerns the problem of definition. You will rememberthat we quoted the philosopher Karl Jaspers, who statedthat “no genuinely Christian tragedy can exist.” Jaspersis able to make such a dogmatic declaration because hehas a definition of tragedy which, in the nature of thecase, rules out the possibility of a Christian tragedy. Ofcourse, if he wants to define the word tragedy in thatway, he may. But there is nothing particularly profound

about defining Christianity out of the picture. When hegoes on to claim that his definition gives us true insightinto Shakespeare’s tragedies, I have to object. I think wecan show that Shakespeare’s tragedies are clearly anddistinctly Christian.

Others define tragedy in terms of ancient Greek notions.Fate or the gods play an important, if not decisive, role.Good men, we are told, even apart from anything theymay have done wrong are subject to forces thatsometimes make a mockery of human life. The story ofOedipus illustrates this ancient Greek perspective welland is often presented as the typical ancient Greektragedy.

What we have, then, are different definitions of tragedythat reflect different worldviews. If we consider thebasic questions that divide the various approaches totragedy, we will gain insight into the way worldviewand tragedy intersect and also see what kind of tragedyShakespeare wrote.

What, then, are the basic questions that divide thesevarious views of tragedy? Well, I think that we candiscuss most of the important issues by considering thefollowing four questions.

1.) Does tragedy require or exclude the notionof ethical cause and effect?2.) What is it that makes the tragedy tragic?3.) Must the tragedy be final? May there behints of a brighter future or resolution of somesort at the end of a tragedy?4.) Why do we enjoy tragedy?

So many philosophers have discussed the basicquestions concerning tragedy that we cannot hope to doanything like a historical survey, though we willmention the views of a few philosophers. Ourdiscussion will be brief and basically topical, but I trustit will help you think through these matters from aChristian perspective. What I would like to show is thatour answers to questions of this sort are simplyapplications of our worldview. I think that you will beable to see that men define tragedy according to the waythey view life as a whole. Keeping these questions inmind will allow us to consider how Shakespearepresented tragedy and consider whether his view wasChristian or not.

1. So, we turn to the first question, Does tragedy excludethe notion of ethical cause and effect? The questionitself may sound odd, so let me explain what it means.There are some people who insist that if a tragedycontains clear ethical cause and effect, it is no longer atragedy. It becomes a simple story of a person reapingwhat he sowed. It is a mere moralistic tale and, theysay, not very interesting.

Thus, some maintain that true tragedy must be like theancient story of Oedipus. The hero of the story is notwithout faults, but we cannot say that tragedy befellhim because of some moral failure on his part.

In the story of Oedipus, the king and queen of Thebes,Laius and Jacosta are shocked by the word of an oraclethat their new born son will grow up to kill his fatherand marry his mother. They attempt to prevent thishorror by killing the son, but the servant to whom theycommitted the job cannot carry it through. Though he

has been ordered to leave the child on a mountain todie, he gives him to a shepherd. It happens, however,that this shepherd belongs to the house of the childlessking of Corinth, Polybus. As it turns out, then, Oedipusdoes grow up as a Greek prince, but in the city ofCorinth rather than Thebes.

When he has grown to young manhood, he hears thatPolybus is not his real father. He doesn’t believe thesewords, but he visits the oracle at Delphi to find out thetruth about himself. Here he is told the same story thathis parents were told when he was born, that he wouldmurder his father and marry his mother. Like hisparents, he tries to prevent this awful outcome.Assuming that Polybus is his true father, Oedipusleaves Corinth and goes on a journey. Approaching thecity of Thebes he is encountered by an old man whoprovokes Oedipus into a fight. He kills the old man andgoes on toward the city of Thebes. Along the way hemeets the Sphinx, a monster with a woman’s head andthe body of a lion. The monster stands outside the cityand asks everyone who travels in or out a riddle, if thetraveler cannot solve, the Sphinx eats him. Oedipussolves the riddle and kills the Sphinx. This makes him ahero in the city of Thebes and he is rewarded with abride, the queen of Thebes who was now a widow.

