Modern Tragedy by Raymond Williams

8/17/2019 Modern Tragedy by Raymond Williams

1/20


2/20

2

e%ample, were not arcane, and amalgamating the 4we5 who went to their plays or

listened to $illiams’ lectures in ambridge with the 4we5 who had been described

appreciatively in 8order ountry. owever deep $illiams’ desire was to mae 4critical

discrimination5 relevant to the people among whom he had grown up, moreover, it

neglected the consideration that critical discrimination was in fact a minority activity which spoe meaningfully only to those who had already heard eavis’ voice.

*n )rama from *bsen to +liot 91:;!< $illiams had criticized the +nglish theater as a

manifestation of literary decline and for failing to achieve either 4the communication5

of an 4e%perience5 and a 4radical reading of life,5 or that 4total performance5 which

reflected 4changes in the structure of feeling as a whole.5 *n Modern Tragedy the

central contentions were that 4liberal5 tragedy, while being liberal because it

emphasized the 4surpassing individual,5 and tragic because it recorded his defeat by society or the universe, reflected the inability of the money6oriented privacy of the

bourgeois ethic to provide a 4positive5 conception of society. *t was the 4individual

fight against the lie5 embodied in 4false relationships, a false society and a false

conception of man5 that *bsen had made central, but it was the liberal martyrs’

discovery of the lie in themselves and their failure to relate themselves to a 4social5

consciousness that heralded the 4breadown of liberalism5 and the need to replace its

belief in the primacy of 4individualist5 desire and aspiration by a socialist perception of

the primacy of 4common5 desire and aspiration.

$illiams wished to give tragic theory a social function. e pointed out that 4significant

suffering5 was not confined to persons of 4ran,5 and that personal belief, faults in the

soul, 4=od,5 4death,5 and the 4individual will5 had been central to the tragic e%perience

of the present. *t was the 4human agency5 and 4ethical control5 manifested in

revolution and the 4deep social crisis through which we had all been living5 that were

the proper sub&ects of 4modern5 tragedy, and it was human agency and ethical control

that tragic theory needed to accommodate.

The first point that had to be e%plained was the 8urean point that revolution caused

suffering. The second point was the anti68urean point that revolution was not the

only cause of suffering, that suffering was 4in the whole action5 of which 4revolution5

was only 4the crisis,5 and that it was suffering as an aspect of the 4wholeness5 of the

action that needed to be considered. /nd this, of course, disclosed the real agenda in

Modern Tragedy2the use of tragic te%ts to formulate a socialist theory of tragedy in

which revolution would receive a literary &ustification and society would become moreimportant than the individual.


3/20

3

*n all this $illiams was moving out from the defensiveness of ulture and -ociety and

maing a central feature of the argument that, when the revolutionary process was

complete, 4revolution5 would become 4epic,5 suffering would be 4&ustified,5 and pre6

revolutionary institutions, so far from being the 4settled > innocent order5 that they

had claimed to be, would be seen to have been rooted in 4violence and disorder.5 This was the route by which tragedy and tragic theory could remove cynicism and despair,

could give revolution the 4tragic5 perspective that Mar% had given it, and could show

what tragedy had hitherto failed to show, that 4degeneration, brutalization, fear, hatred

and envy5 were endemic in e%isting society’s 4tragic5 failure to 4incorporate > all its

people as whole human beings.5 *t was also the route by which tragedy and tragic

theory could incorporate the fact that further 4degeneration, brutalization, fear, hatred

and envy5 would be integral to the 4whole action52not &ust to the 4crisis5 and the

revolutionary energy released by it or the 4new inds of alienation5 which therevolution against alienation would have to 4overcome > if it was to remain

revolutionary,5 but also, and supremely, to the connection between 4terror5 and

4liberation.5

$illiams’ rhetoric was ruthless, and yet in retrospect loos faintly silly. ?or were the

tass that he attributed to tragic theory plausible. *t remains true, nevertheless, that

Modern Tragedy, while reiterating the formal denial that revolution was to be

identified with the violent capture of power and identifying it rather as a 4change > inthe deepest structure of relationships and feelings,5 implied, more than any other of

$illiams’ wors, a circuitous but indubitably evil attempt to encourage the young to

thin of violence as morally reputable.

*n evaluating $illiams, one wishes to be &ust. e should not be dismissed merely

because his followers have helped to eep their party out of office, since many of them,

and perhaps he also, regarded party politics as merely a convenient way of inserting

their moral messages into the public mind. ie the theorists of the student revolutionof the -i%ties, $illiams was 4against liberalism,5 but those who are against liberalism

for conservative reasons do not need his sort of support. They should not be misled by

the 4organicism5 of ulture and -ociety, which ignored the moral solidarity of

twentieth6century +nglish society and used the language of solidarity in order to

subvert such solidarity as monarchy and two world wars had created by denying that it

e%isted.

