John Campbell in his book Questioning Racinian Tragedy criticizes those who analyze Phaedra as a “troubled amalgamation of tragedy, theology, and biography”. Campbell argues that the Jansenist reading, which sees Phaedra as a play that is unambiguously religious in nature, focusing on human fallibility and tragic destiny, produces a Racinian ‘corpse’ (154). This means a single reading that precludes new interpretations. In light of the limited information available on Racine and his Jansenist background, and current debates over the connection between that information and artistic output, how can we place Racine and his relationship with Port-Royal’s biography? This paper argues Jansenism is still a viable option for interpreting Phaedra, even if one accepts the inherent limitations of biography or religion as explanation tools. In order to get a more authoritative reading, we should explore the contradictions within Phaedra rather than obscuring them. Campbell’s “The God Question” argues that the real question is whether Jansenism was the true organizing principle in Racinian tragedy. In this paper, we put aside the questions of historical truth to focus on the potential contradictions of a Jansenist view of Phaedra.

Phaedra’s “sin” and its consequences are a perfect example of a passage that can be analyzed to support Jansenist views on Phaedra while also rejecting them. Racine’s Jansenism can be seen in Phaedra, whose “crime” reflects her agonizing psychological experience. Phaedra’s lamenting and dialogue to Oenone, Theseus, and Hippolytus shows “an attitude of indifference toward the world” (Sedgwick198). Scholars claim that Phaedra’s character is detached from the play’s action, which is initiated by other characters (Short39-40). The reader is reminded of Phaedra’s isolation when she tells Theseus that “My only desire must be solitude” (Racine 456). She also threatens to kill herself in front of Oenone. This reality reflects the Jansenist idea that spiritual conflict and investigation is a personal journey, not mediated by communities or institutions.

Phaedra’s suffering is both a connection and a disconnect with society. It undermines any Jansenist reading. Phaedra has a “bitter secret”, according to Racine (454), that she’s on the edge of both incest and adultery. Racine, in fact, calls her feelings a “unlawful Passion” (446), showing how Phaedra could only have committed a crime if she had broken the law. Phaedra, by her fear of breaking social rules, shows that she has an immense respect for these institutions. In the play, the law is portrayed as a moral authority, in conflict with Jansenist priorities attributed to divine power and the willingness to put “the individual’s interests above those of society” (Sedgwick, 196). Jansenists, in the past, have placed the well-being of individuals above the interests of the Port-Royal Religious Community (Sedgwick 1997). They have also been “preoccupied by their own lives”(Sedgwick198) to the extent that they declined involvement with state and Church during a period in which other religious groups were bitterly at odds with those institutions. Phaedra suffers because she recognizes that submitting to passion and breaking taboos will cause suffering and dissolution to society and the family. Phaedra is a good example of this. The question of the meaning and experience the heroine’s tragic suffering has can be read both in a Jansenist and a Jansenist way.

To preserve this reading, Racinian scholarship must avoid contradictions. Short’s Phaedra Analysis, which is conventionally interpreted to give Phaedra a high level of importance, making her struggle one of internal conflict, has two instances where it acknowledges that the play may not follow this canonical interpretation. First, Short points out that the play lacks “true monologues where characters explore a state-of-mind” (Short 32). Short contextualizes Phaedra’s incestuous passion, noting that, “the play’s world” (36) defines this as such. Short may want to look at the way that the conventions and rules of the play (the lack a monologue) undermine the notion of Phaedra being an isolated person, or how social norms (the laws) influence Phaedra in her understanding of what she has done. In both instances, however, this analysis ignores alternative readings of the observations. Short wonders (33) why Racine didn’t use monologue. He then concludes that Phaedra is responsible for her own crime (37). This glosses over the contradictions and preserves the standard interpretation. Campbell’s frustration at the “corpse-like” portrayal of Racine is due to this omission.

Racine’s connection with the religious group has primarily been invoked to justify the denial that there is contradiction. Worthen introduces Phaedra with confidence, stating that “Racine’s Port-Royal schooling played a decisive and important role in both his intellectual and dramatic career” (444). The introduction also encourages the new reader to interpret Phaedra based on “the philosophical beliefs of Jansenists” (444) Short notes that, when textual evidence is incongruous, biographical details are often used as an additional proof to prove that Racine’s play was Jansenist. Do these biographical bits really support a Jansenist interpretation? There is some historical support, but the assumption is that a “pervasive impact” (Worthen 444), from a religious movement means that it’s beliefs are being transmitted by the artist. This model assumes that if Racine had been a Jansenist at some point, his tragedies would unmistakably reflect Jansenist values.

Campbell argues convincingly that past readings have questioned the Jansenist interpretation of Phaedra, and that Racine’s relationship towards Port-Royal has led to plays that unquestionably promote Jansenist actions and beliefs. The paper does not agree with Campbell that a Jansenist interpretation is necessary to contest Racine’s “dead-body” status (154). Racine is not known to have been a Jansenist. Phaedra is a text that can be read in both a positive and negative light. This could lead to new questions being asked about the text. The text is kept “open” by recognizing a singular interpretation as just that. It also helps to understand that it’s impossible to provide a full biography or uncover the author’s intent.

References

Original: Moreover

Paraphrased: In addition

Campbell, John. Questioning Racinian Tragedy. UNC, located in Chapel Hill, is a university in North Carolina.

Press, 2005.

The Wadsworth Anthology of Drama. 4th Ed. Worthen,

W.B., ed. Heinle & Heinle 2003, Cambridge. 444.

Racine, Jean. Phaedra. The Wadsworth Anthology of Drama. 4th Ed. Worthen,

W.B., ed. Heinle & Heinle 2003. 444-463.

Short, J.P. “Moral Issues.” Racine: Phaedre. Valencia: Grant & cutler Ltd, 1983. 32-41.

—. “Phaedre.” Racine: Phaedre. Valencia: Grant & cutler Ltd, 1983. 48-73.

Sedgwick, Alexander. Jansenism and its nature in the seventeenth century

France. Charlottesville, Virginia: UP of Virginia 1977. 193-207.