However, because Oedipus, however unknowingly, haskilled his father and married his mother, the city isplagued with judgments. Everyone knows somethingmust be wrong, but no one knows why Thebes mustsuffer. In seeking the cause of Thebe’s miseries,Oedipus discovers the truth about himself. It is morethan his mother can bear. She commits suicide.

Oedipus puts his eyes out with her brooches and hashimself exiled to become a beggar.

It is certainly possible to find places where one mightcharge Oedipus with one fault or another. But the fact isthat for the most part he is a man who only sought to dohis duty. When he heard that he might be theperpetrator of a horrible crime, he immediately left allthe luxury and glory that belonged to the prince ofCorinth and went on a journey. The awful deeds thatbrought upon himself and others the curse of the gods,were accidents. He never intended to kill his father ormarry his mother.

The moral of the story seems to be that the world welive in is such a place that a basically good man, seekingto do nothing but his duty, may actually meet with themost outrageous tragedy. Of course, in ancient Greece,the story said something about the gods and man’sknowledge of the gods and their ways. They seem toplay with Oedipus and bring the most awful calamityupon him for no special reason. Is this the way theworld really is? Do we face suffering and pain justbecause capricious gods or fate order it to be so?

Obviously, from a Christian perspective the answer tothese questions is no. But for some people, the worldreally is the kind of place depicted in the ancient Greekstory of Oedipus. And if that is our view of the world,our definition of tragedy will correspond. Tragedywould be the kind of play that shows us what the worldis actually like, a place in which our goodness orbadness are irrelevant. In this view, we live in a worldin which good and bad luck are dispensed at random,whether by the gods, by fate, or by the stars. A tragedy

is a story about a relatively good person who wasstanding in the wrong line when luck was being passedout.

The philosopher Schopenhauer represents many whohold this view of tragedy. According to him, “Intragedy we are confronted with the terrible side of life,the misery of mankind, the dominion of accident anderror, the fall of the just man, the triumph of the wicked:thus the condition of the world that is downrightrepugnant to our will is brought before our eyes. At thissight, we feel called upon to turn our will away fromlife, not to want it and love it anymore.”

Again, “What lends to everything tragic, in whateverform it may appear, its peculiar impetus to elevation, isthe dawning realization that the world, that life cannotgrant any true satisfaction, and hence they do notdeserve our attachment: in this consists the tragic spirit:hence it leads to resignation.”

Note that for Schopenhauer, tragedy is necessarily astory that in which ethics cannot supply a key. Thelesson that he draws from tragedy, that we should giveup our attachment to life and the world depends uponthe fact that tragedy shows us that life in this worlddoes not make good ethical sense.

If this were a class on religion or philosophy, we mightpoint out that Schopenhauer was very much influencedby Buddhism and that his view of tragedy in particularis Buddhist. We also might ask whether this view of theworld and tragedy are satisfying? But the question weneed to consider here is, Does this view fit the plays ofWilliam Shakespeare? And the answer is clear. It does

not. For in Shakespearean tragedy, in every case, thetragic hero is clearly guilty of some sin or folly. In noplay of Shakespeare are we led to conclude that weshould give up our attachment to life. Though we mayfeel that a character in his play has suffered greatly andthat character’s suffering may provoke deep thoughtsabout suffering in our world, nothing in Shakespeare’splays calls forth the despair with life that Schopenhauerexpresses.

Consider just the four great tragedies. Macbeth gave into a sinful lust and brought destruction upon himselfand many others, including innocent women andchildren. Lear lost his temper and in a fit of anger spokerash words that brought ruin to his kingdom. Othellotook in the false testimony of his false friend and was sofilled with jealousy that he murdered his beloved wife.Hamlet discovered his uncle’s evil deeds anddetermined to take revenge, the worst sort of revenge.In every case, tragedy could have been prevented bydifferent moral choices. If the hero had been wiser, if hehad been more upright, he might have been saved fromthe tragedy that befell him.