The most general fault in critical wors is not avoided by even $illiams. Most of thecritical boos are written with and on the general assumption of some creative wor by

others. To write or give views on others is certainly not ob&ectionable. $hat seems


4/20

4

ob&ectionable is the way of giving views or opinions without #uoting the original

creative wor.

$hat most of the critics do is very non6critical in a sense. They give first their own

understanding of the wor and then their views or opinions against or for this said

wor. $hat they do in this way is the critical analysis of their own understanding. *t

seems having nothing to do with the understanding of the writer’s wor or others’

views about it. $hile going through a boo of criticism one should eep in mind the

original wor the criticism is about.

*n Modern Tragedy, the central contentions were that ‘liberal tragedy’, while being

liberal because it emphasized the ‘surpassing individual’ and tragic because it recorded

the defeat by society or the universe, reflected the inability of the money6oriented

privacy of the bourgeois ethic to provided a ‘positive’ conception of society. $illiam

wished to give tragic theory a social function. e pointed out that ‘significant suffering’

was not confined to the persons of ‘ran’ and that personal belief, faults in the soul,

‘=od’, ‘)eath’ and ‘*ndividual $ill’ had been central to the tragic e%perience of the

present. *t was the ‘human agency’ and ‘ethical control’ manifested in revolution and

the ‘deep social crises through which we had all been living’ that were the proper

sub&ects of modern tragedy and it was human agency and ethical control that tragic

theory needed to accommodate.

$illiams criticized the +nglish theater as a manifestation of literary decline and for

failing to achieve either the ‘communication’ of an ‘e%perience’ and ‘a radical reading of

life’ or that of ‘total performance’ which reflected ‘changes in the structure of feeling as

a whole’

The first chapter of Modern Tragedy by 0aymond $illiams seems dealing with the

word tragedy in its historically theoretical and social bacground. These are the topics

0aymond $illiams is going to discuss in this boo.

The boo is directly concerned with the social aspects of the above topics. *n other

words the boo is concerned with the ways these topics are derived from the

surrounding life in.

8y his own sense of tragedy he means the sense of tragedy he had got through reading

boos on tragedy or tragedies in general. The e%amples he offers from surrounding

society are in fact the conditions or circumstances that lead to some tragic action. Thisapproach to see ife as a tragedy in general shall be discussed in the later part of the


5/20

5

boo. The above sentence seems rather ironical. The words ‘trained’, ‘impatient’,

‘contemptuous’, ‘loose’ and ‘vulgar’ are enough to convey the underlying tone of this

sentence. The writing of word tragedy in inverted commas is itself significant of this

ironic tone. 0aymond $illiams has used this way of e%pression to give us the

&ustification for writing his views in this boo. The Modern Tragedy in this way isintended to e%plain us the history of word tragedy @ both in perspective of theoretical

tradition and social e%perience.

$hat he wants to say is the relative suitability of modern tragic e%perience to

theoretical and e%planatory definitions of tragedy since twenty6five centuries. *n this

brief paragraph $illiams has denied most of the theories we r going to meet in the

discussion of this word Tragedy. $hat he means to say is not said however here and is

left to the following chapters. Aarticular ind of event and response that is genuinely tragic is and that the long tradition of this word embodies is left une%plained. To

confuse this tradition with other inds of event and response is merely ignorant. $hat

he means to say here is the difference in tragic and common e%perience. /ll painfully

and pathetically charged events and happenings can not be tragic in nature. *n

$illiams’ views the problem does not lye in calling some wor of literature a tragedy

and the other not. The real problem lies in defining what e%perience in life we should

call tragic and what not @ what suffering or event can be called tragic and what not.

The naming of certain dramas as tragedy and certain as other than tragedy is easierthan naming certain e%periences and events as tragic and others as non6tragic.

These inds of sentences in a critical wor leave their peculiar atmosphere. Though

they seem rather an outcome of intellectual gymnastic, they give an impression of

living social mind behind all star theoretical discussions.

Bust to prepare us for detailed discussion, $illiams ass for a while what we can say a

parenthetic #uestion. Though it has nothing to do with what he is going to say, the

#uestion shaes our mind for the time being and maes us thin it over a bit more

carefully. $e can tae it as another #uality of $illiams rhetoric. e does not write in

the form of a solilo#uy @ that he is taling to himself. 0ather he writes as if he is

engaged in a ind of dialogue with his reader. $hat his reader may desire to as is

ased mostly by $illiams himself.

Cn the other hand the word tradition is very important to be considered here. The

tradition means the tradition or continuity of tragedy as a form of literature. *t also

means the continuity of different theories pertaining to the peculiar nature of tragedy

and its influence on audience @ as well as their response to that influence. $hat


6/20


7/20

7

human beings. 0ather human beings are sub&ect to certain culture and language. ?ow

with the progress of time the culture of the whole world shall undergo considerable

changes. /s all the human beings r using same type of things the culture of the world

shall no more be varying from country to country, but be same every where.

