The Rebirth of Tragedy

Abstract

In 1955, Albert Camus presented a lecture in Athens called On Future of Tragedy. Examining this text, I argue that Camus's late formulation of tragedy can be traced through his major essays and back into his earliest writings, where it provides background for his critical attitude toward philosophy. Here, Camus is less concerned with developing a critical philosophy than is with practicing a form of ethics - an ascesis - operating within context of tragedy. Camus arrives at this position, in part, through his engagement with Friedrich Nietzsche. Through a comparative analysis of some recent studies Nietzsche - David Owen's Contest of Enlightenment: an essay critique and genealogy and Paul van Tongeren's Nietzsche's Greek Measure' - this essay will show depth of Camus's initial identification with Nietzsche regarding value of tragedy and ascesis, followed by his later critical differentiation from Nietzsche in name of these same values. Camus begins his lecture, On Future of Tragedy, by observing that tragedy occurs during periods of great historical change. The first period is in ancient Greece and is marked by period between Aeschylus and Euripides (fourth-fifth century BC). The second period is during seventeenth century. Camus finds it more than a coincidence that Elizabethan theatre in England, Spain's Golden Age, and peak of French tragedy are all contemporary moments.2 Camus argues that these periods of historical change are characterized by shift from a period dominated by universal or cosmic order to one of increasing concern with individualism. Both periods, states, a transition from forms of cosmic thought impregnated with notion of divinity and holiness to forms inspired by individualistic and rationalist concepts.3 It should not be surprising to therefore find - in a parallel intellectual history - that this first period is characterized by shift from pre-Socratic thinkers to Socrates, and second period by shift from Christian dogmatism of Middle Ages to Cartesian rationalism.4 For Camus, Socrates and Descartes are not tragic figures; rather they mark end of a particular period of tragedy when individual triumphs. When Nietzsche accuses Socrates of having dug grave of ancient Camus states, he is right up to a certain point - to exactly same extent that it is true to say of Descartes that marks end of tragic movement born in Renaissance.5 This is because, as Camus states, time final triumph of individual reason, in fourth century in Greece and in eighteenth century in Europe, causes literature of tragedy to dry up for centuries.6 To support his contention, Camus shifts discussion to a closer examination of very nature of tragedy. He notes that tragedy is always construed around meeting of opposing forces; but the confronting each other in tragedy are equally legitimate, equally justified... [and] each force is at same time both good and bad.7 Speaking in general terms, Camus defines these as, on one hand, man and his desire for power, and other, divine principle reflected by world. Tragedy occurs when man, through pride (or even through stupidity as in case of Ajax) enters into conflict with divine order, personified by a god or incarnated in society.8 These two opposing forces may be basic ingrethents of tragedy, but key to its expression is that neither side ultimately triumphs over other. And it is idea of limit, or measure, which is responsible for maintaining this tragic situation. constant theme of classical tragedy, therefore, is limit that must not be transgressed.9 Here Camus explains what happens when one side or other transgresses this balance: If divine order cannot be called into question and admits only sin and repentance, there is no tragedy. …