In no case do Shakespeare’s plays teach us to hate lifeand this world. Nor is the Christian view “shallow,optimistic, Protestant-rationalistic” as Schopenhauercharged. Both Protestants and Catholics believe in aworld in which moral failure carries its own curse. Inthat sense the Christian view of tragedy may be calledrational, for there is an explanation. There is what maybe called moral cause and effect. But that does not makethe Christian view shallow -- a mere moralisticstatement that evil deeds will be punished -- nor does iterase the tragic dimension.

The view espoused by Schopenhauer seems toundermine one of the most important aspects of tragedy-- a point which goes back to Aristotle and one on whichwe can agree with him -- that is, our sympathy with thehero. There must be some sense in which we feelaffinity with the hero. We have to be able to relate tohim. In Schopenhauer’s view of tragedy, we view aplay in which good people suffer for no reason. Nowwe do know from our own life experience that sufferingmay come for apparently no reason. That is preciselythe sort of suffering which it is most difficult for us tounderstand or relate to. What we more commonlyexperience and what we can easily relate to is sufferingthat comes from a foolish or rash decision or sufferingthat comes from giving in to a sinful impulse. We cansympathize with Shakespeare’s tragic heroes becausethey live and move in the world of moral causes -- aChristian world in which one’s actions are moral andtherefore have consequences.

This leads us to our second question, what is it thatmakes tragedy tragic?

What we have said in answer to the first question is partof the answer to the second. The fact that a hero makesan ethical choice is essential to tragedy. But it is notsufficient. A story of a person who makes a rash orfoolish decision, or who gives in to temptation, or whofollows his own lust would not in itself constitute atragedy.

The moral decision is necessary for the tragedy to betruly tragic because the character who makes the tragicdecision or who does the tragic deed could have

decided or done otherwise. It is a tragedy because itdidn’t have to be. Things could have been different.One aspect of tragedy is the pain we feel when we seeKing Lear not only loose his temper and make a rashjudgment, but then become even more incensed whenKent offers him good counsel. Lear had a second chanceand he destroyed that also. We agonize as we watchand think, it could have been so very different.

Another aspect of this is the hero’s character. Theperson who makes the tragic decision cannot be a moralmonster. If the hero were utterly evil, we would not feelsympathy with him nor would we agonize over theconsequences. They could hardly have been different,and we are satisfied to see him get what is coming.

But there is more. What makes a moral decision oraction tragic is that the consequences turn out to be somuch larger than one might have expected. In the kindof simple moralism that Schopenhauer despised andaccused Christians of holding to, there is a rationalisticdistribution of poetic justice. But the notion of poeticjustice does not fit Shakespeare’s tragedies. Hamlet, forexample, makes a fateful and morally perverse decisionto seek the darkest revenge imaginable. He seeks notmerely the death of Claudius, but also his eternaldamnation. As a result, not only does Hamlet himselfdie along with his murderous uncle, which might havebeen a conclusion that we would call poetic justice, butin addition, Hamlet’s young love, Ophelia, her fatherPolonius and her brother Laertes also die, as well asHamlet’s mother. Two others, Hamlet’s friends, diealso, making the total of eight dead. These people donot all deserve to die by any common measure of justice.Their deaths are not so much caused by their own faults,

as by Hamlet’s. This is an important part of tragedy.The actions of a great man can cause harm that spreadswide. Innocent men and women may suffer for thedeeds and decisions of others, especially those inauthority.

We see, then, another important aspect of tragedy froma Christian perspective. In a tragedy, the calamity withwhich the play ends far surpasses the level of the hero’sfault. This means that we cannot simply reduce tragedyto the moral lesson that we reap what we sow. If wesow a peach seed, we may get a peach tree, but we don’texpect to return a few days later to find a wholeorchard. When the evil consequences of a rash or sinfulaction seem to vastly outweigh the cause, we facetragedy.

