Le dilemme et la métaphore étendue dans Le Cid 95 Et malgré la rigueur de ma triste aventure, Si Chimène a jamais Rodrigue pour mari Mon espérance est morte, et mon esprit guéri […]. (acte I, scène II) Pour comprendre l’héroïne, il faut d’abord noter que ce passage contient deux inférences métaphoriques <1-2>. Le premier passage en italique joue sur la personnification et comporte les projections métaphoriques suivantes : La personne ⇒ L’amour La nourriture de la personne ⇒ L’espoir à l’égard de l’amour La vitalité de la personne ⇒ L’intensité de l’amour La mort de la personne ⇒ La fin de l’amour Tableau 2. Les correspondances métaphoriques dans le passage <1> Le deuxième exemple est une manifestation de la mégamétaphore L’AMOUR EST DU FEU et établit des correspondances similaires à la première : Le feu ⇒ L’amour Le combustible du feu ⇒ L’espoir à l’égard de l’amour La chaleur du feu ⇒ L’intensité de l’amour L’extinction du feu ⇒ La fin de l’amour Tableau 3. Les correspondances métaphoriques dans le passage <2> Ces correspondances simples accompagnent deux projections d’inférence des domaines source. Le premier raisonnement s’autorise sur le savoir que les humains périssent sans nourriture. Le deuxième repose sur le fait que les feux s’éteignent s’ils sont sans combustible. Ce sont ces projections et l’appréhension de l’espoir comme combustible et comme nourriture de l’amour qui mènent l’Infante à conclure que, si son amour est sans espoir 27 , il périra (de faim) et s’éteindra faute de combustible 28 . Outre L’AMOUR EST DU FEU, deux métaphores fondamentales chez Corneille sont L’AMOUR EST UNE TYRANNIE et L’AMOUR EST L’EXCLU- SION DE LA LIBERTÉ. Par la première, la personne aimée devient un tyran 27 Comme l’amour, l’espoir est personnifié dans l’extrait <1>, car sa fin correspond à la mort d’une personne. 28 Le feu est également personnifié, car son combustible est désigné par le mot nourriture. Kalervo Räisänen 96 et son pouvoir celui d’une autorité oppressive ; par la deuxième, le sentiment amoureux se définit comme une prison, une personne amoureuse comme un esclave et la liaison amoureuse comme une chaîne. Ces métaphores sont évoquées surtout par l’Infante, qui en fait un usage constant : […] Ainsi de ces amants ayant formé les chaînes, Je dois prendre intérêt à voir finir leurs peines. […] L’amour est un tyran qui n’épargne personne […]. (acte I, scène II) D’un lien conjugal joindre ces deux amants, C’est briser tous mes fers et finir mes tourments. (acte II, scène V) Dans l’exemple suivant, l’Infante apostrophe son amour et sa probité altière, qu’elle qualifie aussi de tyrannique : T’écouterai-je encor, respect de ma naissance, Qui fais un crime de mes feux ? T’écouterai-je, amour, dont la douce puissance Contre ce fier tyran fait révolter mes vœux ? (acte V, scène II) Les rigueurs du devoir aristocratique sont aussi dépeintes par Rodrigue, qui oppose, comme le note Garapon (1985 : 154), la « Noble et dure contrainte » du devoir à l’« aimable tyrannie » de son amour pour Chimène (acte I, scène VII). Les métaphores les plus évidentes par lesquelles le conflit est dramatisé dans Le Cid sont sans doute celles qui définissent l’amour et le devoir comme des forces opposées. Selon la vue de Mark Johnson, ces métaphores auraient sans doute en commun le fait de projeter des schémas de FORCE pour appréhender le conflit psychique ou affectif. D’après lui, les schémas d’image sont constitués d’une ou plusieurs structures gestalt récurrentes et sont des entités dynamiques qui affectent notre entendement ainsi que notre organisation de l’expérience. (1987 : 22, 26, 44) La gestalt projetée dans ces métaphores est LA FORCE COMPENSATRICE, que Johnson définit comme celle dont les joueurs de ligne du football américain sont le plus familiers : les deux forces s’opposent de sorte que ni l’une ni l’autre ne peuvent agir (id. p. 46). Deux de ces métaphores se situent dans le monologue de Rodrigue « Que je sens de rudes combats ! / Contre mon propre honneur mon amour s’intéresse : / Il faut venger un père, et perdre une maîtresse » (acte I, scène VII). Le premier de ces vers