$hat $illiams has said is important not in the conte%t of tragedy as form or tragedy as

e%perience, but culture and its transformation to present and modern. $hy do we tae

something from past and leave the other is the #uestion that can be understood in the

conte%t of present and modern only.

The culture is a living thing. *t never remains stagnant or still. *t grows and wears out

with time. $hat comes to present through past is a ind of genetic transformation. /s

the population never remains same, the culture never stays still.

$illiams has taen enough advantage of this style. *t helps him tae time to put

forward the ne%t point. *t also maes his reader to get prepared for something new.

/nd it also eeps a ind of suspense @ without which a boo of criticism may feel drier.

$hat he means by contemporary deadloc is perhaps the insensitivity of the people of

twentieth century towards this form of literature. e may also a mean a particular set

of feelings the modern people are unable to stand for.

The =ree tragedy remains untransferable throughout ages. $hat we now have as

tragedy is not =ree in its treatment and nature. $illiams’ emphasis on tragedy as

mature form in a mature culture is noteworthy. *t seems a ind of pun on the tragedies

written afterwards. They were as immature in form as the cultures they were written

in. The word ‘systematise’ should be understood in the sense of ‘harmonise’. The

written tragedy and e%perienced tragedy are not harmonised in any sense. The

tragedies written in the modern times are different from those written by =rees. The

very nature and content of these tragedies resist them to come under any systematisation. The failure in systematising these tragedies to the contemporary life is

for unsystematised issues of Eate, ?ecessity and =ods. 8y the way they were not

systematised even by =rees. $hat we are going to understand and apply through

theories and philosophies was a ind of belief, practice and feeling for them. $hat we

can not adopt was their daily posture.

$illiams tries to give us reasons for our inability to understand the concept of =ree

tragedians. $e cannot e%perience that concept if we are not living in that set of beliefsand feelings.


8/20

8

?ecessity means determinism. $hat we do we do not do with our free will. 0ather we

are designed to do it. $e cannot understand =ree tragedy if we have no concept of

?ecessity.

$illiams gives his cultural concept of literary form. /s it is impossible to import a

whole culture so it is impossible to import a whole literary form. / literary form is

mostly inspired by the particular set of feelings the people are living with or in.

aving abstracted the concept of ?ecessity the modern system of feelings has reduced

the tragic hero to a suffering individual. $e cannot see this individual but in isolation.

e is isolated from his surrounding social norms. The chorus in this sense plays the

role of a unifying factor. e is e%ternal as well as internal. The presence of chorus in

=ree tragedy maes it a collective e%perience. *t no more remains individual in any

sense. The form was not given any importance. *t was considered that a tragedy could

be written lie other things. -econdly the mediaeval structure of beliefs and feelings

was not suitable for any tragedy. -o the two most important elements of =ree tragedy

were unavailable in Mediaeval /ge.

*t is commonly said that +lizabethans ac#uired their beliefs and feelings from

mediaeval world. *f the Mediaeval world was unable to produce any tragedy how could

the +lizabethans do soF *n $illiams views the Mediaeval people did not have any

concept of tragedy. Their concept of tragedy was not real in any sense. $e can say that

in Mediaeval world there were no chances of real tragic e%perience. $hat they called

tragedy was purely a =ree ideal in its apparent form. They could not have imported

any concept as a tradition. Their feelings were unable to e%perience the true tragedy.

$hat they called tragedy was non6e%istent in their society or social structure. $hat

$illiams gives us as =ree view of Tragedy is in fact based on the understanding of his

own view of =ree Tragedy. /s we are not provided with the views of =ree critics in

their original te%t and conte%t, and that too without any translation, we cannot trust on

$illiams understanding of their views and then elaboration with his own.

* would have considered $illiams words true to his own understanding if he had given

us what he had understood once and for all. * feel it greatly inconvenient to come

across a new understanding of =ree views every now and again. $hat we have gone

through as $illiams understanding of =ree views in the previous chapters is #uite

different from the one we meet in these chapters or shall come to now in the following

ones. +ither it is $illiams techni#ue or the pattern for boo, it seems and feels

manipulated. *f * am true * can say that $illiams is a ind of critic who distorts and

deshapes the facts to mae them loo suitable for the propagation of his certain views.


9/20

9

*f not possible in any other way he should have written the views of other critics with

words in the beginning of sentences as ‘* thin /ristotle means to say that @ ’ or ‘*f

/ristotle says that @ ’ etc.

$illiams socialist or leftist bent of mind is not difficult to detect in the boo. is ideas

about sin, morality and religion are always derogatory and ironical in tune. -o we can

say and feel that his purpose of writing this boo was not analyse the change in the use

of word tragedy in its literal and social sense( but to give air to his political or anti6

political views. The underlying idea in Modern Tragedy should not be overlooed in

any sense. $hat * thin necessary for ideal criticism is therefore unfound in $illiams.

