raymond william

Email: [email protected] …..Ph: +923006150661


Raymond Williams was a great critic, scholar and novelist of last century. He was

born in Pandy, on the Welsh border. His father was a railway signalman. He got his education form Abergavenny Grammar School and Trinity College, Cambridge. His studies were interrupted by the Second World War. He joined the British Army and worked as an anti-tank captain.

After the war he worked in adult education before becoming a lecturer at Cambridge University. A socialist, in the 1950s he joined forces with E. P. Thompson, Raphael Samuel, Ralph Miliband, Stuart Hall and John Saville to launch two radical journals, The New Reasoner and the New Left Review.

From 1974 to 1984, he served as a Professor of Drama at Cambridge. His main

interest was culture and society, which was also the title of his highly regarded book

published in 1958. Williams wrote extensively about the history of culture. Books by

Williams include Culture and Society 1780-1960 (1958), The Long Revolution (1961),

Communication (1962), Second Generation (1964), Orwell (1971), The Country and the

City (1973), Television: Technology and Culture (1974), Keywords (1976), Marxism and

Literature (1977), The Volunteers (1978), Problems in Materialism and Culture (1980),

Culture (1981), Writings in Society (1983) and Loyalties (1985).

Raymond Williams died in 1988.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbritishA.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EDcambridge.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/EDcambridge.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HIStompson.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISsamuelR.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISsamuelR.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HISmiliband.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/HIShallS.htm


Undoubtedly, Raymond Williams is a great critic, journalist, historian, political

commentator, dramatist and novelist of last century. He holds a prominent position in the field of

literary criticism. His work in the field of literary criticism is very important, as it gave new

dimensions to it. He had a natural instinct of observing, analyzing and interpreting, which helped

him a lot to become a critic of first rank. As a critic he became more prominent than any other

fields. His own sense of tradition and history really contributed in making him a versatile critic and

philosopher. As far as “Modern Tragedy” is concerned it is considered to be one of his best critical

works. In it he has discussed tragedy of the past, its evolution and development, the tradition of

tragedy, the modern inclinations in tragedy. Moreover, he has also discussed various authors and

the works of the 20th century and above all the effect of the concept of tragedy on the modern

revolutionary movements.

Tragedy and Tradition is basically about tragedy and its historical perspective. In it Raymond

Williams discusses common as well as traditional meanings of tragedy. For him tragedy is directly

related with culture, society and also to the experiences in life. He feels that tragedy is not simply

death and sufferings nor even any response to it; rather it is particular kind of event and a kind of

response to that event that is purely tragic. However, there are certain events and responses in life

that generally seem tragic, while others not.

According to Raymond 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 different areas. According to him, “Tradition” does not mean to accept

past entirely rather it is analyzing and evaluating the past in the present perspective. Moreover,

tragic works should be examined critically as well as historically. In short, he describes historical

development of the idea of Tragedy as follows:

According to Raymond Williams, to understand the concept of tragedy in “Classical Era” one

has to go through Greek Tragedies. The Greek tragedies are unique and genuine tragedies. They

did not depend on some specific doctrine; rather they are related to a network of beliefs that are

common in that culture. 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. However, the tragedy underwent many changes during this era. Chorus

which was considered an important part of tragedy lost its meanings and worth.

It is believed that in Medieval age there was no considerable development in tragedy. It was

considered a narrative form and story of a man who has fallen from prosperity to adversity. The


most important element of tragedy was considered fortune which meant wordily success. The

tragedy was considered to be a story, an account but not an action.

The Renaissance period was also dominated by the idea of rank. Tragedy was considered

story of a noble man who falls in adversity from prosperity. But, later in this period more

emphasize was given on tragic method and effect. This critical idea matured more in the 17th

century.

Importance of “Exalted Rank” was again center of tragedy of this era. The term “dignity”

was given special importance. It was considered a dignified man was considered a man of style,

hence, language used was also beautified with different embellishments. However, almost at the

end of this era change 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 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.

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.

It is believed that all the dramas after “Renaissance” were secular, whereas the Greek

drama was religious. With the gradual secularization of tragedy, morality became less important

and more attention was paid to the critical side of the tragedy. The increasing emphasize on

rational morality effected the tragic action. Raymond Williams feels that the poetic justice had also

undergone some certain changes according to the values and ideology of different communities.


