"Radical Tragedy" by Jonathan Dollimore

Background and Context:

Radical Tragedy by Jonathan Dollimore is one of the best books I read whilst on my undergraduate. I first read it in my second year and used it in multiple essays, read it cover to cover and honestly, I recommend it to anyone interested in tragedy, Shakespeare and those who wrote plays at the same time as him. So you can now tell there is a good range of plays, even outside of Shakespeare himself.

Is it a difficult read? No. It goes into quite a bit of depth and sometimes, I have to admit - it can get heavy. But there is no reason why everyone can't read it if they're interested. This is not a review but instead, it is simply to dive into the book and tell you about it.

These are from again, notes from my university notebooks and folders that I've been sifting through. Also, they are from the notes that I've literally written all over the book itself.

"Radical Tragedy" by Jonathan Dollimore

A Deep-Dive

Jonathan Dollimore’s Radical Tragedy is a great work in literary criticism that challenges traditional interpretations of Renaissance tragedy, particularly those rooted in humanist, idealist, and existential frameworks. First published in 1984, it applies a cultural materialist lens to tragedies, arguing that these plays do not simply reaffirm dominant ideologies but often critique the social, political, and ideological structures of their time.

Dollimore’s central thesis is that tragedy, rather than being a conservative genre that reinforces moral order, frequently reveals the instability of power, the constructed nature of identity, and the contradictions within a ruling discourse.

The author's approach is deeply influenced by Marxist theory, Foucault's power analysis, and structuralism, particularly in its examination of how tragedy engages with authority, transgression, and subversion. He argues that Renaissance tragedy disrupts rather than affirms moral absolutes, particularly in its engagement with issues such as sexuality, religion, class, and the nature of power. This perspective stands in opposition to more traditional readings that see tragedy as about the individual’s moral struggle or as a reflection of a universal human condition. Instead, Dollimore situates these plays within their historical and ideological contexts, demonstrating how they reflect and interrogate the tensions of early modern England.

Also, Radical Tragedy aligns itself with cultural materialism: by treating literature as a site of ideological contestation, Dollimore argues that tragedy is not merely a reflection of historical forces but an active participant in the negotiation of power and meaning. Through close readings of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Webster, and others, he illustrates how these plays deconstruct dominant ideologies, particularly around the body, desire, and sovereignty.

New Criticisms vs. Traditional Criticisms

This book emerged in the 1980s, a period of significant shifts in literary criticism, particularly with the rise of cultural materialism and new historicism. These movements sought to challenge traditional, idealist interpretations of literature, focusing instead on how texts are shaped by their historical and ideological contexts. Dollimore’s work is deeply embedded in this intellectual climate, reacting against earlier humanist readings of tragedy that tended to generalise the tragic condition and emphasise individual moral struggles.

In earlier traditions, particularly those influenced by Aristotelian and Hegelian thought, tragedy was often seen as a genre that reaffirmed moral order, depicting the downfall of individuals due to personal flaws or fate.

From A.C. Bradley’s Shakespearean Tragedy (1904) (Lecture 1 especially) to mid-century existentialist readings, critics tended to focus on the tragic hero’s internal conflict rather than the broader social and political forces shaping the narrative. However, Dollimore argues that instead of simply depicting this, Renaissance tragedy channels through the social injustices within early modern England, weaving them into the dynamics of the tragedy itself.

This perspective aligns with the political and intellectual climate of the late 20th century. The 1980s saw neoliberalism under figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, prompting renewed academic interest in how literature engages with power, oppression, and resistance. Dollimore’s critique of authority and ideology in Radical Tragedy can be read as part of this broader intellectual resistance to conservative narratives about history and literature.

Tragedy as Radical for Social Change

For Dollimore, the political implications are significant. If tragedy is a site of ideological conflict then it is also a tool for revealing the contradictions within dominant power systems. Plays such as King Lear or The Duchess of Malfi do not merely depict individual downfall but engage with broader societal anxieties about: monarchy, gender, class, and the body. Tragedy, in this view, is not just about personal catharsis but about exposing the fragility of established hierarchies.

The author defines “radical” tragedy as that which destabilises dominant ideologies. He contrasts this with traditional, conservative interpretations that view tragedy as a means of reaffirming moral or divine justice. Radical tragedy, according to Dollimore, often centres on characters who challenge the status quo, expose hypocrisy, or transgress social norms; figures who, in traditional readings, might simply be seen as villains or tragic victims.

He differentiates between classical and modern tragedy by suggesting that while classical Greek tragedy tends to work within the framework of cosmic or divine justice, Renaissance and modern tragedy shift their focus to materialist concerns. In plays such as Doctor Faustus or Titus Andronicus, the tragic conflict is not between man and fate but between individual agency and oppressive systems of power. This distinction allows the author to argue that Renaissance tragedy is uniquely positioned as a radical force within literary history.

The Presentation of Power and Agency

A major thread in Radical Tragedy is the examination of power and agency, particularly in relation to class, gender, and sexuality. Dollimore builds on Foucault’s idea that power is not simply imposed from above but operates through institutions, discourse, and the regulation of desire. Tragic heroes, in this sense, are not just figures of individual downfall but they embody larger struggles within oppressive systems.

For example, Shakespeare’s Othello can be read not as a tragedy of personal jealousy but as a critique of racial and social exclusion, with Othello’s downfall exposing the anxieties of an imperialist, white-dominated society. Similarly, in The Revenger’s Tragedy, the protagonist’s violent pursuit of justice highlights the corruption of authority. But rather than restoring order, the play ends in chaotic destruction, underscoring the instability of power itself.

