Tragedy and Tradition

‘Tragedy and Tradition’ is basically about tragedy and its historical perspective. He deems both tragedy and tradition
inter-connected. He does not want to reject the present by the past or vice versa; but he thinks that concept of tradition is
important to understand modern tragedy. In this essay, Raymond Williams discusses common as well as traditional
meanings of tragedy. For him, tragedy is directly related to culture, society and also to the experiences in life. As he opines
that we come to tragedy by many roads. “It is an immediate experience, a body of literature, conflict of theory, an
academic problem” He feels that tragedy is not simply about death and sufferings, nor even any response to it; rather it is
particular kind of event and a kind of response to the event that is purely tragic. However, there are certain events and
responses in life that generally seem tragic, while others are not.
According to Williams, Tragedy as a word has not changed but as dramatic form, it has gone under certain
changes. He is of the view that these changes depend upon the changed perception of the people of the different ages.
According to him, “Tradition” does not mean to accept past entirely rather it is analyzing and evaluating the past in the
present perspective. He says: “a tradition is not a past, but an interpretation of the past.” Moreover, tragic works
should be examined critically as well as historically.
To examine the tragic tradition means not necessarily to expound a single body of work and thinking, or to trace
variations within an assumed totality. The present forces do not meet the conventional principles of tragedy and they have
always been subject to change. It implies that the tradition of tragedy has been different in every age. As William observes:
“tragedy comes to us as a word from long tradition of European tradition and it is easy to see this tradition as a
continuity in one important way.” Tradition is a product of history, preserved through ages and
is subject to the respective age’s socio-cultural consciousness. So tradition is the word used for continuity of something
through a long past. In short, he describes historical development of the idea of Tragedy as follows:

i). Classical and Medieval Era:

Tragedy originates from the religious festivals of Greek culture. Greek tragedies are unique and genuine. They did
not depend on some specific doctrine; rather they are related to a network of beliefs that were common in that culture. In
Greek tragedy, the forces weaving the fabric of tragedy are Fate, Necessity, Chance and gods. Greek felt that “Fate” and
“Necessity” had become natural part of Greek tragedy as well as life in general. That’s why, the suffering of the main
character symbolizes the sufferings of everyone.
To Williams, tragedy is neither simply death and suffering nor a response to it. It is a particular kind of event and response
as well, which are purely tragic and embodied by long tradition. His basic intellection is: “the meaning of tragedy, the
relationship of tradition to tragedy and the kinds of experience which we mistakenly call tragic” Deliberating the
historical development of tragedy, Williams says that when the unique Greek culture changed, the chorus which was the
critical component of dramatic form was discarded and the unique meaning of tragedy was lost.
He says that things change and concepts change. On the basis of our concepts we tend to seek permanent meanings in art
which is a serious mistake. He says: “It is not that we lack the evidence. But we fail to use it because it doesn’t fit our
idea of tragedy”.
In Medieval era, tragedy underwent a vivid change. The governing forces in the Medieval tragedy are no more the
supernatural forces of classical tragedy. They are replaced by the circumstantial forces. The protagonist is not in the grip of
the supernatural forces but he is to be entangled in the social upheavals. Feudalism and the church are the two main forces
in the Medieval culture. In Greeks tragedy, the tragic change is from ‘happiness to misery’ but in Medieval tragedy, it is
from ‘prosperity to adversity’. It means Medieval tragedy emphasizes on the change of worldly or material change. The
tragic hero remains unchanged both in classical and Medieval tragedies. The protagonist is to be, in all cases, a
representative figure of the age. The tragedy was considered to be a story, an account but not an action.
ii). Renaissance:
In the Renaissance era, the feudal world of the Medieval is replaced by a new world of science, learning and materialism
and individualism. The Renaissance period was also dominated by the idea of rank. The tragic hero eminent in
Renaissance tragedy is fallen to supernatural riddles and subjected to his own faults and desires as well. Tragedy was
considered to be a story of a noble man who falls in adversity from prosperity. But later, Renaissance tragedy ceases to be
metaphysical in nature and becomes critical in development. The character of Elizabethan tragedy is determined by a very
complicated relationship between elements of an inherited order and elements of a new humanism.
Williams holds that Shakespeare was not the real inheritor of the Greeks; rather he was a major instance of a new
kind of tragedy. Secular drama was a major step in the historical development in the idea of tragedy. In fact, Elizabethan
tragedy anticipates the trends of Humanism and Romanticism. Raymond William says: “In one sense, all drama after
Renaissance is secular”.
iii). Neo-Classical:
During Renaissance, there is a precise emphasis on the fall of famous men, as ‘Rank’ was still important because the fate
of ruling class was the fate of the city. But with the dissolution of feudal world, the practice of tragedy assumed new
directions and modifications. During the Neoclassical period, emphasis on dignity and nobility of the hero continued. But
the moving force of the tragedy was now a matter of behavior rather than a metaphysical condition. The term “dignity”
was given special importance. A dignified man was considered to be a man of style, hence, language used was also
beautified with different features of embellishments. However, almost at the end of this era, changes took place in the
concept of dignity. Thus “behavior” became more important as it was thought that an ordinary man could also behave in a
dignified manner. The real spirit of tragedy was moral than metaphysical. The tragic error (hamartia) was moral, a
weakness in an otherwise good man who could still be pitied. The elements of pity and fear were replaced with admiration
and commiseration. The spectator’s response to sufferings became an activity in itself rather than a mere response to a
particular action.