This is the reason that the hero of a tragedy is almostalways a man in high position. For his faults, even ifthey are strictly personal and not so great, still may havehuge consequences. We can imagine an average manwith relatively large faults who would not be alegitimate subject for a tragedy if he simply reaped whathe sowed, without bringing trouble on many otherpeople. A leader, however, is in a position to make amistake that has consequences which are nothing lessthan awesome.

A related consideration is that the consequences areirreversible. In other words, tragedy ends in death.When the problems caused by one’s sin and folly can besolved and the situation reversed, it is no longertragedy. Shakespeare’s tragedies, therefore, end withthe death of the hero and usually not a few others withhim. In Othello where the fault is personal and the

damage to others is relatively less in comparison withthe other great tragedies, five persons die, the hero, hisfaithful wife, Desdemona, his enemy, Iago, Iago’s wife,Emilia, and the bumbling Rodrigo. Five people diebecause of Othello, because he was foolishly jealous.

There is another aspect of tragedy, one which may seemto contradict what we have pointed out so far, but thecontradiction is only apparent. There is mystery intragedy. Moral explanation of a sort is necessary, but itis a fact that things happen in a tragedy that are notexplicable. Explanation, in other words, can never betotal. If we remind ourselves of Biblical stories, we seethis dimension rather clearly. Schopenhauer’s assertionthat Christians are bound by superficial notions ofpoetic justice is exposed as superficial slander. Think,for example, of the story of Cain and Able. Here is atragedy. But does Cain suffer for the murder of hisyounger brother? Yes, but it is slight compared to whatwe might expect. Moreover, he becomes the first citybuilder and apparently lives a long prosperous life.

Remember the prophecy of Habakkuk? He was deeplytroubled by what he saw God doing. It certainly did notfit his or anyone else’s sense of poetic justice. He sawthat the Babylonians were far worse, morally andreligiously than the kingdom of Judah, but he also knewthat God was going to use the evil to judge the relativelyless evil. It troubled him deeply, “wherefore lookestthou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thytongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is morerighteous than he?” (Hab. 1:13)

The Bible is not a book of poetic justice, often thingshappen that offend our sense of what is fair. We are not

given no explanation, but neither are we given the kindof full and satisfying explanation that we might wish.According to the Biblical worldview, we must face thefact that history is shrouded in mysteries that will onlyfind solutions in the final judgment, at the end of timewhen all things are brought to light. Until then, nothingis so fully explained that it really satisfies our sense ofpoetic justice. Shakespeare has been influenced by thisworldview enough that in his plays, there are reflectionsof it. Mystery remains and leaves its frustrating markon all of our explanations.

We have both the ethical logic of Christianity, plus themysterious working of a God whose ways are not ourways. In all of Shakespeare’s tragedies, providenceinterferes in wonderful ways to complicate matters, tofrustrate the plans of sinful men, and, ultimately, toshow us, as Hamlet said, “There's a divinity that shapesour ends, Rough-hew them how we will.”

We can summarize, then, and say that what makestragedy to be tragedy in Shakespeare is that 1) there is aethical causality; 2) things could have been different; 3)the hero is a basically decent man; 4) the consequencesof the choice overturn the scales of poetic justice; 5) thetragedy is irreversible because it ends in death; 6) thereis that which cannot be explained. Tragedy confronts uswith the mystery of life and reminds us that God has aplan that transcends our understanding.

But the philosopher Karl Jaspers will not be satisfiedwith this kind of explanation. And that leads to ourthird question, Must the tragedy be final. May there behints of a brighter future, or a resolution of some sort atthe end of a tragedy? From the Christian perspective

the answer to these questions is clear. Tragedy is notfinal in so far as its consequences are limited to this life.Hints of a brighter future and resolution at the end of atragedy do not undermine tragedy as tragedy. On thecontrary, they should be seen as essential.