/ critic should give his unbiased views without distorting and deshaping the original

views of writers or other critics. e should not try to challenge the general

understanding of common people even. *f he has any such purpose in mind he shouldnot name his wor as criticism then. The category or nature of his wor shall fall it in

some other form of literature ultimately. $hat $illiams means by all this rhetoric way

of convincing is nothing more providing solid grounds for the acceptability of his own

views. *t is we can say a ind of rational convincing @ though lie all convincing

pre&udiced and biased. $hat we need to do is to put side by side the views given in the

previous pages and present ones. $hat growth he wants to point out in the idea of

tragedy seems fae and personal in some respects.

Cn my part * feel that the word tragedy has undergone no changes at any level. *n what

sense =rees used this word for a form of literature and e%perience is still the most

prevailing of all senses. The differences we feel in the use of this word are not because

of its transformation from one society to another 9or from one age to another


10/20

10

in the times of /ristotle even. The change in the meanings of a word is not the matter

of society or time. *t is the matter of duration a language is spoen in some society. The

societies do not e%tinct before languages. These are the languages that e%tinct before

societies. The falls of civilizations and societies are never tried to be read as falls of

languages. Though actually they are the falls of languages. The society cannot die before its language. *t is the language that has to die first. /nd the possibility of no

other meanings of words is the death of a language.

/nother important thing we should eep in mind while going through not only the

Modern Tragedy but all other wors of the same genre, is the usage of a person’s views

as representative of the whole society. The sense =ree intellectuals and people of

imagination used this word tragedy was not the one and only sense for this word even

in their own time. The religious and political minded people must have their own senseof tragedy. /s nowledge up to the last century was based wholly on imaginative mind

the meanings conveyed to boos and written traditions should not be considered final

in any sense.

9The world up to nineteenth century was running on imaginative and religious mind.

?ow it is running, and will go on running for the coming four or five millenniums, on

political and imaginative mind. /s all the things in the previous millenniums were

considered in the light of imaginative and religious mind, they shall be considered inthe light of imaginative and political mind in the coming millenniums.<

$hat seems new to $illiams is #uite old for me. The very meaning of catharsis

involves in it a ind of pleasure. atharsis without pleasure is impossible. -o what

other critics said about tragedy was mostly a repeated version of what /ristotle had

said already. Cn my part * don’t feel any growth in the concept and practice of tragedy.

There is indeed a ind of change @ but that too is #uite apparent one. Tragedy as form

and e%perience is still the same in its very concept. *t is as same and different as

weeping and laughing are same and different from the people of past. *f in modern

tragedy the hero is a owman and in =ree a ing. The writer has to present this

owman in the grandeur of a ing. *t was not the wealth and prosperity that mattered

in Cedipus but the grandeur of Cedipus. $illy owman in )eath of the salesman and

Bohn Aroctor in rucible are also wearing the same grandeur. Their prosperity is not

the material prosperity but the prosperity of mind and soul @ the prosperity of their

living image.

The thoughts $illiams attributes to other critics are in fact his own. The development

he feels in the idea of tragedy is based completely on his own understanding of the


11/20

11

lassical, Mediaeval and 0enaissance theories. *f we put all the theories $illiams gives

with respect to different ages side by side we shall find a big contrast in $illiams own

understanding. $hat he seems understanding in the first chapter is not felt

understood in the second, third and fourth chapter of this boo. is ideas about

tragedy and e%perience seem confused when we reach the second chapter namedtragedy and tradition. *n each chapter the =ree ideal of tragedy is repeated from

different angles and perspective. $hat * want to say seems very simple when * say that

$illiams should have given the =ree views about tragedy once and for all. e should

not have repeated them in each chapter from a different angle. *f $illiams’ aim had

been to analyse the different theories given in different ages, the boo might not have

been so difficult and confused. $hat maes this boo so comple% a piece of argument

is $illiams’ effort to put forward his views about culture and society @ far and deep in

between the lines. The discussion about the growth and development of the idea of tragedy hence becomes secondary and very much a ind of allegory.

$hat * feel and want to say is #uite different from what they call the general concept of

literature as an interpretation of society. *n my view the literature and society has

nothing to do with each other. The idea of their being inter6influencing is merely an

illusion. The forces woring behind literary development and social development are

#uite different in nature. The poets or literary people have hardly been social, and

society and culture have hardly been poetical or literary. 0ather they have been theopposite of each other. *n the most materialistic and powerfully political society of

=reece, the writers and poets were the most imaginative of all ages. $hen we tal

about the truth and greatness of -ocrates, we should not forget that we are also taling

about the in&ustice and blind &udicial system prevailing upon the society of that time.

This type of in&ustice and &udicial murder is common in the societies where the

material values and surface truths give no place to even graver and stronger realities. *

therefore hesitate to admit that the theoretical and philosophical world of =ree

intellectuals had anything to do with the surrounding society of their times. The same

is the case with 0oman, +gyptian and *ndian civilizations. The politically best societies

have always been criticised strongly for their moral discrepancies.