Lessing and Tradition:
According to Raymond Williams, Lessing a German critic and dramatist also contributed in the idea of tragedy by writing
“theoretical rejection Neo-classicism”, a defense of Shakespeare” and an advocacy and writing of bourgeois tragedy.
He considered neo-classicism as false classicism, because they were wrongly trying to be as exact and precise as the
classical writers were. They were quite different from them in contents of tragedy and the only closeness with them was of
style. He is of the view that Shakespeare was the only real inheritor of Greek tragedy.
Secular Tragedy:
It is believed that all the dramas after “Renaissance” were secular, whereas the Greek drama was religious. Elizabethan
drama was secular in practice but retained a Christian consciousness. Neo-Classical Age is an age of peace, prosperity and
secularism. Neo-classical is the first stage of substantial secularization. It insisted on relating suffering to moral error. With
the gradual secularization of tragedy, morality became less important and more attention was paid to the critical side of the
tragedy. The increasing emphasis on rational morality effected the tragic action.iTragedy, in this view, shows suffering as a
consequence of moral error and happiness as a consequence of virtue; meeting the demands of poetic justice. The weakness
lies in morality as it is static and moral emphasis is merely dogmatic.
Hegel and Hegelion:
Further he discusses Hegel who didn’t reject the moral scheme of poetic justice but he said that emphasis on morality
would make a work social drama not tragedy. Tragedy, he said, was a specific kind of spiritual action. What is important
for Hegel is not the suffering ‘mere suffering’ but its causes. Mere pity and fear are not tragic. It does not consider the
external contingency beyond the control of the individual i.e. illness, loss of property, death etc. To Hegel, conscious
individuality, individual freedom and self-determination are essential for genuine tragic action. Hegel asserts that tragedy
recognizes suffering as: ‘suspended over active characters entirely as the consequence of their own act’ . The modern
tragedy is wholly personal and our interest is directed not to the abstract ethical questions but to the individual and his
conditions.
Hence, Hegel feels that Greek tragedy has been seen as the embodiment of the conflict between primitive social forms and
new social order, whereas with Karl Marx, Renaissance tragedy has been seen as the result of the conflict between dying
feudalism and the new individualism. Individual suffers, not because he is in conflict with gods or fate, but with the
process of the social transformation. Tragic hero, in Marxist Criticism becomes ‘world historical individual’, in conflict
with ‘world-spirit’.
Schopenhaur and Nietzsche:
The views of these two German philosophers also contributed in the development of tragedy. Before, Schopenhauer,
tragedy was associated with ethical crises, human growth and history. He secularized the whole idea of tragedy. He is of
the view that ‘true sense of tragedy is the deeper insight into man’s original sin i.e. the crime of existence itself’.
According to Nietzsche, tragedy dramatizes a tension, which it resolves in a higher unity. There the hero, who is the
highest manifestation of will, is destroyed, but the eternal life of the hero will remain unaffected. According to him, the
action of tragedy is not moral, nor purgative but aesthetic.
In the end, it can be said that Raymond Williams’ concept of tragedy and tradition is not only profound but highly
philosophical and thought provoking also. He has given forceful and historical perspective of tragedy and tradition. He has
coded the views of English as well as German philosophers to make his arguments forceful. In short, all his discussion
shows his power of critical talent and observations.
Tragedy and Contemporary Idea
In the essay ‘Tragedy and Contemporary Idea’, Raymond Williams discusses tragedy in relation to the contemporary ideas.
He has discussed the four things: order and accident, the destruction of the hero, the irreparable action and its connections
with death and the emphasis of evil. The tragic experience of every age is unique. Williams says that modern age and its
suffering are very complex and it would be a mistake to interpret the tragic experience of the modern man in the light of
the traditional concepts. Tragic experience attracts the beliefs and tensions of a period.
It is neither possible nor desirable to have a single permanent theory of tragedy. Such an attempt would be based on the
assumption that human nature is permanent and unchanging. Rejecting the universalistic character of tragedy, Williams
says: “Tragedy is not a single or permanent fact, but a series of conventions and institutions….The varieties of tragic
experience are to be interpreted by reference to the changing conventions and institutions” Raymond Williams has
discussed following four main aspects of tragic theory:
Order and Accident:
Williams does not agree to this view that there is no significant meaning in ‘everyday tragedies’ because the event itself is
not tragic; only becomes so with a through a shaped response. He cannot see how it is possible to distinguish between an
event and response to an event, in any absolute way. In the case of ordinary death and suffering, when we see mourning
and lament, when we see people breaking under their actual loss, we have entered tragedy. Other responses are also
possible such as indifference, justification, and rejoicing. Depending upon varied responses, Hegel calls it “true sympathy
and “mere sympathy”. But where we feel the suffering, we are within the dimensions of tragedy. But a burnt family or a
mining disaster which leaves people without feeling are called Accidents. The events not seen as tragic are deep in the
pattern of our own culture: war, famine, work, traffic, and politics. To feel no tragic meaning in them is a sort of our
bankruptcy.