But again we are confronted with a difference inworldviews and definitions.

Jaspers insisted that Christians do not understandtragedy and that to be genuine, the tragedy must befinal. In Jasper’s words, “there is no way outwhatsoever.” Now, as far as this life is concerned deathis irreversible, but for Christians there is another worldto come. That is a problem for Jaspers. To him, tragedyis undermined and rendered void by the idea of futureworld in which the awful consequences of this worldcan be reversed, a world in which the problems causedby the tragedies of this life may be solved. For Jaspers,Christianity and tragedy are mutually exclusive.

But this view is shallow and dogmatic. And that it doesnot apply to Shakespeare, in spite of Jasper’s assertionsto the contrary, should be obvious. Think about it.Jaspers and others who deny that Christians can trulyunderstand tragedy know very well that whileChristians do not believe that death is a final end, theyalso believe that death can be eternal. The idea of aneverlasting hell means that tragedy may be real beyondour ability to imagine.

We need to keep the idea of hell in mind when we seethat Shakespeare’s great tragedies end at least withjudgment of evil — and even with hope. This is true ineach of the four major tragedies. Macbeth is killed and a

new king is crowned. King Lear dies but Edgar andAlbany live to rebuild the land. Hamlet seeks revengeand dies with the king, his uncle, but Fortinbras, theprince who forsook revenge, inherits the land. Othellocommits suicide after murdering his faithful wife, butCassio did not die which means that Iago does not gaina complete victory. Of course, Iago himself faces theseverest earthly judgment. Already it is clear thatJaspers’ view does not work, for in every case, there isresolution and an element of hope at the end.

Furthermore, and even more significant, in none ofthese examples would the audience assume that thejudgment of death was either final or most important.Nor do the characters in the play. For Othello, forexample, death is not the end, it is the beginning of aneternity in which, as he says, he will be roasted in sulfurand washed in liquid fire. Hell and only hell is tragedywith no way out. If we take that into account, we mayfairly say that it is not the Christian but the modern anti-Christian who denies tragedy because they deny thathuman action is fraught with the weight of eternalconsequences.

But we need to add more. From the Christianperspective the life of the world to come does not renderlife in this world irrelevant or somehow unimportant.After all, the choice for eternal life or death is somethingthat we can only do in this life. And there is also adegree of eternal blessing or curse that is based uponwhat we have done in this life. Compared to the non-Christian views of men like Jaspers, the Bible treats ourlife in this world as profoundly significant preciselybecause the consequences do not end at death, butextend into eternity.

Nor do the facts of the future life and the comfort itoffers to those who suffer imply that the suffering of thislife is somehow less than the real thing. Jesus sufferingon the cross is sometimes referred to in this context, butJesus suffering on the cross is never treated as a lightthing or as insignificant simply because he was raisedfrom the dead three days later. On the other hand, Jesussuffering is not a tragedy for Him or from Hisperspective because it was brought on by Hisrighteousness, not through folly or sin. And he gaveHimself willingly. Thus, Jesus told the daughters ofJerusalem to weep for themselves and their children.His death was a tragedy for them, for they killed theirown Messiah and lost the promised blessing of thekingdom.

It is evident that the sufferings that Christians endure inthis life are treated in the Bible as most real andmeaningful, because they are part of God’s eternal planand because they are related to eternity. One of themost tender expressions of this is the Biblical promise inthe book of Revelation: “They shall hunger no more,neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light onthem, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midstof the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them untoliving fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away alltears from their eyes.” (Rev. 7:16-17).

If the Bible teaches that God Himself takes our sufferingseriously, how can we say that future hope means thatin Christianity there can be no true tragedy?

So, returning again to Shakespeare, Desdemona,Othello’s faithful wife, was murdered and went to

heaven, as her servant Emilia said. But does anyonewatching the play feel that the fact that she is going tobe with Christ somehow makes her death less tragic.She was murdered by a man that she loved and towhom she was perfectly devoted. She died at the handof her beloved with the word whore ringing in her ears.Is this tragedy? Yes. And the fact that she will shortlybe in heaven does not render the tragedy void. OnlyGod can wipe away her tears.