décrit le conflit par le biais de la métaphore étendue LE CONFLIT INTÉRIEUR EST UNE GUERRE, qui se manifeste surtout dans les dialogues que l’Infante et Chimène ont avec leurs confidentes : L’Infante Écoute, écoute enfin comme j’ai combattu, Écoute quels assauts brave encor ma vertu […]. Le dilemme et la métaphore étendue dans Le Cid 97 Léonor […] Mais puisque dans un mal si doux et si cuisant Votre vertu combat et son charme et sa force, En repousse 29 l’assaut, en rejette l’amorce […]. (acte I, scène II) Le dialogue entre Chimène et Elvire présente des figures d’un degré de complexité additionnel, car cette métaphore s’unit avec la métonymie étendue LA PERSONNE POUR LE SENTIMENT QU’ELLE INSPIRE. Dans l’extrait suivant, le nom propre Rodrigue renvoie métonymiquement au désir charnel qui s’oppose à la colère que Chimène ressent pour son amant, désignée métonymiquement par le syntagme mon père : C’est peu de dire aimer, Elvire, je l’adore ; Ma passion s’oppose à mon ressentiment ; Dedans mon ennemi je trouve mon amant ; Et je sens qu’en dépit de toute ma colère, Rodrigue dans mon cœur combat encor mon père. Il l’attaque, il le presse, il cède, il se défend, Tantôt fort, tantôt faible, et tantôt triomphant : Mais en ce dur combat de colère et de flamme, Il déchire mon cœur sans partager mon âme […]. (acte III, scène III) 5. Pour conclure La théorie cognitive de la métaphore et sa thèse fondamentale - à savoir que la nature de cette figure est de concevoir une chose à l’aide d’une autre - sont, nous croyons, d’un intérêt particulier aux études littéraires. La théorie offre, d’une part, un système de référence pour décrire la cohérence dans les métaphores des textes littéraires ainsi que leur rapport aux métaphores conceptuelles quotidiennes. Quant au domaine de la réception littéraire, elle propose un modèle d’explication qui peut nous éclairer sur la façon dont nous attribuons un sens aux métaphores, aux abstractions et aux raisonnements, en partant d’une conception expérientaliste de la signification. Dans notre étude du Cid, cette théorie nous a servi à mettre en lumière quelques métaphores fondamentales par lesquelles les dilemmes y sont 29 Le verbe repousser projette un autre schéma de FORCE décrit par Johnson : LA COMPULSION, où une force extérieure meut un objet le long d’un chemin (voir 1987 : 45). Le verbe céder (voir le dialogue entre Chimène et Elvire) combine cette gestalt avec LA FORCE COMPENSATRICE, car céder c’est s’assujettir volontairement à une force quelconque après y avoir résisté. Kalervo Räisänen 98 dramatisés et pour expliquer comment elles servent à dynamiser les forces qui entrent en conflit dans la pièce. Avec nos exemples sur les inférences métaphoriques, nous avons établi que la théorie a son mot à dire sur la psychologie des personnages de Corneille : en ne réduisant pas les métaphores au rang des ornements stylistiques, elle peut nous aider à comprendre comment les métaphores sous-tendent la raison même des héros cornéliens. Sous cette optique, nous avons montré par exemple que l’Infante raisonne sur ses émotions comme on raisonne sur les feux et sur les êtres humains. Bibliographie Aristote (1996). Poétique. Paris : Gallimard. Corneille, Pierre (1910 [1660]). « Discours de la tragédie et des moyens de la traiter selon le vraisemblable ou le nécessaire », Œuvres de Corneille. Tome I, 52-97. Paris : Hachette. — (2007 [1682]). Œuvres complètes de Corneille. (s.l.) : Bibliothèque des introuvables. Descartes, René (1996 [1649]). Les passions de l’âme. Paris : Flammarion. Garapon, Robert (1985). « Amour et liberté chez Corneille », Cahiers de l’Association internationale des études françaises 37, 151-162. Johnson, Mark (1987). The Body in the Mind. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press. Kövecses, Zoltán (1999). Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. — (2002). Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. New York : Oxford University Press. Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago et Londres : The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George et Turner, Mark (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago et Londres : The University of Chicago Press. Le Grand Robert de la langue française (2005) [Version éléctronique]. Roche, Mark William (1998). Tragedy and Comedy. A Systematic Study and a Critique of Hegel. New York : State University of New York Press. Scudéry, Georges de (1893 [1637]). « Observations sur le Cid », Œuvres complètes de Corneille. Tome second, 595-605. Paris : Firmin Didot frères. Semino, Elena et Steen, Gerard (2008). « Metaphor in Literature », The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 232-246. Semino, Elena et Swindlehurst, Kate (1996). « Metaphor and Mind Style in Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest », Style 30(I), 143-166. PFSCL XL, 78 (2013) Between Freedom and Tyranny: The Figure of the King in Corneille’s Le Cid and Racine’s Britannicus S ARAH T HALIA P INES (S TANFORD U NIVERSITY ) I would like to return to the core of the French literary canon which is probably best represented by the 17 th century and within it, by the theatre of Corneille and Racine from whose oeuvre I have chosen the two plays Le Cid (1637) and Britannicus (1667). At first glance these plays have not much in common: they do not play in the same society, they do not deal with the same theme, they are not written in the same style. What they have in common though is precisely what I want to look at: I want to examine how Corneille and Racine shape and constitute their characters in dialogue with the poetological tradition of their time, the Aristotelian Poetics, on which the doctrine classique is based. In order to that, I take the character of the king as an example, Don Fernand and Néron respectively, in the above-mentioned plays (which will of course also lead me to speak about the king’s subjects). I will moreover include the prefaces of both plays, i.e. the Examen of 1660 for Le Cid and the first Pr face in Britannicus and of course the Aristotelian Poetics. Texts that further helped me to shape my questions and set the focus of the argumentation, especially due to the cultural and historical impetus they provided regarding French 17 th century court society were: Auerbach’s “La Cour et la Ville”, as well as his chapter “Le Faux-Devot” in Mimesis, Jean-Marie Apostolid s’ Le Roi-Machine, and La Bruy re’s Caract res (“De la Cour”). I have chosen Le Cid and Britannicus, because Le Cid has provoked the most intense querelle 1 , which was triggered by Corneille’s noncompliance with Aristotle. Britannicus is a play, which shows more weak spots then Phèdre, in the sense that Racine was accused by Corneille and his friends for having violated the rules regarding his conception of Néron. Moreover, 1 See Gasté, La querelle du Cid. Sarah Thalia Pines 100 Racine in his first preface to Britannicus in turn attacks Corneille and his conception of characters. When La Bruy re in Les Caract res points out that Corneille “peint les homes comme ils devaient être » and Racine « tells qu’ils sont » 2 , this can also be read as a statement regarding the king and his relation to his subjects. What kind of king did the audience of the 17 th century see onstage, i.e. la cour et la ville, according to Auerbach “the leading circles of the nation” - the court nobility and the upper bourgeoisie - “immediately before and during the reign of Louis XIV” 3 ? What is his relation to his subjects? First, it is important to note that the historical frame is double in both plays: on the content side it is medieval Spain in Le Cid and imperial Rome in Britannicus, their historical context is the beginning of Absolutism (Cid) and its triumph (Britannicus). In the first case, the audience of the time is perturbed by witnessing a king who is “pas assez absolu” 4 (Don Fernand), and in the second case the audience is perturbed by witnessing a king who is too strong, so that he can transform himself into a tyrant, a monster. In chapter 8 of his Poetics Aristotle states that tragedy needs the “highly renowned and prosperous” 5 character (a nobleman) who is however not too good, not too bad, not too virtuous, not too evil: she/ he is flawed due to her/ his hubris, or hamartia [error in judgement] and whose fortune changes from good to bad. It is only with a slightly flawed character that the audience can identify, which then enables catharsis, [i.e. pity and fear or eleos and phobos] on the side of the spectator and via the hero’s downfall purification of these feelings (with a purely virtuous character this change would be merely shocking, an evil character’s change of fortune would not satisfy the moral sense): “for pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune of a man like ourselves” 6 . In the case of Le Cid and Britannicus, the identification of la cour et la ville should take place with the subjects to supreme powers, as Don Rodrigue and Chim ne start out as the ‘tragic’ characters torn between devoir and love 7 , Britannicus dies, and Junie symbolically dies by entering 2 La Bruyère, Les Caractères, “Des ouvrages de l’esprit”, 54. 3 Auerbach, Mimesis, p. 364. 4 Le Cid, Examen, p. 703. 5 Aristotle, Poetics, XIII. 6 Aristotle, Poetics, XIII. 7 See: Pringent, Le héros et l’état dans la tragédie de Pierre Corneille, especially the chapter “La genèse du héros: sacrifice, singularité, exemplarité”, pp. 33-44 and “Le triomphe de la sensibilité: figures de la féminité”, pp. 79-86 ; also : Nadal, Le sentiment de l’amour dans l’œuvre de Pierre Corneille ; Doubrovsky, Corneille et la dialectique du héros ; and : Minel, Pierre Corneille, le héros et le roi. The Figure of the King in Corneille’s Le Cid and Racine’s Britannicus 101 the Vestales. 8 The king as “pouvoir suprême” causes a change of their fortune. However, in Le Cid, Don Rodrigue and Chim ne move from a bad to a good fortune, they can marry, which makes Corneille’s later renaming of the play as trag die inadequate and identification impossible. Apart from the subjects, both Corneille and Racine explicitly refer to their designation of the king as ‘not too good not too bad’ characters in their prefaces, and it is precisely this conception which causes them problems on the side of their critics. Le Cid It is important to know that although Le Cid was staged for the first time in the théâtre du Marais in 1637 as tragi-comédie, it was renamed as tragédie as from 1648 and edited with an Avertissement. The Examen belongs to the rewritten version of the 1637 Cid. In 1660, and after the querelle du Cid it mirrors stricter attitude regarding the rules, i.e. vraisemblance and biens ance, and - more hesitantly - the three units. The Cid edition of 1660 is published one year before the beginning of the official reign of Louis XIV. Through Corneille’s re-writing, Don Fernand changes from a weak monarch to a stronger monarch at the birth of Absolutism under Louis XIV. In Le Cid Corneille creates a transition from the love-theme to the theme of the state, in the course of which he creates a transition from old to new subjects to the king, and from an old to a young generation. In act I scene 3 Corneille shows the audience that the figure of the powerful and independent vassal (Don Gomez) to whom the king is mutually obliged is no longer possible; the old feudal society has come to an end. The place of the independent warlord will now be filled out by the “courtisan” (Don Diegue): Don Diegue wins the office of “gouverneur du prince”. For the Dauphin’s education, the king’s decision replaces “le métier de Mars » de Don Gomez, the concrete “bataille” as “l’exemple vivant” and ‘learning by doing’ with the “exemple” and “l’histoire de ma [Don Diegue’s] vie”, and ultimately by the instruction manual and wisdom that comes with age. With this scene, a weak king who “peut se tromper” now turns into the absolutist king: “on doit […] respect au pouvoir absolu, / De n’examiner rien quand un roi l’a voulu”. The independent vassal (DG: “ce bras du royaume est le plus ferme appui” 9 ) becomes a courtesan : “Vous l’avez eu par brigue, étant vieux courtisan” 10 . Or with the words of Apostolid s, the 8 See: Schröder, “Junie, Auguste et le feu de Vesta”. 9 Le Cid, p. 10. 