Raymond Williams opines that we can only distinguish between tragedy and accident, when we have conception of
law and order. According to that law and order some events are tragic while others are mere accidents. Hence, some deaths
do create tragic affects and others don’t. The death of a slave might be considered an accident, whereas that of a prince
truly tragic as it might affect the whole country. However, the emerging bourgeois class rejected rank in tragedy.
According to them individual was not a state, but the entity in himself.
Raymond Williams rejects the argument that event itself is not tragic but becomes so through a shaped response. It
is not possible to distinguish between an event and response to an event. We may not have response but it doesn’t mean
that the event is absent. Suffering is suffering whether we are moved by it or not. In this way, an accident is tragic even if
we do not apply to it the concepts of ‘ethical claim’ or ‘human agency’. He also doesn’t seem to approve the distinction
between accident and tragedy. Famine, war and traffic and political events are all tragic.
It is often believed that tragedy was possible in the age of faith and it was impossible now, because we have no
faith. Williams, on the contrary, believes that the ages of comparatively stable belief do not produce tragedy of any
intensity. Important tragedy seems to occur, neither in periods of real stability not in the periods of open and decisive
conflicts. Its most common historical setting is the period preceding the complete breakdown of an important culture. Its
condition is the tension between the old and the new order. In such situations, the process of dramatizing and resolving
disorder and sufferings is intensified to the level which can be most readily recognized as tragedy. Order in tragedy is the
result of the action. In tragedy, the creation of order is related to the fact of disorder, through which the action moves. It
may be the pride of man set against the nature of things. In different cultures, disorder and order both vary, for there are
parts of varying general interpretations of life. We should see this variation as an indication of the major cultural
importance of tragedy as form of art. “I do not see how it is finally possible to distinguish between an event and response to
an event”….“behind the façade of the emphasis on order, the substance of tragedy withered”
Destruction of the Hero:
The most common conception about tragedy is that it ends with the destruction/death of its hero. But in many of the
tragedies story does not end with the destruction of the hero; rather it follows on. It is not the job of the artist to provide
answers and solutions; but simply describe experiences and raise questions. Modern tragedy is not what happens to the
hero; but what happens through him. When we concentrate on hero, we are unconsciously confining out attention to the
individual. Tragic experience lies in the fact that life does not come back, that its meanings are reaffirmed and restored
after so much sufferings, and the ultimate death gives real meanings and importance to life. The death of an individual
brings along the whole community in the form of rituals and condolence as in ‘Adam Bede’; so tragedy is social and
collective and not individual or personal.
The Irreparable Action:
Raymond Williams believes that death in tragedy enables the witness to see the real meaning of life. In fact, death is a
universal character, which has a perpetual effect on human soul and makes them relate their faiths and believes with it.
Death is universal so a dead man quickly claims universality.
In a tragedy, the tragic hero faces an absolute meaning of death and a sense of loneliness. Hence, death of a person is
considered an “irreparable loss" and which causes lamentation to the audience and makes them realize a “universal
principle” or a mere “personal tragedy”. However, Raymond Williams thinks that it is not a single death, or an individual
loss, rather it brings a change in the lives of the people surrounding and relating him. Thus, the loneliness of the dead
man, blindness of human destiny and the loss of the connection as a result of that death are “irreparable”. When we
confine ourselves to the hero, we are, unconsciously, narrowing the scope of tragedy. By attaching too much attention to
the death, we minimize the real tragic sense of life. Man dies alone is an interpretation; not a fact; when he dies, he affects
others. He alters the lives of other characters. To insist on a single meaning is not reasonable. The tragic action is about
death but it need not end in death. Moreover, what about the other characters who are destroyed? Williams says: “We think
of tragedy as what happens to the hero but ordinary tragic action is what happens through the hero”.
Emphasis of Evil
According to Raymond Williams, “evil” goes side by side with “good”. However, it is often perceived that evil is more
powerful and attractive and make the society to surrender before it. But he believes that it is temporary phase, because,
ultimately it is good that is victorious. Hence, the tragedy demonstrates the struggle between good and evil going on in the
world as well. Tragedy dramatizes evil in many particular forms: not only Christian evil but also cultural, political and
ideological, making the audience to have a clear recognition of the fact that one can be good or evil in particular ways in
particular situations of the play, thus achieving different responses as well. Good and evil are not absolute. We are good or
bad in particular ways and in particular situations; defined by pressures we at one received and can alter and can create
again. Hence, tragedy does not teach us about evil, rather it teaches us about so many aspects of life and their
consequences. Williams rejects that man is naturally evil or good as he believes: “Man is naturally not anything and we
are good or bad in particular ways in particular situations”.
In the end, we can say that Raymond Williams has very aptly analyzed the concept of tragedy with reference to
contemporary ideas. From modern concept of tragedy, a minute observer and critic can get a lot of information. In short, it
is a great work of criticism by Raymond Williams.