$hat mistae we always have been committing in defining the greatness of some

civilization is the attribution of greatness to some society on its political achievements.

$e have never called any civilization or society great if it has not been politically

strong. $hat relationship do we suggest in this case in between the political strength of

a certain group of people called society or civilization and their cultural and socialstrength. as there ever been a civilization politically wea but culturally very strong


12/20

12

and powerfulF The obvious answer seems ?o. The politically strength @ and that also

got having con#uered the neighbouring territories @ of certain civilization has been

very much helpful in crediting it the name of a strong and powerful civilization. -hould

we say that the political strength of certain civilization lies in its pre6e%isting cultural

strengthF /nd should we say that the cultural strength of certain civilization lies in itspre6e%isting literary and lingual strengthF *f * say yes it seems rather confusing but *

say no. /ll these strengths have their respective origins.

The words ‘remade’ and ‘tragic cause’ are ambiguous. Aerhaps $illiams wants to say

that the tragic hero stood for his spectators, and the spectators were conscious of their

feelings for tragic hero. The tragic response of pity and terror was incorporated in the

spectator’s mind. The spectator therefore remained detached in his response. This

detachment was minimised by creating an affinity in the tragic hero and the spectator.The spectator was supposed to tae part in the tragic action. /nd he did so having

consumed his response to fear and pity. Though we call it a 0omantic e%cess, its basis

are found in the concept of shared behaviour @ a result of decorum.

The word assimilation is very ambiguously used. $e are not sure whether we should

tae it in the sense of hypothesis or theory @ or definition. $hether it is merging up of

certain ideas or emerging out of certain things. The word order is important in so many

ways. *t means both in physical and metaphysical terms. *t can be taen as socialorder( and it can also be taen as natural order of things. /gain it may mean the order

of events and happenings in which a tragic hero is put to perform a determined action.

/s a whole we can feel and see that $illiams is not re&ecting essing and nor he is

accepting him completely. *n other words his re&ection and acceptance is not on the

basis of the views a person gives but on the basis of his own views he feels different

from him. /s $illiams himself is against neo6classicism he seems accepting essing.

/nd also that $illiams seems having no power to say his views against a person who

commends -haespeare. To challenge -haespeare’s position in not only +nglish butin the history of drama is meant mostly a ind of intellectual suicide. /nd $illiams

seems unable to commit it anyway. *f we tae $illiams true to his socialist and Mar%ist

views, we cannot imagine and accept him as an advocate or supporter of +lizabethans

@ a mi%ture of feudal and aristocratic minds.

*n all respects this is what $illiams wants to bring us to @ the secularisation of tragedy

@ not only tragedy but also the tradition of tragedy. The secularisation of drama is not

on the basis of theories and social bents but on the basis of beliefs. *n $illiams view the transformation of tragedy from religious to secular is in fact the transformation of

society from religious to secular. * say the secularism is nothing in itself. *f the people


13/20

13

are not ceremoniously and ritually religious it does not mean that they are non6

religious or secular. The concept or identity of =od is ingrained in human nature. e

cannot be separate from it. *f one stops believing in certain myths and codes his

ancestors have been believing for centuries, it does not mean that one has ceased to be

religious any more. The understanding of =od is changing from person to person andage to age, but it remains very much there in us.

Cn my part * thin amlet as a complete religious tragedy. *f amlet had not been

believing in hereafter he might have illed Aolonius nelt in prayers( he might not have

been convinced to tae revenge of his father’s murderers. *f +lizabethan tragedy is not

religious who is the secular hero or character in secular tragedy of +lizabethan age. *f

Marlow’s heroes are non6religious in typical sense it does not mean that they are

secular. They are merely ambitious. )octor Eaustus has never been secular minded ornon6religious in the whole tragedy. *t was his ambitious nature that made him go

against the common prevalent forms of religion. *n other words it the religious nature

of )octor Eaustus that maes him a tragic hero. This is what * call the intellectual

idnapping in 0aymond $illiams’ prose. e gives his understandings and views about

others and then start accepting or re&ecting them on his own account. e does not tae

the opinion of others and especially his readers in confidence. / great part of this boo

is based on $illiams own understanding of some theories and theorists. * thin when a

person is criticising some other person’s wor he should either give first that otherperson’s wor or view in original and then give his own opinion. *f he is giving his

opinion against or for some other opinion about that wor he should state that opinion

first in full te%t and then give his own as a supplicant.

$hat one gets the very first time is the secular nature of +lizabethan drama. The

phrases ‘immediate practice’ and ‘hristian consciousness’ are given to get intellectual

security. *n this and other ways, the definition of tragedy became centred on a specific

ind of spiritual action, rather than on particular events, and a metaphysic of tragedy replaced both the critical and ordinary moral emphasis.

$illiams is evaluating his own understanding of egel’s definition. egel is certainly

not meant in this way. is definition of tragedy is nearest to perfection. )o we find this

characteristic in Cedipus 0e%F Cn my part * feel it a great drawbac in critical wors.

