When I was first introduced to Segismund in Act I, my biggest question was regarding whether or not he really was the monster his father thought he was. Here we have a character who is very self-aware, he knows that he is a prisoner and furthermore knows that other people have freedoms and rights beyond what he has been allowed. In short, he is conscious of the fact that his situation is unusual and unfair. He speaks on and on about the liberty that even the basest animals have. One could argue that when a “good” man in this position is finally freed, he would try to cherish and make the most of his freedom rather than focus on the past. However, Segismund almost immediately appears to live up to all the fears the prophecy created, throwing a man out of a window within an hour of entering the court. Perhaps this means the prophecy was correct after all: he really is a monster. But perhaps not. Once returned to his prison, when Clotaldo asks why he was so cruel he answers, “I’d thought to rule with tyranny and match the evil I’d been done” (2.18.2132-33).
This reminded me again of when we discussed the similarities between this play and Oedipus Rex. Both seem to employ a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, wherein it is the king’s reaction to the prophecy (sending away Oedipus and imprisoning Segismund) that ends up bringing out about the feared result. Of course, Segismund does not ultimately kill his father but he does appear to be on that path when he is first released. The ending of the play leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions, but one in particular that I wonder about is what may have happened if Segismund was brought up in the court from birth. Could he possibly have become a perfectly noble prince right from the start?
I was left with the same question at the end. It seemed as if Segismundo’s reaction may have been more of a response to the imprisonment his father put upon him. It (kind of) would make sense that one would want to kill their own father having lived through animalistic treatment. In fact, you could argue that this animalistic treatment transformed Segismundo into an animal: he seeks to kill out the other dominant male for the right as an alpha and he is focused on primal needs like sex, which he tries to obtain by raping a woman. This would point to the father as the cause. Yet, the father would point to the prophecy. But was it really a reliable source? It may be that the father is cowardly or holds his power as too important.
By means of the ending the author seeks to tie up loose ends and transform Segismundo into a “good” man, suggesting that once segismundo gets past this animalistic behavior he is a better man– a better man who does not fulfill his fate. But how does he get past the animalistic ways? It’s not clear here.
Yeah. Now that I think about it, it’s interesting that, although the play frames Segismund’s initial brutality as a sort of revenge against Basil, he only really hurts people who have less power than he (when he’s not imprisoned) does. He verbally argues with and threatens Basil and Clotaldo, but he kills a servant and attempts to rape Rosaura. It sort of reminds me of the trope where a schoolyard bully picks on weaker kids because the bully’s parents are cruel or abusive. Segismund naturally has a lot of pent-up, justified anger over his treatment. He mostly directs it at people who didn’t cause his plight and who are less powerful than he is, though.
Your post calls into question the notion of nature versus nurture. As in, how much of Segismundo’s villainy is derived from his own innate baseness, or his destiny, and how much of it is derived from Basil’s negligence and failure to provide parental care? While the seedlings of a base evil might have been implanted within Segismundo from birth, it would be really hard to argue that even the most pure humans wouldn’t feel resentment and hatred towards having been imprisoned for the better part of their lives. While they are not pardonable in any way, I believe that his actions stem from years of pent up anger and captivity, as well as a total lack of any understanding of the way society operates. He’s been raised alone, in the absence of human interaction, bar from Clotaldo, and hasn’t been taught how to function without restraints. Segismundo is definitely the product of a pseudo self-fulfilled prophecy, in that much of his cruelty stems from Basil’s fear, and subsequent imprisonment, of his son.