The Love That Kills: Phaedra’s Challenges to a Philosophy of Eros

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments are in the attached Word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have pointed out a few problems with language, but on the whole it is of good quality.

Author Response

[MANY THANKS TO REVIEWER FOR THIS VALUABLE PERSPECTIVE.]

 

On many levels, this is an engagingly written, quirky and distinctive piece of writing,

showing great breadth of reference. On its own terms, and especially for a general

reader, it would have much to offer. However, as a study of love and the character

Phaedra, it has many shortcomings that a specialist reader is unable to ignore. Given

that Racine’s Phèdre forms the centrepiece of this article, I will concentrate largely on

that. As an academic article, it ignores almost entirely recent scholarship. Only one

current scholar (Tristan Alonge) is cited, and all other commentators on Racine tend to be early to mid-twentieth-century writers (e.g. Mauriac, Valéry). If the purpose of the special number is not to worry about current scholarship, then this piece could perhaps be included, but as an article in an academic journal, it has far too many problems. I list some small and larger concerns below from the early pages. The later pages deal with productions and films which are of interest in their own right but which  strike me as somewhat random addenda to the main topic of the article.

 

[REPLY: The main topic is of show how warped forms of love deserve philosophical study and how works of literature play a role in crystallizing reflection on them—between the too abstract treatments of philosophy, sociology, and philosophy on the one hand and the unmanageable empirical on the other. The remarks on Racine are oriented to filling out the literary picture of that kind of love as are the further remarks on Boito, Visconti, Mishima. This could be clarified at the start, rather than chasing after the latest Racine scholarship.]

 

 

p.1, l31: ‘rarely adverting to’ [REPLY: not incorrect]

More needs to be written of the absence of the gods in Racine’s theatre.

1. 5 l135 The comment that the gods ‘intervene in the action constantly’ needs

nuancing, as the gods do not appear at all. Rather, we are left with the characters’

perceptions of the gods. This is the case with all of Racine’s Greek tragedies. Even the Jewish/Christian late works are much less straightforward than some critics have make of them.

[REPLY: The gods have only a conventional presence in Andromaque but they are powerful presences in Phèdre, as is the Underworld. They are also agents in the plot — Neptune kills Hippolytus, Venus persecutes Phaedra and her family — if this is merely her fancy, the play makes little sense. Racine refrained from reducing the gods to allegories or metaphors as other playwrights might have done. He wanted to revive a sense of the potency they had for the Greeks.]

 

 

1. 5 l159

‘allusion to biblical, classical, French, and Italian literature in Milton is matched by

Racine’: this is simply not true. Racine only alludes to biblical sources in his two

religious plays, not before. By Italian literature, does the author mean Roman writers? –  [REPLY: I meant Tasso etc. for Milton; and that Racine matches Milton in allusive skill, though less baroque and more discreet.]

Yes this is true in the Roman tragedies but not in Phèdre [Seneca is alluded to in the sense that he provides elements Racine takes up and enhances, notably the retention of her on the stage until the end, and her confession to Hippolyte. Virgil is surely present in the many references to the Underworld.]

1. 5 l163; an acuity learnt from 163 Romans 7, from Augustine’s Confessions, Book 8 and from Jansenist preachers’ seems to suggest that Phèdre rather than Racine has

been using these sources. [REPLY: I rewrite this.]

(This use of phrase is used almost identically on p. 10 –‘Phèdre analyses her own moral stare with an acuity learnt from 300 Romans 7, from

Augustine’s Confessions, Book 8, and from Jansenist preachers’.)

 

[REPLY: Actually the two sections from p. 9 to p. 14 are duplicated — I should have printed the piece out for a final check.]

 

 I would question the propensity of critics to assume that Racine uses Christian/Jansenist ideas in his Greekplays also. Of much greater interest is the use of reflexive verbs in the quotation that follows: wherever Gods are evoked, so too is the characters’ self-perception.

 

[REPLY: An interesting track to folllow.]

 

 Compare p. 7 l199: Phèdre is NOT under condemnation by a Jansenist God, as the author here seems to intimate. Throughout the article, the outmoded idea that Racine was a card-carrying Jansenist is simply wrong. He was educated at the Port-Royal petites écoles, but then broke from his former teachers, especially in relation to their condemnation of the theatre, and it was only much later that he was reconciled with Port-Royal.

