Reilly, Mary (1997) The language of power relationships in Racine (Britannicus, Berenice, Bajazet), with parallels in Sartre. PhD thesis http://theses.gla.ac.uk/6549/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Mary Reilly THE LANGUAGE OF POWER RELATIONSHIPS IN RACINE (BRITANNICUS, BERENICE, BAJAZEn, WITH PARALLELS IN SARTRE A Ph.D thesis for the Faculty of Arts of the University of Glasgow June 1997 For my mother, Margaret, and the memory of my father, Edward (1942-95) ABSTRACT This study is concerned with the way in which Racine, particularly through his use of language, dramatises areas of tension inherent in the concept of power. Considering three plays from Racine's middle period (}3ritannicus, Bajazet and Berenice), Chapter One seeks to uncover the basis of political power. Taking as its starting point the ambivalence underpinning the term legitimacy, Section A examines the foundations of power in the sense of political and moral authority. Section B in turn looks at the implications of these findings for the nature and operation of power, while Section C highlights the discrepancy between real and imagined power, by raising the all­ important question as to its locus. Chapter Two takes a fresh look at the relationship between power and love. The ruler I lover dichotomy dramatises both an exterior clash and an interior conflict. We see firstly how the role of ruler impinges upon the role of lover, betraying the transgressive nature of power. However, the examination of the operation of power in a realm where it should not prevail, is ironically confounded by the fact that the political and the erotic are shown to be almost inextricably intertwined. The roles of ruler and lover therefore paradoxically conflict and concord simultaneously. By examining relations between individual characters from the Sartrean perspective of pour autrui, Chapter Three ultimately reveals what the power structure would conceal, that is that those in power are subject to the same cycle of dominance and subservience as those who are not. Section A demonstrates the way in which the familiar acts of thinking and speaking, traditionally perceived as our principal means of positive interaction with others, give rise to conflictual relationships similar to those portrayed three centuries later by Sartre in Huis C/os. Language itself, far from uniting characters, . becomes a source of anxiety and discord. Characters find themselves in a bewildering hall of mirrors as speech becomes increasingly deceptive, distorting and concealing the truth. In this way we see how the dit gives way to the tyranny of the non-dU, for like a sinister 'thought police', Racine's protagonists set about capturing and controlling the Other's mind. Section B highlights the development of techniques of manipulation and suppression. The title of this section, Merry-Go-Round, reflects the endless and fruitless struggle to dominate the Other's thought-process. TABLE OF CONTENTS page Prefatory Note 6 Acknowledgements 7 Introduction 8 Chapter One: The Portrayal of Power 18 Chapter Two: Ruler / Lover 76 Chapter Three: Power Relationships 124 Conclusion 193 Bibliography 197 6 PREFATORY NOTE Quotations are taken from 1. Racine, Oeuvres, ed. by P. Mesnard, 8 vols (Paris: Hachette, 1865-73). References indicating the play and line number are either given in the body of the thesis after the relevant quotation, or, for multiple references, in the notes. Italics in verse quotations are my own. Quotations from 1.-P. Sartre's Huis Ctos are from the Gallimard edition (Paris, 1947). Bibliographical references are given in accordance with the Modem Humanities Research Association style book. An amended version of Section A of Chapter Three appeared in Seventeenth-Century French Studies, 18 (1996), 133-44, under the title 'Racine's Hall of Mirrors'. I would also like to acknowledge here a work which proved to be of invaluable help: B. C. Freeman and A. Batson, Concordance du Theatre et des Poesies de Jean Racine, 2 vols (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968). 