10 Le Cid, p. 11. Sarah Thalia Pines 102 nobility replaces its weapons and strategies on the battlefield with court etiquette, intrigue and supervision. 11 I think that this scene prefigures what will reach its peak around the time Britannicus is written. Don Diegue’s new office as gouverneur foreshadows the compliant Burrhus who instructs N ron through texts and writing, while being subject to court intrigue, whereas Don Gomes’ objection to the decision of the king is a clear act of insubordination. The discussion of the king’s decision to change the warlord into a courtesan ends with a slap and provokes a duel which Don Fernand had prohibited. Thus, the “pouvoir suprême” of the king is questioned on both sides: Don Gomes has refused an apology and Don Rodrigue has to avenge his father. These two instances - the slap violating the biens ance, the duel the vraisemblance of the time - have provoked severe criticism. Corneille’s critics considered this as an affront to the king’s power and the state, and also Don Fernand states: “S’attaquer à mon choix, c’est se prendre à moi même / Et faire un attentat sur le pouvoir suprême” 12 . Thus, Georges Scud ry states in his critique that Don Fernand should have send his guards to prevent the duel and the Acad mie confirms this later, but Corneille knows well that the action would have collapsed without the duel. In the Examen he tries to comment on the lack of vraisemblance (the king’s lack of intervention) and astonishingly explains it with Aristotle’s claim for a character that is not too good not too bad! For Corneille a weaker Don Fernand is a more vraisemblable character, and thus turns away from the reality of his time and to Guillen de Castro’s Cid: Don Fernand „étant le premier roi de Castille [...] il n’était peut-être pas assez absolu sur les grands seigneurs de son royaume. [...] C’est sur cet exemple que je me suis cru bien fond à le faire agir plus mollement qu’on ne ferait en ce temps-ci » 13 . In spite of his intentions, Corneille weakens the king on the basis of Aristotle. However, the seeming lack of control over internal affairs finds compensation in the young generation, especially in Don Rodrigue. After the duel, he is re-appropriated by the king to fight the Moors, whose military success is then rewarded with marriage. Hence the abrupt change of topic of Don Fernand when confronted with the duel: “N’en parlons plus. Au reste, on a vu dix vaisseaux…” 14 etc. On the one hand, Corneille in Le Cid creates a profound transition, the old feudal relation of mutual obligation is canceled, the king reigns alone, and both Don Diegue and Don Rodrigue are his new integrated subjects. Don Rodrigue replaces Don Gomes (“ce qu’il [the king] 11 This is the main line of argumentation of Apostolid s in Le roi-machine. 12 Le Cid, p. 31. 13 Le Cid, Examen, p. 703 14 Le Cid, p. 31. The Figure of the King in Corneille’s Le Cid and Racine’s Britannicus 103 perd au Comte il le recouvre en toi ” 15 , with Don Rodrigue in battle and with Don Diegue in instruction - with them, the audience can perhaps identify. By means of the distribution of offices and particularizations of power he can dispose of more docile subjects and as servant to the state he defends its borders: “Je ferai seulement le devoir d’un sujet” 16 . What means the control of the borders means the loss of control in the inner realms of the state; the king cannot yet do both. Don Rodrigue’s reward of exterior success and affirmation of the king’s superior power by marriage is however as invraisemblable and not biens ant as Don Gomes’ revolt. This is because the marriage is another recourse to old feudal law, according to which the woman belongs to the strongest man; she is the price for Don Rodrigue’s victory in battle: “Sors vainqueur d’un combat dont Chimène est le prix” 17 . This is an end, which was no longer possible during the reign of Louis XIII and after the Fronde, let alone during the reign of Louis XIV. During the time after the Fronde and the end of the old feudal system no noblewoman would or could marry the murderer of her father. For Corneille it is therefore important to make the end as vraisemblable as possible: he avoids staging the marriage by postponing it for a year in order to grant the couple time for re-consideration, and creates a moment of resistance in Chim ne, who refuses to marry Don Rodrigue. This violates the Aristotelian poetics twice. First, where Aristotle claims for dramatic closure onstage, Corneille - as he explains in the Examen - leaves the play end remains relatively open: “avec incertitude de l’effet; et ce n’était que par là que je pouvais accorder la bienséance du théâtre avec la vérité de l’événement” 18 . Second, as Corneille knows that the marriage is in-vraisemblable, he turns away from Aristotle’s claim for a character that should neither be too good nor to bad and makes Chim ne stronger and more virtuous, and resisting the king’s will for marrying Don Rodrigue. In his Examen Corneille states that Chimène’s “haute vertu […] a quelque chose de plus touchant, de plus élevé et de plus aimable que cette médiocre bonté, capable d’une faiblesse et même d’un crime” 19 . Since Corneille knows that the audience does not recognize the strong hero on stage anymore, and since every subject eventually has to succumb to the king’s will, Corneille explains Chimène’s silence at the end of the play as an act of opposition to the king: “Je sais bien que le silence passe 15 Le Cid, p. 54. 16 Le Cid, p. 61. 17 Le Cid, p. 74. 18 Le Cid, Examen, p. 701-702. 19 Le Cid, Examen, p. 700. Sarah Thalia Pines 104 d’ordinaire pour une marque de consentement; mais quand les rois parlent, c’en est une de contradiction: on ne manque jamais leur applaudir quand on entre dans leur sentiments.” 20 The play finishes with Chimène’s identification of the new subject Don Rodrigue - „Rodrigue l’Etat devient si nécessaire“ 21 followed by her doubtful questioning of having to be his « salaire » and with her silence. It is Don Rodrigue who applauds the king’s decision, and the king’s last words could be Corneille’s own: “Le temps assez souvent a rendu légitime, / Ce qui semblait d’abord ne se pouvoir sans crime” 22 . Although the postponement of the marriage is ultimately Don Fernand’s decision - “Laisse faire le temps, ta vaillance, et ton roi“ 23 - what was supposed to be a strengthening of the monarch’s position is in fact another weakening. Although in the Examen Corneille declares Le Cid as “une tragédie parfaite” 24 , he takes away the audience’s basis of identification with Chim ne and the king; they are invraisemblable. By depicting Chim ne as purely virtuous, implicitly objecting the king’s decision, and her change of fortune as from bad to good, and Don Fernand as not strong enough to symbolize the absolute power which the characters cannot control, he invalidates his play as tragedy; in spite of his renaming and rewriting of the 1636 edition, it remains a tragi-com die and out of time with his own present. Thus, if the king of the version at hand (1660) is still weak, this is because he was already weak in the first version (1637). Corneille could not completely change the plot, if he wanted the play to continue existing. Between 1637 and 1660 the situation changes, the feudal lords (Don Diegue and Don Gomes) gradually lose their power and the monarch in 1660 realizes that he has to become an absolute king. Thus, Don Diegue accepts to become a courtesan and Don Gomes rebels against the king, threatens him (“un sceptre qui sans moi tomberait de sa main” 25 ) and becomes a criminal against the state. The difference between the two versions is that in the 1637 version the focus is on a feud between two clans, which is resolved by an appeasing king, and in 1660 Corneille focuses on disobeying feudal lords and felony (especially Don Gomes) who provoke the king and prefer to quarrel rather than unite their forces against invading Arabs. In 1660, it is only the young generation (Don Rodrigue and Chim ne) who knows that 20 Le Cid, Examen, p. 701. 21 Le Cid, p. 84. 22 Le Cid, p. 84. 23 Le Cid, p. 85. 24 Le Cid, Examen, p. 700. 