This brings us to our fourth question. Why do we enjoytragedy? Why should anyone enjoy watching a play inwhich human suffering is acted out right in front of us?What is it that we enjoy about seeing these people sufferexquisite anguish?

The Scottish philosopher David Hume offered aninteresting answer.

To begin with Hume denies that pain and pleasure aretrue opposites. It is an interesting point. Tickling, forexample, is pleasant, but pushed too far, it becomespainful. In the same way, sorrow, in a small enoughdose, is actually pleasurable rather than painful. Whenwe view a tragedy, we are not experiencing thesuffering of the hero, we are just viewing. The realevents are far enough away and they evoke so little painthat our watching a tragedy on stage provokes onlyslight anguish, just enough to be pleasurable.

If we were too close to the events, we could not enjoythem. If we were part of the history in which thetragedy occurred, we would not have enjoyed it while itwas happening and we would probably not be able toenjoy seeing it on stage either. It would be too close for

comfort. But when we view a play about somethingthat happened a long time ago, far away from us, wecan enjoy the slight sorrow it brings. Besides, we knowthat it is a mere imitation of tragic events and imitationitself has a certain kind of attraction, especially if it iswell done. Add to this the fact that the actors make finespeeches that appeal to our aesthetic sense. Thebeautiful oratory, even of a suffering man, can move usprofoundly.

Now what Hume has to say is true as far as it goes, butit doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t really focus in ontragedy per se. We watch dramatic reenactments of war,we see action movies, suspense thrillers, and so on.Most of us would prefer never to be in the kind ofcircumstances that these movies depict. War, murder,and extreme suspense are never enjoyable in real life, atleast not for most people. Hume’s principle applies toall of these. But that means that it explains tragedy onlyin so far as tragedy is just another one of those thingsthat is better seen than suffered.

We need to add that not everyone likes tragedy. This isespecially clear in our day when people can choosebetween so many types of plays and movies. Peoplehave much more to choose from in the way ofentertainment than they did in Shakespeare’s day. Wedon’t have to watch tragedy and allow ourselves to beconfronted with the kinds of deep questions it poses.Other options like thrillers or action moves provide thepleasure of limited tension without being serious anddemanding. With modern movies, we don’t have to beconfronted with life’s painful questions. We are nothaunted by the hard reality of irreversible moralchoices. Even when it is just on stage or in a movie,

tragedy has a depth that is difficult for many to bear. Ithink that we have to say that many people can enjoymystery, suspense, or almost any other genre (exceptpossibly horror) more easily than they can tragedy andthere are no doubt some people who would avoidtragedy altogether.

Hume’s answer, then, is too general, at best. It seems toapply better to genres other than tragedy. We have toask, is tragedy really a matter of a little pain bringingpleasure? Does Hume’s explanation really apply well?We need to consider again, what tragedy is, in particularwhat Shakespearean tragedy is, in order to understandwhy we enjoy it.

Here our Christian perspective sheds the light we needto see the issue clearly. Shakespeare’s tragedies arestories of the fall. The first tragedy in the world is thestory of the fall of Adam and Eve. Though the Bibletells it succinctly and it might be difficult to turn itdirectly into a Shakespearean play, the story of Adamand Eve is the paradigmatic tragedy upon whichShakespearean tragedy as a whole is based. The mostobvious example of Shakespeare retelling the story ofAdam and Eve is, of course, the tragedy of Macbeth.Witches, the instruments of the devil, tempt a husbandand wife to sin in order to become king and queen, tobecome like gods. As we shall see later, Shakespearequite self-consciously uses details from the Biblical storyto make sure that we notice the obvious parallel.

This means that tragedy offers us meditation on real life,that it can truly depict a world that has fallen into sin.And this is a world that we know by experience.