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would firstly like to thank the French Department of the University of Glasgow, in particular Professor Noel Peacock and Professor Angus Kennedy who were always there to offer words of encouragement and practical support throughout this study. Only.I can know the debt of gratitude lowe to Dr John Campbell who first stimulated my love of seventeenth-century theatre and who saw this research through from the exposition to the denouement. I thank him for his undying enthusiasm, his good humour, his patience, his many insights, and the time and thought he devoted to this study. John was a constant source of inspiration and wise counsel as well as a good friend. I would also like to acknowledge receipt of a major Scottish studentship from the > Scottish Office Education Department which allowed me to undertake the research, and to thank Noel Lacey and Philip Morey in Manchester for their help. I am deeply grateful to my mother, Margaret, who has provided a constant source of support and encouragement. It would not have been possible without her. A special thanks also to my dear friends John Boyle, Marie Devine, Jim Simpson and Finn Sinclair and to my fellow tragic victims, Shona Allan, Janet Stewart, Martin McQuillan, Neil McKinlay, and Jane Cavani, whose friendship helped me through the long course of research and writing. INTRODUCTION For over three hundred years Racinian theatre has provoked a multitude of conflicting interpretations. One is reminded of what Norman Rabkin wrote of Shakespeare's Henry V: 'Leaving the theatre at the end of the first performance, some members of the audience knew that they had seen a rabbit, others a duck. Still others [... ] knew that they did not know what to think.,I The fact that Racinian tragedy continues to generate new interpretations, which seem to confound previously hard-won conclusions, is testimony to the perennial fascination Racine has exerted. Of course one might wonder what there is left to write on Racinian tragedy. In the words of Shakespeare, 'What's new to speak, what now to register?'z This thesis is an attempt to show that one area at least deserves fresh scrutiny: the question of power and its implications for Racinian tragedy as a whole. A glance at the political and philosophical writing of the seventeenth century, and even at its tragic drama, suffices to show that a major preoccupation of the time was the nature and limits of absolutism.3 At a time of political revaluation, it is hardly surprising we find Racine concerned with the limits of power and the consequences of its transgression. It will become clear from the subjects Racine chooses to treat that he wishes to focus, not on wars and victories, kingdoms and riches, but rather on the nature and operation of power. This is not merely a subjective whim. Power and rank have become intrinsic to the tragic vision. D'Aubignac's famous prescription that tragedy should be ' ... une chose magnifique, grave et convenable aux agitations et aux grands revers de la fortune des princes', reflects the fact that it has been largely concerned with the agony of men and women of power.4 Indeed Jean Dubu recently defined tragedy as 'Ie cercle etroit des tetes couronnees, cette espece de club de monarques,.5 Racine maintains and indeed accentuates this prerequisite. Alain Quesnel points out that 'la question du pouvoir sur autrui est au fondement meme de 1'0euvre,.6 It is the purpose of this thesis to look beyond the conventional pageant of Introduction 9 power and explore how it operates as an essential determinant in the movement of the tragic action by giving rise to transgressive and repressive relationships. It will focus on the issue of limits to elucidate how Racine dramatises areas of tension inherent in the very concept of power itself. Each of the three main chapter seeks to untangle the complex web-like structure of power in Britannicus, Bajazet and Berenice. Why this choice? The demands of space and time self-evidently preclude a detailed examination of each one of Racine's tragedies. On the other hand, it is only through such an examination that one can begin to grasp the complexity and wide-ranging nature of Racine's treatment of power. It was for these severely practical reasons that the decision was taken to concentrate on these three plays. They were not chosen arbitrarily. They are all from Racine's middle period, successive works written within a three-year period, and all offer much evidence on the theme treated. In addition, while the main emphasis will be on these three plays, reference will throughout be made to the other tragedies, insofar as they offer points of comparison or difference. The 1950s and 1960s witnessed something of a Racinian critical renaissance. The tragedies became the battleground for a new style of literary criticism, given the name of literary theory. This is not the place to rehearse how the band-wagon of this nouvelle critique was set in motion by critics such as Charles Mauron,7 Lucien Goldmann8 and Roland Barthes.9 However that this trend is still vigorous may be seen in the recent work of Catherine Spencer's feminist study, in the self-reflexive approach of Mary-Jo Muratore and the revival of historicist criticism by Timothy Reiss.