Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:06:06.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Humanism and Tragic Redemption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

When George Steiner announced The Death of Tragedy, in 1961, it was already somewhat unclear whether tragedy was said to be dead or dying, or in fact on the way to being reborn. Since then, Leo Aylen’s Greek Tragedy and the Modern World has challengingly affirmed the possibility of actual equivalents to Greek tragedy in our time. And now Raymond Williams flatly entitles his own critical diagnosis: Modern Tragedy.

These questions of course extend far beyond the theatre. Ultimately they concern the entire substance of our culture, and especially our age’s increasing estrangement from religion. For Tragedy — whether Greek, mediaeval, Elizabethan or neo-classical – has, typically, sprung from societies rooted in religion; although the greatest moments of tragic art were precisely those moments when received beliefs stood under radical historical challenge. To ask why traditional tragic forms have increasingly been abandoned in the theatre of our time is thus, to raise questions we might otherwise not even be able to formulate about our epoch’s relations to religion – and about the resources of humanist faith.

Raymond Williams’ confrontation of these questions seems to me crucial, in several ways. Unmistakably at the growing-point of humanist consciousness, his work is at once a critique of tragic theory, a socio-critical map of modern tragic literature, and a reassertion in depth of revolutionary imperatives in the face of objections to revolution truly wrestled with. Significantly, the book concludes not with any theoretical summing up but with an actual drama of revolution.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1

Chatto and Windus, 30s.

2

It may be significant that even this qualifying ‘later’ seems an afterthought; it does not occur in the original version of the essay (New Left Review, No. 20, Summer 1963, p. 55).

3

Speirs, John, Chaucer the Maker (London, 1951), p. 80Google Scholar.

4

de Rougemont, Denis, Passion and Society, (London, 1940)Google Scholar.

5

Drama from Ibsen to Eliot, pp. 51–56.

6

Compare the passage just cited with, for instance: ‘We have still to attend to the whole action, and to see liberation as part of the same process as the terror which appals us. I do not mean that the liberation cancels the terror; I mean only that they are connected, and that this connection is tragic. The final truth in this matter seems to be that revolution—the long revolution against human alienation—produces, in real historical circumstances, its own new kinds of alienation, which it must struggle to understand, and which it must overcome, if it is to remain revolutionary (82). (“Overcome”‐once and for all; or producing its own, new kinds of alienation “as far ahead as we can foresee?”)’