Hegel a German philosopher laid emphasize on the cause of the tragedy than mere

sufferings. However, Williams Raymond finds two differences between the ancient and modern

tragedy. First, in the ancient tragedy, the characters clearly represent the ethical end, where as in

modern tragedy the ends are wholly personal. Secondly, in ancient tragedy, there is the downfall

of conflicting persons that ends in the achievement of eternal justice, whereas in the modern

tragedies the whole question of resolution is more difficult because the characters are more

personal. Hence, Hegel feels that Greek tragedy has been seen as the embodiment of the conflict

between primitive social forms and new social order, whereas the Renaissance tragedy has been

seen as the conflict between dying feudalism and new individualism.

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 highest

manifestation of will, is destroyed, but the eternal life of the will remains unaffected. According to

him, the action of tragedy is not moral, not 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 is basically

an essay about Tragedy in relation to contemporary ideas. Raymond Williams tried to present

those tragic varieties of tragic experiences through which he passed during his literary career. He

compares tragedy with the tragic experiences of modern life and with the past tragedies and

asserts on the need of rejecting the contemporary idea of tragedy. Tragedy in life is permanent

and inevitable but its views and intensity keep changing like the ordinary changes of life. Raymond

Williams has discussed following four main aspects of tragic theory:

According to Raymond Williams the tragic meanings of a tragic

experience can be found in the nature of response that event has on its surroundings. This

response varies from person to person and even different relations. The intensity of feelings varies


with the intensity of sharing that takes place in a particular situation. Depending on their relation

and response to the tragedy the responses differs. It would be of indifferences, justification, relief

or rejoicing. Depending upon varied responses, Hegel calls it “true sympathy and “mere

sympathy”. Moreover, an event can be tragic only when a human agency is involved in it and is felt

on ethical grounds.

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.

Williams believes that though fate and providence (دور اندیشی، عاقبت اندیشی) are responsible

for man’s downfall, yet they have always been beyond his control and he can’t handle them easily.

However, faith in deep sufferings with the ultimate hope in redemption is also a human support

against odds of tragedy. However, order and disorder in tragedies vary in different cultures and

societies, which realizes us the importance of culture in tragedy as an art form.

The most common conception about tragedy is that it ends with

the death of its hero. But in many of the tragedies story does not ends with the destruction of the

hero; rather it follows on (ٓاگے بڑھنا). It is not the job of the artist to provide answers and solutions;

but simply describe experiences and raise questions. Modern tragedy is not that what happened to

hero, but what happened through hero. 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. In short, the fact remains that life will always flow even after such catastrophe and that is

the phenomenon of nature as well as the dignity of mankind.

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 to relate their faiths and believes with it. 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" ( ی نقصانناقابل تالف ) and which cause

lamentation to the audience and makes them to realize a “universal principle” or a mere “personal

tragedy”. However, Williams Raymond 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”.

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. But, evil presented in tragedy is of varied form, 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. Hence, tragedy does not teach us

about evil, rather it teaches us about so many aspects of life and their consequences.

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.

“A rejection of Tragedy” is a highly informative, analytical and reflection essay by Williams

Raymond. This essay is basically a study of the rejection of tragedy in modern age with special

reference to Bertolt Brecht. Bertolt was a famous German dramatist as well as poet, how is also

known as for cynic and satirical touch in his works. However, the present essay is about rejection

of tragedy in modern age, Brecht’s views about it and the way he has demonstrated it in his

different plays. Brecht founded epic theater as compared to the conventional theory of Aristotle.

He rejected the conventional idea of the tragedy and made tragedy more experimental and

rational.

Brecht believed that drama should not be taken as “ritual”, but a “debate”, where the

spectators should be its detached observer. They should evaluate its different aspects according to

their own perception, thus get stimulated to decisive action. In fact, he considers that it is not so

important to show tragedy on stage, rather what is most important is its effect on the audiences.

In short, tragedy of a man appeals purely on human grounds, when one man is passing through an

unjust sufferings and this of response is the intensity of tragedy.