 

[Yes, “a Jansenist God” is a corny cliché — but not necessarily entirely wrong — the way themes of guilt, free will, concupiscence are handled in the play is highly redolent of Augustinian introspection. Wasn’t his rapprochement with Port-Royal soon after Phèdre? To measure the impact of a Jansenist-tinged Christian education and of his reading is difficult.]  Yes, he grapples with ideas that might have some overlap with Jansenist theology, but this is not the starting point of his Greek plays. [REPLY: Sure, the starting point, if one must be identified, is a “love that dare not speak its name” and but if forced to (in the two great avowal scenes.]

 

In the remainder of the article, there are disparate references to different readings of

Phaedra by other writers (like Paul Valéry) and directors, all interesting in their own right, but somewhat scatter-gun in approach. Do references to Puccini’s Madam Butterfly really contribute to our understanding of Phaedra? [REPLY: The love and death topic is a cliché mocked by Woody Allen — and Madama Butterfly and Isolde are very different from Phaedra — unlike the characters in the other source mentioned, who are influenced by her story — so I’ll remove them.]

 

 Also, the comparison between Racine’s Phèdre and Mme de Lafayette’s Princesse de Clèves has been made many times before, mostly in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, often to show the awareness shown by writers of the time of psychological complexity, but the juxtaposition of these two writers offers little that is original or illuminating. [REPLY: It’s just meant to show that the combination of passion and insight in Racine’s account lies at the foundation of the psychological novel which in its turn is a rich resource for a philosophy of love. I should note the theme of “avowal” shared by Racine and Mme de La Fayette and consider its importance for analysis of and insight into “love”.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reader’s Report on The Love that Kills

General comments

My overall judgement on this paper is that it covers very interesting themes and ranges broadly, but it is currently thoroughly flawed by extremely careless production and needs a significant rewrite before it can be published. I do think that within its malformation there is a very good paper that should eventually be published, but not in this form. 

 

I was working through it and reached line 289, only to realize that ll.289-342 are repeated verbatim from ll.148-200 on pp. 5-6. After that, all the way to l.468, the paper similarly repeats much of what has gone before, although there are some variations. In the end, I stopped trying to figure out exactly what was repeated verbatim and what was a variation (sometimes a very interesting variation, in fact) because I do not think that it is a job of a reviewer, especially one doing this as a service to the profession,  to do what the author should have done before submission. Perhaps there was some technical error by the journal that was not the author’s fault, but either way, it’s a massive flaw in the paper which renders it entirely unpublishable in its current form. That said, I want to reiterate that there was much good material in the first 5-6 pages and in the last 4  that I did find very worthwhile and publishable. The one thing I would say, though, about the last part of it (il.497ff.) is that the author needed to provide more basic background about the works under discussion, more plot and more material on how these related to Racine because the connections weren’t as clear as they might be for this reader at least.

 

Minor points

l.38 misplaced subscript number.

n.8 What do you mean by controverted after the reference to Graves?

n.10. I might either get rid of this note or expand it. It is abundantly clear that the blood-curdling tragedies are partly negative examples of what happens when you don’t embrace Stoic principles! So it’s not as much of a contradiction as the author claims.

l.109 missing full stop after “moment.”

ll.135-7. That sentence is really long and unclear; and needs a period at the end of it.

l.145 some howdiscreet (fix). One might note that in Euripides as well, the gods are there but in the background except when their machinations do harm to the characters.

ll.146-7. What do you mean about pious countries? It was not clear to this reader.

l.150 does Blake not use an apostrophe with Devils?

n.25 the first line isn’t actually quoted in the French.

l.222 I wouldn’t call Euripides’ Hippolytus  jaunty at all, and actually his horror is not merely of unchaste women but any women whatsoever (which is why Aphrodite is out to get him in the first place!)

l.258-9. I did not understand the point being made here. Is this about Euripides, Racine, or what?

l.260-1. This superficial contrast between Hippolytus anf Bacchae is not very illuminating, and in my view thoroughly untrue. At ll. 465-7, you make a similar contrast between Hippolytus and Bacchae which, while I still disagree with it, is better formed in its thought.