They should not be the overflow of powerful feelings. The critical wors should base on

facts and figures of mathematical nature. Ctherwise they may better be called personal

analysis. Most of $illiams’ &udgements seem an overflow of powerful feelings. They areso common and general that we feel no doubt in their truth. They are very much lie

poetic feelings @ general and true to all of us. owever, if $illiams had not tried to


14/20

14

intersperse them here and there and had put them under headings and chapters, they

might have been more effective and comprehensive than they are now.

*n my view a genuine criticism should not have anything to do with emotions and

passions. *t should be as arid and dry as mathematics. /nyhow it is my personal

opinion. -ome one may have a right to consider $illiams’ wor the only true criticism

written through ages. Cne may also say that $illiams’ is also an approach among so

many others. The =ree tragedy is a conflict between primitive social forms and a new

social order. 8ut we see that the conflict is solved in the favour of primitive social

forms. /nd we also see in the history of Cedipus te%t that the new social order

prevailed upon, and -ophocles could not revive the old believes.

*t seems very strange when we read about -ophocles’ intentions to revive the old social

order. e tried to do it with a character utterly a puppet in gods’ hands. 8ut -ophocles

forgot a very crucial point @ that the new order he thins against old believes is also a

will of gods.

/ll definitions of Cedipus 0e% are true. *n other words all definitions of tragedy are

true. The aspects of tragedy critics have been discussing in various ages with reference

to various tragedies are true. The tragedy of Cedipus can be discussed in all these

conte%ts and perspectives. ?ot only the tragic events can be discussed under these

headings or with respect to these aspects but also the comic and parodic events. The

aspects and angles critics point out of a tragic action are the possible aspects of all

actions. /ll people can be seen as tragic heroes @ provided only focus.

$hat we need to now about is very simple and very hard @ the fact that there are two

inds of people. Cne who believe in fate and one who do not. The tragedy taes place

where the opposites fall opposite to each other. *f Cedipus had not met the

circumstances opposite to his instincts @ means if he had been put in the

circumstances favourable to his instincts of free will @ he might have met a very happy

end. The forces of fate are not same for all. There are people who believe in free will

and they are provided with circumstances utterly dependent on their free will. /nd

there are people who are fatalists and they are provided with circumstances utterly out

of control. The tragedy taes place where a person of free will falls counter to fate. *f

Cedipus had been of fatalist instincts he might have succumbed to fate from the very

first day he came to now about his future from oracles. *n the above discussion the

word *dea is also used in the sense of moral code. The most difficult and absurd thing

to do is to debate on the validity of moral concepts. $e don’t now and we can never


15/20

15

&udge in what particular circumstances the moral concepts spring and generate from

one generation and time period to the other.

The way $illiams tries to convince his reader on his point is strange. $hat he wants to

say is the uselessness and absurdity of the concept of poetical &ustice. 8ut the way he

conveys it to his reader is #uite non critical in my view. e relates the un&ustifiability of

poetical &ustice to the group of people who and whose views are considered nonsense

in most of the people. *n other words it is #uite an emotional way of delivering critical

thoughts suitable to orators and preachers. * thin a literary critic should not adopt

this way of delivering his ideas. Ctherwise he may &ustly be called a political theorist

and a propagandist. This is where we feel us forced to put $illiams in the category of

philosophers or reformers. $hat he says is totally his own opinion. 8ut he gives it with

reference to other wors and maes it feel sprung out of them.

?ow as a reader it is our duty to compare $illiams definitions in each case. $henever

there is a new theory $illiams not only repeats it in his own words but also in the

conte%t of former theories. /lso he repeats the former theories in his own words and

tries to interpret them in the conte%t of new theories. This creates a ind of confusion

in the minds of his readers. They feel hesitate to accept each version of the old theories

as true. Eor e%ample in the case of modern interpretation of tragedy $illiams repeats

=ree, Mediaeval and 0enaissance definitions in a ind of new perspective. $e feelconfused to accept them as true each time. The concept of myth and ritual in tragedy is

discussed purely in its new perspective. $hat we have met in the former chapters

seems totally another debate. This is how * feel this boo merely a ind of discussion.

$e don’t feel these discussions centred upon any point. $illiams has either accepted

the views of other critics or re&ected them. e has not given at any moment his own

views. *f he has given any he has given it in the e%planation not as an independent view

but as a supporting one. *n the discussion on tragedy we don’t find $illiams’ views on

tragedy but on every other thing.

*n this way we can say that $illiams’ discussion on tragedy is in fact an e%pression of

his views on culture, society and politics. /nd he wants his reader to see not only

tragedy but also the whole literary activity as an interaction or an outcome of this

interaction in cultural, social and political forces.