The close analysis of essay reveals that Brecht has rejected the concept of nobility in

tragedy also. He proves that in modern age even a common man can is as important as a person

belonging to high rank. He feels that even a prostitute could arouse the emotions of “pity” and


“fear”. This shows that today humanity is more important than anything else. He even feels that

sometimes very pathetic incidents do not arouse “pity” in us, thus having no intensity of tragedy,

and this is where tragedy itself is rejected. He very ironically asserts that people who are wicked

can even arouse “pity” and “fear” only when the whole society is wicked.

According to Brecht, the function of the theater is to practice “complex seeing”. This means

to watch something on the stage not according to one’s desires, rather through its complexities, as

they not only make us aware of certain tendencies in life, but also clarify us of certain critical

situations. In this respect, he bestows a new task to the theater to present some “ungentle” acts

on the stage along with some “noble” ones. He strongly believes that when audiences watch some

of their weaknesses demonstrated on the stage, they are bound to learn something from it, as it

mirrors their own weaknesses as well. Hence, the stage by showing some ugly aspects of people’s

life plays an important part in moulding their personalities.

Brecht very aptly observed and then asserted that in the past “nobility” was shown to

arouse morality in the society, but in modern times even “immorality” is shown to arouse morality

in the society, aptly demonstrated in his plays. Thus according to him, the function of tragedy is to

inform people of their deteriorated values and standards that need to be mended. It is because of

these priorities of the writers and the changing situation in the plays that term “tragedy” is

replaced by “sociological drama”. He also feels that today man is not worried about “moral

standards” as other grave and tangible aspects of life are surrounding him. That is why even a

criminal being innocent is unacceptable, but a revolutionary person killing innocent people is

acceptable. This shows the values of different societies according to their own standards. This is

what irritates Brecht very much which he tries to reject in his famous plays.

Raymond Williams has discussed six plays of Brecht to explain his point of view and sense of

a new tragedy:

a) The Three Penny Opera:

In this play, Brecht shows people buying and selling each other with cold heart but

with colour and wit. This is what life is and it seems that playwright is trying to

convey that we all pretend to be livelier and brighter than we are. Brecht opposes

such a kind of false society by the idea of true society.

b) Saint Joan of the Stockyard:

In this play, the clarity of Joan Dark in the labour struggle of Chicago is not only

shown as a false morality, but as a feeling to be a consciously rejected and replaced

by a new hardness. Brecht says that “only force helps where force rules”. For saying

this Joan is first suppressed and then glorified, in her former charitable innocence.

c) Die Massanhame:

In this play, Brecht offers what he takes to be a revolutionary morality, that the party

worker who shows too much human sympathy endangers revolutionary efforts and


must be killed. The revolutionary who talks of necessary killing is like the honest

criminal or the generous whore. Brecht was able look into the connection and

contradictions between individual goodness and social action.

d) The Good Woman of Sezuan:

In this play, by dramatic presentation Brecht invites us to look at what happens to a

good person in a bad society. Shen Te is a conventional kind hearted prostitute.

Through her, Brecht wants to show us how goodness is exploited by gods and men.

Brecht rejected the way of sacrifice as he highly rejected the idea that suffering can

make us dignify. He had the courage to reject sacrifice as a dramatic emotion.

e) Mother Courage and Her Children:

It is dramatization of conflicting instincts, conflicting illusions and commanding

insights that are not lived thorough. In this play, a dumb girl, speaking for life, is

being killed. The living goes on with a living that is killed. Brecht uses all his dramatic

skill to arise some basic questions, which take us towards the rejection of treagedy.

f) The Life of Galileo:

In this play, the case of free choice is dramatized. Galileo deals with the responsibility

of the intellectual to defend his or her belief in the face of opposition from

established authorities, in Galileo’s case the Roman Catholic Church. We can admire

or scorn ( ) Galileo, but Brecht is not asking us to do this. He is only telling us that

what happens to consciousness when it caught in deadlock between individual and

social morality.

In the end, we can say that this is who Brecht rejected some of the old values of and

concept of tragedy, because he feels that the standards and values of the modern world have

considerably changed and do not have affinity with the past. It is for these reasons he asserts on

“complex seeing” regarding the concept of tragedy. In short, Brecht through his own philosophy of

tragedy has given a novel way to the concept of tragedy, and Raymond Williams has discussed it

quite commendably in his book “Modern Tragedy”.

raymond william

Documents