473-482. What exactly is inside the quotation here?.Should there be an opening quotation mark at 476?

516 approve to “approve of”?

Author Response

 

[THANKS TO REVIEWER FOR CATCHING MISTAKES AND FOR ENCOURAGING COMMENTS]

 

My overall judgement on this paper is that it covers very interesting themes and ranges broadly, but it is currently thoroughly flawed by extremely careless production and needs a significant rewrite before it can be published. I do think that within its malformation there is a very good paper that should eventually be published, but not in this form. 

 

I was working through it and reached line 289, only to realize that ll.289-342 are repeated verbatim from ll.148-200 on pp. 5-6. After that, all the way to l.468, the paper similarly repeats much of what has gone before, although there are some variations. In the end, I stopped trying to figure out exactly what was repeated verbatim and what was a variation (sometimes a very interesting variation, in fact) because I do not think that it is a job of a reviewer, especially one doing this as a service to the profession,  to do what the author should have done before submission. Perhaps there was some technical error by the journal that was not the author’s fault, but either way, it’s a massive flaw in the paper which renders it entirely unpublishable in its current form. That said, I want to reiterate that there was much good material in the first 5-6 pages and in the last 4  that I did find very worthwhile and publishable. The one thing I would say, though, about the last part of it (il.497ff.) is that the author needed to provide more basic background about the works under discussion, more plot and more material on how these related to Racine because the connections weren’t as clear as they might be for this reader at least.

 

[REPLY: I agree, and please accept my apology for giving you unnecessary trouble.]

 

Minor points

l.38 misplaced subscript number. [REPLY: I’ll transfer to outside the parenthesis.]

n.8 What do you mean by controverted after the reference to Graves? [REPLY: I don’t have a precise reference.]

n.10. I might either get rid of this note or expand it. It is abundantly clear that the blood-curdling tragedies are partly negative examples of what happens when you don’t embrace Stoic principles! So it’s not as much of a contradiction as the author claims. [REPLY: I’ll delete it.]

l.109 missing full stop after “moment.”

ll.135-7. That sentence is really long and unclear; and needs a period at the end of it.  [REPLY: a period is missing after (ll. 469-70)

l.145 some howdiscreet (fix). One might note that in Euripides as well, the gods are there but in the background except when their machinations do harm to the characters. [REPLY: Aphrodite appears on the stage to give the opening speech, but in a sense she is less “present” than in Racine.]

ll.146-7. What do you mean about pious countries? It was not clear to this reader.[REPLY: Thinking of traditional Catholic countries of the past.]

l.150 does Blake not use an apostrophe with Devils?[REPLY: No.]

n.25 the first line isn’t actually quoted in the French. [REPLY: Good catch]

l.222 I wouldn’t call Euripides’ Hippolytus  jaunty at all, and actually his horror is not merely of unchaste women but any women whatsoever (which is why Aphrodite is out to get him in the first place!) [REPLY: His first appearance left that impression on me, but I’ll check. Euripides does not have an avowal to Hipp., but Seneca has one that may come from the lost earlier play by Euripides, and his reaction in Seneca implies horror at her lasciviousness — need to check.]

l.258-9. I did not understand the point being made here. Is this about Euripides, Racine, or what?

l.260-1. This superficial contrast between Hippolytus anf Bacchae is not very illuminating, and in my view thoroughly untrue. At ll. 465-7, you make a similar contrast between Hippolytus and Bacchae which, while I still disagree with it, is better formed in its thought. [REPLY: This is part of the long duplicated section; I’ll delete both references to Bacchae.]

473-482. What exactly is inside the quotation here?.Should there be an opening quotation mark at 476?

516 approve to “approve of”?

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is full of energy and rich in references. It would be more effective if instead of rapidly alluding to a vast amount of writers and thinkers, it would attentively consider fewer works of fiction and explain the main differences between the representation of love in Euripides’ Hippolytus, and Racine’s Phaedra:

 

• In Euripides’ play the action is caused by the conflict between Aphrodite, goddess of love, and Arthemis, goddess of hunt and chastity, both present on stage. In Racine’s Phaedra, the action originates in human passions. The name of goddess Venus is often mentioned by the main character, but only as a metaphoric reference to her own powerful feelings.