$illiams’ reversion to the ideas discussed in the first chapter seems a surrendering

effort to &oin beginning to the end. *n fact the intervening and last chapters are but of

parenthetic importance. The structure of the whole boo is developed on academic

approaches. The dominant mode of e%pression is of discussion and debate. *f $illiams


16/20

16

had not been a teacher he might not have depended so much on evaluating, e%plaining

and elaborating the ideas already given in theories or critical wors. *nstead of writing

a helping boo he might have written a te%tboo. aving gone through such wors *

feel as if modern mind is afraid of passing any theoretical view about anything.

$illiams has not used the instances taen from other wors to support his own view.0ather he has given his views inspired by those instances. $ith respect to the style

discussed above we cannot count $illiams in the category of critics -idney,

$ordsworth and oleridge were.

Tragedy and Contemporary Ideas

This is what $illiams has himself done. owever, he has taen the wor from past not

to re&ect it but to accept it and interpret it in terms of past. 8ut we should eep in mind,

whatever discussion on accident and tragedy there goes, that it is not the nature of

event that maes it tragedy or accident but the perspective in which that event taes

place. *f an accident is detailed in all its perspective it can be felt as a tragedy.

Cn the other hand if we are told that a ing gouged his eyes out in rage on learning that

he had illed the former ing himself we may not feel any tragic feelings. *n the case of

written tragedy we should not anyhow neglect the role of description. The description

here should not be considered in terms of an authority on the part of writer, but a ind

of nowledge we have got already through our identification with the deceased. *n case

of Cedipus 0e%, not only Cedipus but all the involving characters are bearing tragic

postures.

*f we focus our attention to iaus and get the details we shall find him a complete

tragic character himself. -ame is the case with Bocasta, reon and Cedipus’ children.

-o the dominant characteristic of a tragedy is also its #uality of being a tragedy of allthe &oining persons. /s for analysis of tragedy with respect to its effects on its audience

* would lie to say that the category or #uality of audience is very noteworthy a fact. *f

Cedipus had been played on modern stage it would not have been so effective a

tragedy. This is where we can say $illiams can tal about tragedy in its social conte%t.

Means if suffering related to ordinary people is ordinary suffering the suffering related

to noble people is noble suffering.

8ut * thin $illiams is not true in his &udgement. $hat we have come to now in the

above discussion about suffering is the ordinary and particular nature of suffering, not


17/20

17

the ordinary and particular ind of sufferer. / socially noble person may have to suffer

an ordinary suffering, and a layman on the other hand may suffer a particular or noble

suffering. The ordinary and noble sufferings therefore should not be understood as

socially relative terms. -uffering is not a subordinate clause. *t has its separate identity

that is active in nature.

$e have discussed already that the history and nowledge about sufferer can help us

understand his suffering as tragic or accidental. Cn the other hand if our e%perience of

seeing suffering is too common, too often and too much, we cannot feel it tragic in

most of the ways. *f the story of Cedipus had been the common happening in =ree

society, even -ophocles would not have presented it as a play. -o the uni#ueness of

incident also helps it mae a tragedy.

*t does not mean however that the number of sufferings or deaths in present age has

changed and shaped the meanings and effect of tragedy to some other proportions.

)eath has never been so rare as it is in these days. The people in past were more used

to death than we are now. *t means the view is given completely in its social

perspective. The types of events or accidents given in the support of this argument and

the categories of sufferer as ‘you and *’ are also social. The power of this argument lies

not in its relativity but use of deprecating words. The comparative stress on the

particularity of event and suffering person is however too obvious to be mentioned inthis view. $e have seen $illiams and other critics taling on the point of ran @ that

some deaths matter more than others. 8ut * don’t find a tragedy where the death or

suffering of a tragic hero becomes the death and suffering of whole community. +ven

Cedipus’ gouging his eyes and e%pelling himself from Thebes is no more a ind of

personal suffering for Thebans. amlet’s death is not the death of his countrymen. The

Thebans and amlet’s countrymen were mere observers or spectators. Their suffering

was more or less e#ual to the suffering of present day audience.

*f -ophocles presented Cedipus as a tragic hero it does not mean that a tragic hero

should always be of a ingly stature. e might have written tragedies on common men

that unfortunately could not survive to us. -econdly the ability of gaining lessons in

those days was not related to the things of daily e%perience. The people in those days

got lessons from the tales of animals and birds. They got lessons from supernatural

and mythological lore. 3nlie to the psychology of present day people who get lessons

from the happenings and matters related to their immediate e%perience, for the people

of those days the things or stories taen from their immediate e%perience were notmostly considered of any importance. *t was not the ran but the alienation or

strangeness of tragic hero that inspired the audience in those days. Though to meet the


18/20

18

ing was not as difficult as it is today yet the love of public for their ing that was far

more and far greater than the love of public for president or prime minister in these

days, made the suffering of ing or a man of ran something worthy to mourn at. The

reasons of this modern view are based on the points we have discussed in the above

e%planations for ran and suffering. The fate of tragic hero in relation to the fate of dynasty or ingdom is emphasised again in the false old conte%t. The e%ample of King

ear is not sufficient. The play itself is not decided as a tragedy yet. $e feel sorry for

King ear but this feeling sorry for him is different from what we feel for Cedipus.