It is possible, therefore, for us to sympathize. We canidentify with the events and characters inShakespearean tragedy because we, too, know tragedy.Our tragedy is usually on a small scale, but that doesnot make it less real to us. Even though our tragediesmay be small in comparison with Macbeth, the sameprinciples apply. We know people, for example, whohave had to confront consequences that seemed tooutweigh the fault so far that it was overwhelming. Tospeak concretely, it is a fault in a man to drive his carbeyond the speed limit. And for the most part we canall agree that it should be punished, at least some of thetime. But that relatively small fault has often broughtabout staggering consequences. That a little extra speedgoing around a corner might bring about the death of ayoung man seems incongruous, but it is a sort oftragedy that we all know about. In addition to thepersonal loss of a friend, we feel devastated when wesee the lost potential and think about the fact that just alittle more care would have saved his life. Things couldhave been so different.

Because tragedy is so real, we can identify with it deeplyand sympathize with the characters in the play.

But this means that for Christians tragedy is edifying.For many non-Christians edification is the very lastword that they would associate with tragedy, but thatonly illustrates again that one’s world view and one’sview of tragedy are intertwined.

Solomon was not talking of the theater when he wrote,“The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; butthe heart of fools is in the house of mirth.” Ecc. 7:4. Butthe principle applies. The house of mourning is a place

where we meditate on life, where we are forced to facethe fact that we, too, will die. We ask ourselves hardquestions about who we are and why we are living.This is what tragedy does for us and some people,though not all, are wise enough to appreciate thechallenge that tragedy presents. It is not, however, auniversally appealing genre.

Tragedy edifies also by warning us to flee from sin anderror and to seek wisdom. All of Shakespeare’stragedies, as we have said, result from the folly or sin ofthe hero. When we see these men fail and consider thehorrific consequences of their failure, we are warned totake our sins seriously. We are encouraged to bepatient, to be humble. A wise and mature manappreciates a warning. When it comes through a playthat is also aesthetically appealing, the warning is evenenjoyable. It is edifying in a way similar to a sermon.

Tragedy also edifies by reminding us that we are notalone in our suffering. Paul told the Corinthians thatthe temptations which they face are common to men. Asimilar point may be made about tragedy. When we seethat others suffer, our own sufferings are mitigated.Tragedy reminds us of the human condition, of the factthat Adam’s fall is repeated again and again in history,of the fact that all men suffer. We are reminded to weepwith those who weep. More fundamentally, we are alsoreminded that God takes our suffering seriously andthat we can cast ourselves upon Him, for He cares forus.

I trust that you can see that rather than tragedy being agenre that Christians cannot appreciate or understand,tragedy is a genre than Christians should be able to

appreciate more than non-Christians. Nothing abouttragedy is necessarily contrary to Christian faith. AndShakespearean tragedy in particular should be seen asan expression of Christian faith. For Shakespeare’stragedies are stories of the fall of man. They are allbased upon the truth that we live in a world of moralcausality, a world in which our sins and foolishnesshave consequences. But this is also a mysterious world,a world that transcends our understanding because itmoves according to the plan of God. It is a world inwhich each one of us has committed sins. We have allbeen foolish. We have all experienced tragedy of onesort or another.

Hume’s explanation is too shallow, though it is notentirely irrelevant. Where he errs is in seeing it in termsof pleasure and pain, rather than in terms of edification.Schopenauer and Jaspers, too, err in a similar way.Though Schopenauer might see the lesson he drawsfrom tragedy as edification of a certain sort. Butdespairing of life in this world and concluding thatthere is nothing here that really means anything is notthe edification Shakespeare intended. Christians wouldnot consider Schopenauer’s message edifying.

Jaspers insists that tragedy must be final because in hisworldview, life is ultimately absurd. For him, nothingpoints to that fact more clearly than tragedy -- but only acertain kind of tragedy. In spite of what Jaspers himselfthinks, Shakespeare’s tragedies end in resolution and,thus, offer hope; the tragedies express Shakespeare’sfaith that good triumphs over evil.