The author also draws attention to the way tragedy engages with gender and sexuality, challenging patriarchal assumptions. Figures such as Webster’s Duchess or Shakespeare’s Cleopatra assert forms of agency that defy societal expectations, making them deeply subversive figures within their narratives.

Close Readings of Key Plays

Dollimore’s analysis of specific tragedies in Radical Tragedy exemplifies his broader argument that tragedy serves as a vehicle for ideological critique rather than mere moral contemplation. His readings of plays such as Hamlet, King Lear, and Oedipus Rex challenge traditional interpretations by highlighting how these texts expose rather than resolve conflicts within power structures.

For example, his analysis of Hamlet moves away from conventional psychological readings that centre on Hamlet’s internal struggle or existential doubt. Instead, Dollimore interprets the play as an interrogation of political power and ideological instability. He emphasises the way the play critiques monarchy and inheritance, framing Hamlet’s disillusionment not as an abstract crisis but as a direct response to the corruption of the state. This reading aligns with more modern approaches, which view literature as historical commentary rather than as a reflection of universal human concerns.

The author frequently uses case studies to support his claims, drawing from historical moments, playwrights, and cultural shifts. One of the most significant examples is his discussion of Renaissance drama within the context of early modern England. He explores how the period’s tragedies reflect anxieties about social change, shifting notions of authority, and emerging discourses on gender and sexuality.

For instance, his engagement with revenge tragedy (particularly plays such as The Revenger’s Tragedy) illustrates how the genre critiques corruption and exposes the contradictions of power. Rather than seeing revenge tragedy as an affirmation of moral justice, Dollimore argues that these plays reveal the cyclical nature of violence and the instability of the ruling belief systems. This aligns with his broader historical materialist perspective, which sees literature as a reflection of the material conditions and conflicts of its time.

Another key example is Dollimore’s discussion of gender and sexuality in tragedy. He highlights how plays such as The Duchess of Malfi challenge patriarchal authority by portraying female protagonists who assert agency in ways that defy social norms. These characters become sites of ideological conflict, revealing the tensions between power, desire, and gender regulation. His reading of Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra similarly emphasises how the play resists stable definitions of identity, undermining the rigid binaries of power and subjugation.

Through these studies, Dollimore demonstrates that tragedy is not merely a reflection of human suffering but an active site of ideological struggle. His readings dismantle traditional interpretations and reposition tragedy as a form of resistance against oppressive power structures.

Reception

Critics have noted that Dollimore’s analysis provides a compelling alternative to formalist and moralist readings that view tragedy as a reflection of universal human concerns. By focusing on materialist and structuralist perspectives, he positions tragedy as a site of ideological conflict rather than moral instruction. This perspective has been particularly influential in Shakespeare studies, where his work has helped shift the focus from character psychology to broader social and political structures.

However, Radical Tragedy has also faced criticism. Some scholars argue that Dollimore’s emphasis on historical materialism and power structures risks reducing literary texts to ideological instruments, potentially overlooking their aesthetic and formal complexities. Others have questioned his tendency to read tragedy primarily through the lens of subversion and resistance, arguing that this approach sometimes overstates the radicalism of certain texts. Traditionalist critics have also pushed back against his rejection of humanist interpretations, arguing that tragedy’s enduring appeal lies in its exploration of universal and existential dilemmas rather than its political subtext.

Impact on Contemporary Studies of Renaissance Tragedy

Radical Tragedy has had a profound impact on contemporary approaches to tragedy, particularly new historicism readings of early modern drama. Scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt have engaged with Dollimore’s work, either building upon his insights or offering alternative perspectives on the relationship between tragedy and ideology. His influence can be seen in studies that approach Shakespearean tragedy through the lenses of power, subversion, and historical circumstances, rather than through character analysis or universal morals.

One of the most significant legacies of Radical Tragedy is its role in dismantling the idea of tragedy as an inherently conservative genre. By framing it as a site of conflict, the author has encouraged scholars to examine how tragedy interrogates dominant power. This perspective has been particularly influential in studies of Renaissance drama, where his approach has been applied to playwrights beyond Shakespeare, such as Christopher Marlowe, John Webster, and Thomas Middleton.

In more recent years, scholars have expanded upon Dollimore’s framework by incorporating insights from intersectionality and ecocriticism. For example, some have explored how race and colonialism shape tragic narratives, building upon his ideas about ideological instability. Others have examined how tragedy engages with environmental crises, drawing on his arguments about historical contingency and material conditions.

Conclusion

Dollimore’s arguments about power, agency, and dissidence in tragedy have also reshaped how scholars approach canonical texts. His analysis highlights how tragedies often expose the fragility of authority, the instability of identity, and the contradictions within dominant ideologies. His critique of traditional readings, particularly those that universalise tragic suffering, forces a reconsideration of how texts like Hamlet, King Lear, and Doctor Faustus function within their historical and political contexts.

While Radical Tragedy has significantly shaped literary criticism, its arguments invite further exploration. One avenue for future research is the application of Dollimore’s framework to non-Western tragedies. Also, as critical theory continues to evolve, integrating insights from environmental humanities, critical race studies, or disability studies could further enrich our understanding of tragedy’s ideological functions.

Another promising direction is a deeper engagement with the aesthetic dimensions of tragedy. While the author focuses on the political and structural forces shaping the genre, future studies might explore how tragedy’s emotional impact intersects with its ideological criticisms.

Finally, given the increasing interest in adaptation studies, scholars might investigate how contemporary reinterpretations of Renaissance tragedy( on stage, in film, or in digital media) engage with Dollimore’s insights about power, subversion, and ideological instability. This would help assess the continued relevance of his arguments in new cultural and historical contexts.