Eaith does not mean the faith in the e%istence of =od only. $e cannot live without

faith. *n whatever thing or idea we shall have faith its intensity or importance shall be

e#ual to that of what we have for =od. To have no faith in =od is also a ind of faith.

This is again a ind of poetic statement. ?either we can accept it nor deny. *t seems

said in the light of Cedipus 0e%. 8ut the fact * always try to penetrate is again invitingly open. $hy /ristotle’s definition of tragedy is considered only the best available

definitionF $hy Cedipus 0e% is considered the best available tragedy. *f -ophocles had

not written Cedipus 0e% would /ristotle have been able to present his theory of ideal

tragedyF

$hat * want to say is #uite simple in a way. *f /ristotle’s theory of tragedy is accepted

as faultless and the most perfect, it should have its value for other tragedies written in

his times also. *f it is dependent on Cedipus 0e% only, it should rather be called anevaluation than a theory. To reach the final concept of tragedy in =ree society we

should eep in mind the other tragedies written in those times also. *f we find any

difference in the tragedies written by other tragedians and those written by -ophocles,

we should conclude very simply that the concepts we have studied as growth of the

idea of tragedy were e%isting even in those early days also.

$illiams’ arguments and counter arguments are obviously the creation of his own

mind @ the fact we should not forget at any moment. $hatever he provides us as acommon view or opinion of people and critics is in fact his own view or opinion.

$e cannot tae this type of criticism as genuine criticism. The type of criticism

$illiams offers us is a ind of political or social propaganda. $illiams has adopted

criticism as a form of creative activity to spread only his views. is main aim is not to

discuss the social or historical perspective of tragedy but to convey his social and

political views. The underlined statement is given to support the arguments given in

the above paragraph. The concentration camp is the name given to one of the prisoncamps used for e%terminating prisoners under the rule of itler in ?azi =ermany $hat

we have come to now so far are the relevant details and e%planations of the theories of


19/20

19

tragedy. *f $illiams has discussed e%perience he has discussed it in its relevancy to

theoretical progress of tragedy.

Rejection of Tragedy

+%cept one or two sentences, whatever $illiams has said about 8recht so far is merely

an approval or appraisal from a teacher. e seems unable to do with 8recht what he

has been doing with other critics @ contriving and deducting from their views and

opinions the views and opinions of his own. *n between the lines we feel him saying if

we want to now his 9$illiams’< views about the concept of tragedy in modern times

we should simply read 8recht or any available criticism on him and that’s all. $hatever

8recht says and practices seems on $illiams’ behalf true, accepted and agreed.

The chapter seems a ind of evaluation of 8recht’s wor. 0ather it should have been

the evaluation of his theories. The instances given from plays seem unnecessary when

we recall to mind the earlier chapters of the boo. $hat we e%cept to read in this

chapter is the theoretical growth in the idea of tragedy. $hat we read in real is the

growth in the writing style of tragedies. /ll 8recht’s statements are left une%plained as

if they were already agreed upon. $e find very little of evaluating or interpreting

nature. 3nlie to the demand of the topic or $illiams’ former e%pression, the chapter

seems bearing no cultural or political perspective.

$hat he says in these lines seems irrelevant or imposed. * have been unable to see this

all in the above discussion or commentary. $illiams could have said this even for +liot

or Ainter. * don’t find it sub&ectively coherent. owever the argument he gives about

8recht’s re&ection of tragedy with respect to the former tragedies seems

interconnecting to some e%tent. Throughout this chapter $illiams has been lie a

traditional academic critic. The chapter seems merely an introductory or interpretative

article @ worthless in all respects to be included in a boo of more philosophical than

critical &udgements on the tragedy in theory and e%perience. $e don’t see the vigour of

arguments he discussed with the =ree, Mediaeval and +lizabethan critics. $e have

seen this argumentative helplessness in discussion on ?ietzsche. 8ut it was not so

tangible as it is in case of 8recht. /t moments * feel that the chapter has nothing to do

with the rest of the boo. /ll $illiams has done is to e%plain and interpret 8recht’s

ideas and e%periments. is effort to see things in social and political perspectives also

seems minimised. e loos but an intellectually idnapped. *n fact what 8recht writes

does not suit to the taste of Modern Tragedy. * am unable to understand 8recht’s

theoretical contribution to tragedy. is aim was to portray the mind or society, not the

theory. is intention was to discover mainly some new form of e%pression, not to re&ect


20/20

20

the old ones. *n fact * don’t thin that 8recht’s e%perimental wor has anything to do

with the idea of tragedy. 8recht was an innovator, but could not be a pioneer.

Modern Tragedy by Raymond Williams

Documents

Transcript of Modern Tragedy by Raymond Williams