Now all of this means that Christianity offers what wemight call a theology of tragedy. To begin with, the fall

of Adam into sin is the first and greatest tragedy ofhuman history. It is the greatest tragedy in the sensethat every other tragedy in human history is groundedin Adam’s sin. Because of his sin, we are all born intothe world sinners. Because of his sin, the wholecreation, as Paul says in Romans 8:20, has beensubjected to vanity. What does that mean? Well,among other things, that so-called natural catastropheslike floods and earthquakes are not really “natural.”They express the perversion of the created order thatresulted from man’s rebellion against God.

Man-made catastrophes express this even more clearly.The oppressive tyrant in a home or at the head of thekingdom brings suffering to those under his rule. Warravages the earth and all in its way. Revolutionspromise freedom, but usually offer more of the samemisery. We see men in bondage everywhere.

If Adam had not sinned none of this would be.

If the suffering and misery of the world were the wholestory, we might follow Schopenhauer’s views. Thetragedies of real history would tell us that human life ismeaningless and teach us to give up our attachment tothis world.

But according to the Bible, suffering and misery are notthe whole story. There is redemption. From the verybeginning when Adam sinned, God gave him thepromise of salvation to come when He spoke the curseagainst the serpent: “I will put enmity between theeand the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: heshall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”Note that the seed of the woman who will save the

world must also suffer. Though I don’t believe thatChrist’s suffering can be called tragedy for the reasonsthat I specified before, the fact that salvation can onlycome through suffering is part of the theology oftragedy. In a fallen world, in a world of suffering, thereare no simple solutions. The problems of sin cannot besolved by comic means. It takes death to remove death.

We conclude our discussion of Christianity and tragedy,then, not merely by denying the assertion thatChristianity is incompatible with tragedy, but byaffirming that only Christianity offers a worldview inwhich tragedy makes sense and tragedy as a literarygenre is edifying.

Only one more point about Shakespeare's tragediesneed to be added. That is that they are not merelyphilosophy or theology acted out in story form. Hegelput it well when he contrasted Shakespeare to the playsof the French and Italians, who imitated the ancientGreeks.

The first distinction that strikes usimmediately is that between abstract andtherefore formal characterizations on the onehand, and individuals who confront us asconcrete and living human beings, on theother.

Hegel went on to explain that the French and Italiansimitated the ancient Greeks and wrote drama thatamounted to “mere personifications of certain passionsfor love, honor, fame, domination, tyranny, etc.” ButShakespeare, he says, depicts “full individuals.” And hedoes it so well that, according to Hegel, “he excels all

others and is almost beyond reach.” Shakespeare’scharacters express themselves in a manner that is“individual, real, directly alive, supremely manifold,and yet, when it seems necessary, of such sublimity andstriking power of expression, of such fervor andinventiveness in images and metaphors produced onthe spur of the moment, of such rhetoric, bred not inschools but by true feeling and the consistency ofcharacter . . . that one will not easily find anothermodern dramatist who could be placed beside him.”

The point that Hegel makes is important. Shakespeare’splays seem to confront us with real people, charactersthat come across as having real personalities. Thinkabout what this means. If we felt that the characterswere unreal or simply the embodiment of some idea, wecould not get involved with them or the story. Theywould come across as mere symbols of something elseand the dramatic power of their words would be lost.

The genius of Shakespeare is that his plays docommunicate ideas and contain symbolism andallusions to other stories, but they also functiondramatically at the level of a story with characters soreal that we see them and their stories as unique.

Let me just suggest that perhaps the “full individuality”of Shakespeare’s characters comes from his borrowingso much from the Bible rather than merely imitating theancient Greeks.

That brings us to the topic of our next lecture --Shakespeare and his use of the Bible -- and to the end ofthis lecture. Thank you for listening.