 

• In Euripides, there is only one couple, Theseus and Phaedra, given that Hippolytus, a follower of goddess Arthemis, is not interested in love relationships. In Racine, by contrast, there are two couples: Phaedra and her husband Theseus, and Hippolyte and Aricie, deeply in in love with each other.

 

• Racine’s play emphasizes the difference between Phaedra’s lonely love, and Hippolyte and Aricie’s mutual love, hopefully leading to marriage and explicitly devoted to a single, unnamed, all-powerful god.

 

• This contrast resonates with the difference between, on the one hand, Phaedra being the most recent wife of the polygamous, much older Theseus and, on the other hand, her passion and hope to marry the young, chaste Hippolytus, when (only when) his father is believed to have died.

 

• In Euripides’ tragedy, Phaedra, having been rejected by Hippolytus, who threatened her that he will tell everything to Theseus, commits suicide. On her body Theseus finds a letter in which she falsely accuses Hippolytus of having raped her. By contrast, in Racine’s play Phaedra, believing that Hippolytus is a loner, first tries to master her passion. She decides to confess it only when she finds out that in fact her son-in-law is capable of human love. Even so, it isn’t Phaedra, but Oenona, her nurse and confidante, who tells Theseus that Hippolytus attempted to take Phaedra by force. As for Phaedra, at the end she confesses her guilt to Theseus and confirms Hippolytus’ innocence.

Are these just details? Don’t they suggest that Racine, not unlike other, less known, seventeenth century French playwrights, aimed at changing, moderating, civilizing Ancient Greek plays and myths and their way of representing love? In Racine’s Phaedra love can certainly be violent, difficult to master, but it can also lead to a noble, respectful, shared union of a couple under the protection of a single, eternal god. Where did Racine find the representation of this kind of love? In his favorite late ancient Greek novel that he read and reread as a teenager and, as his youngest son Louis later noted in his memoirs about his father, Racine knew by heart in its original Greek, namely Heliodorus’ The Ethiopian Story, highly popular in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century Europe. This novel and its neo-platonic reverberations influenced several important works of fiction of that period, including Persiles and Sigismunda by Cervantes, Polexandre by Gomberville and Artamène by Mlle de Scudéry.

 

Author Response

The article is full of energy and rich in references. It would be more effective if instead of rapidly alluding to a vast amount of writers and thinkers, it would attentively consider fewer works of fiction and explain the main differences between the representation of love in Euripides’ Hippolytus, and Racine’s Phaedra:

I ALREADY DROPPED HALF THE LITERARY REFERENCES AND I DISCUSSED EURIPIDES EXTENSIVELY. REVIEWER DOES NOT NOTICE THE DOUBLE POINT OF THE ESSAY: TO SHOW THAT LOVE IS PLURALISTIC AND THAT WE CANNOT EXCLUDE THE "MONSTROUS" LOVE OF PHAEDRA [RACINE'S BUT ALSO THE ARCHETYPE DOWN TO MISHIMA AND VISCONTI] FROM SOME SANITIZED DEFINITION; AND SECONDLY TO ARGUE THAT LITERATURE GOES BEYOND PHILOSOPHY IN ITS INSIGHTS CAN CANNOT BE FULLY RECUPERATED.

 

In Euripides’ play the action is caused by the conflict between Aphrodite, goddess of love, and Arthemis [ARTEMIS], goddess of hunt and chastity, both present on stage [AS IN MODERN OPERAS -- IT DOES NOT MEAN EURIPIDES TAKES THEM LITERALLY -- IN HIS THEATRE TOO "PASSIONS SPIN THE PLOT" ]. In Racine’s Phaedra, the action originates in human passions. The name of goddess Venus is often mentioned by the main character, but only as a metaphoric reference to her own powerful feelings. I DISCUSSED THIS AND ARGUED THAT RACINE DID NOT WANT TO DEFUSE THE GODS -- THEY REMAIN AGENTS IN THE PLOT

 

In Euripides, there is only one couple, Theseus and Phaedra, given that Hippolytus, a follower of goddess Arthemis [ARTEMIS], is not interested in love relationships. In Racine, by contrast, there are two couples: Phaedra and her husband Theseus, and Hippolyte and Aricie, deeply in love with each other. I DISCUSSED THE ROLE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTARY COUPLE.

 

Racine’s play emphasizes the difference between Phaedra’s lonely [YES! THIS IS A GOOD POINT] love, and Hippolyte and Aricie’s mutual love, hopefully leading to marriage and explicitly devoted to a single, unnamed, all-powerful god. NO, THE REVIEWER IS READING TOO MUCH INTO THE LINE WHERE HIPP. TELLS ARICIE HE WILL MARRY HER IN A LOCAL TEMPLE BEFORE FLEEING FROM TROEZEN Nous prendrons à témoin le dieu qu'on y révère (line 1401). He adds immediately Diana, Juno, and all the gods. He constantly talks of Dieux, not Dieu. To be sure, Aricie's insistence on honorable marriage is a modern touch. But this charming couple are NOT the dramatic, psychological or even moral core of the play.

 

This contrast resonates with the difference between, on the one hand, Phaedra being the most recent wife of the polygamous, much older Theseus and, on the other hand, her passion and hope to marry the young, chaste Hippolytus, when (only when) his father is believed to have died. I DON'T THINK THE PLAY REFERS TO PHAEDRA MARRYING HIPPOLYTUS

 

In Euripides’ tragedy, Phaedra, having been rejected by Hippolytus, who threatened her that he will tell everything to Theseus, commits suicide. On her body Theseus finds a letter in which she falsely accuses Hippolytus of having raped her. By contrast, in Racine’s play Phaedra, believing that Hippolytus is a loner, first tries to master her passion. She decides to confess it only when she finds out that in fact her son-in-law is capable of human love. [WRONG: THE CONFESSIONS ARE NOT OCCASIONED BT AN ALLEGED DISCOVERY THAT HIPP. IS NOT A LONER; THE REVIEWER SEEMS TO BE REMEMBERING THE LATER SCENE WHEN SHE DISCOVERS HE HAS A LOVER, ARICIEl WHICH PROMPTS HER TO CHANGE HER MIND ABOUT TELLING THESEUS THE TRUTH. RACINE IS THE ONLY AUTHOR IN THE TRADITION WHO HAS HER CONFESS TWICE -- TO THE NURSE AND TO HIPPOLYTUS -- AND THESE ARE THE TWO MOST ELECTRIFYING SCENES. Even so, it isn’t Phaedra, but Oenona, her nurse and confidante, who tells Theseus that Hippolytus attempted to take Phaedra by force. As for Phaedra, at the end she confesses her guilt to Theseus and confirms Hippolytus’ innocence. YES, THESE PLOT CHANGES ALLOW US TO REMAIN IN SYMPATHY WITH HER GUILTY PASSION, EVEN WHEN IT TURNS MURDEROUS. NOTE THAT SENECA ALREADY ALTERED THE PLOT (OR RETRIEVED THE PLOT OF EURIPIDES FIRST HIPPOLYTUS PLAY, NOW LOST) AND KEPT PHAEDRA ONSTAGE TILL THE VERY END.

 

Are these just details? Don’t they suggest that Racine, not unlike other, less known, seventeenth century French playwrights, aimed at changing, moderating, civilizing Ancient Greek plays and myths and their way of representing love? I COMMENTED ON THIS AND ON THE NEOCLASSICAL IDEAL OF AN INTERTEXTUAL MASTERY OF THE ENTIRE TRADITION. TO SAY HE MODERATES THE SOURCES IS MISLEADING -- HIS "THEATRE OF PASSION" INTERNALIZES THEM BUT MAKES THEM IN A SENSE MORE EXTREME. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT WAGNER "MODERATES" THE TRISTAN STORY. In Racine’s Phaedra love can certainly be violent, difficult to master, but it can also lead to a noble, respectful, shared union of a couple under the protection of a single, eternal god. WELL, THE RELATIVELY INNOCENT COUPLE (THEY ALSO HAVE BLOTTED THEIR COPYBOOK WITH SOCIETY) DO END UP SWEARING "an eternal love" but there is no "singel, eternal god". 

 

 Where did Racine find the representation of this kind of love? In his favorite late ancient Greek novel that he read and reread as a teenager and, as his youngest son Louis later noted in his memoirs about his father, Racine knew by heart in its original Greek, namely Heliodorus’ The Ethiopian Story, highly popular in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century Europe. This novel and its neo-platonic reverberations influenced several important works of fiction of that period, including Persiles and Sigismunda by Cervantes, Polexandre by Gomberville and Artamène by Mlle de Scudéry. THIS I DID NOT KNOW, BUT I WOULD NOT THINK IT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CREATE THE LOVELY IMAGE OF THE YOUNG COUPLE. 

 

IN ANY CASE THE ESSAY IS ABOUT "THE LOVE THAT KILLS" and the reviewer admits that though "violent, difficult to master" it can still be called "love" -- the keyword "love" is applied much more regularly to Phaedra than to the young couple. 

 

I think the character of Hipp,-Aricie is so well known and so unmysterious that it is not necessary to add anything more to my remarks on them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded to the suggestions contained within the first report and has added a few secondary sources to scholarship on Racine. The textual additions mostly improve the piece, even though the somewhat sniping remarks on p. 10 strike me as unnecessarily petty:

"Scholars who pooh-pooh the dramatist’s Jansenist culture, telling us that the study of this particular brand of piety interests only a tiny band of specialists, might reflect that Racine and Pascal themselves are threatened with a like oblivion. Prickly and difficult as the subject is, it is just as relevant to Racine’s art, at least in this play, as his classical sources and the other French plays on the Phaedra story."

I am happy to agree to disagree with the outmoded Jansenist reading of Racine, and I leave it to the editor of the special number to judge whether this piece fits in with the theme and approach of the other contributors to the special number. It is an engagingly written piece.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I get the sense that some of the changes have been made somewhat hurriedly. The English is fine, but I would recommend that a reader looks through the additions.

Author Response

I agree that the Jansenist background was taken for granted and excessively exploited by older critics. But I think a comprehensive theological reading of Phedre would need to identify the brand of Jansenism Racine practiced (different from Pascal's) and to evaluate resonance between Jansenist sources and the text of the play (improving on, rather than discounting, reflections such as Bénichou's in 1948, particularly in regard to the phenomenon of "the love that kills." 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the structural errors have now been fixed and the whole piece is much clearer and better than it was before. I did still find some typological errors, especially in the newly written pieces and I suspect that I may not have found all of them, so I urge the author to go through it one more time and make it all perfect. But with minor corrections, I think it’s publishable now.

 

p.4 and also he six previous French dramatizations  - “the”

p.5 embrasée – 2 s’s

Racine’s them all firmly in hand “theme”

pp.7-8 the formatting is odd, but I assume this will be fixed!

p.10 “What can be done with the Greek play when it is performed in places like Epidauros only in modern Greek and when there is no possibility of letting the ancient Greek sing intelligibly to modern ears is a riddle; a step back from the achieved perfection of form to a primitivist revelling in the murky matter is a tempting solution. “ I read this several times and I still don’t understand it.

p.11 “what the perfection of a work it” – is

p.13 “or suddenly tip over hate” into hate. Also the French is not translated here, though elsewhere it is.

Author Response

Thanks for catching the errata. I delete the murky paragraph about Euripides.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. The article should consider the well-known literary distinction between mythological gods as actual agents or as metaphors, symbols. In Homer’s Iliad,Aphrodite is an active character who asks Helen to join Paris, her Trojan husband (3, 413-27). In Racine’s play, Phaedra names the absent Venus as a metaphor, as a symbol of the power of love. 
2. The article indirectly refers to Friedrich Schlegel. A direct reference to August Wilhelm Schlegel would be more useful. 
3. The article mentions in passing important psychoanalysts like Freud and Lacan and influential philosophers like Martha Nussbaum and Robert Pippin. Specific references to their work should be added.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.