25 Le Cid, p. 19. The Figure of the King in Corneille’s Le Cid and Racine’s Britannicus 105 “quand un roi commande, on lui doit obéir” 26 (in spite of Chim ne’s disagreeing silence, she however succumbs). But their obedience maybe has their love as its price, and the end remains vaguely open. Britannicus In Britannicus, written in the middle of Absolutism, Racine creates a different king from Corneille. Not the king of an emerging absolutist power, but the king at the peak of his power, and the fear it evokes in his subjects, which is the fear of tyranny. However, Racine, by presenting a (possible) period of transition, is, even if less drastically, confronted with a similar problem as Corneille was. Which is to create a newly emerging figure without transgressing the ‘old’ rules. In his first Préface Racine comments on his conception of N ron and implicitly refers to Aristotle : “Je leur ai déclaré [his critics] dans la Préface d’Andromaque les sentiments d’Aristote sur le Héros de la Tragedie, et que bien loin d’être parfait, il faut toujours qu’il ait quelque imperfection”. 27 He further states in his second Préface: Ainsi il [Néron] ne m'a pas été permis de le représenter aussi méchant qu'il a été depuis. Je ne le représente pas non plus comme un homme vertueux, car il ne l'a jamais été. Il n'a pas encore tué sa mère, sa femme, ses gouverneurs; mais il a en lui les semences de tous ces crimes. Il commence à vouloir secouer le joug (...) En un mot, c'est ici un monstre naissant (...). 28 Racine chooses the interim time of „un monstre naissant“ 29 , because he cannot stage N ron at the peak of tyranny, for reasons of biens ance (his too cruel deeds), neither can he stage a purely virtuous Néron for reasons of vraisemblance (Nero is after all a historical figure). Agripinne and Albine, through which Racine evokes two poles of rulership, render Néron’s prehistory in the exposition: Agripinne speaks of Néron as tyrant, Albine naively states that Néron has qualities of emperor Augustus. It is between these two extremes, that the unfolding of excessive power takes place. 30 Racine omits the time of Néron’s virtue and trust in his instructors Burrhus and Seneca and in his mother who could govern in his name. At the 26 Le Cid, p. 84. 27 All quotations from Racine’s work, if not otherwise stated, are from Racine, uvres complètes, I, éd. Forestier, the above quotation from the Préface of Britannicus, p. 373. 28 Britannicus, p. 444. 29 Britannicus, p. 372. 30 Regarding the complex genealogy of the „monstre naissant“ Néron see the detailed analysis of Schröder in La tragédie du sang d’Auguste. Sarah Thalia Pines 106 beginning of the play Néron has decided to govern on his own, and this is the time his true nature begins to break through. Unlike the moderate pouvoir of Don Fernand, Néron’s power is more excessive and founded on passion. He is a roi jaloux, he wants to deprive Britannicus of his lover Junie and then destroys him. He kills Britannicus (or has him killed) out of jealousy, and in order to possess Junie himself, and only in the second instance to secure his power against Agrippine. Although the 17 th century NEVER put the ‘real’ king on stage, I want to ask again what kind of king and what subjects did the audience recognize in Néron? First it can be said, that Racine shows his audience almost a sequel to Le Cid, or more precisely: what might have happened to the Dauphin, the son of Don Fernand. A now adult king liberates himself from the influence of his mother and his gouverneurs Burrhus and Seneca and is faced with his own absolute power. What was valid for Don Fernand should also be valid for him: “Un roi dont la prudence a de meilleurs objets / Est meilleur menager du sang de ses sujets : / Je veille pour les miens, mes soucis les conservent » 31 . Don Fernand was at the beginning of the consolidation of absolute power, and Néron had already exercised it with virtue. Where Don Fernand took a step back from action to instruction (of the Dauphin) and began the taming of the noblesse at court, Néron leaves the realm of instruction and acts, or, he lets acts happen, and tyrannizes his noblesse. Sadism The play begins right after Néron’s first independent act, after he has sent his soldiers to kidnap Junie. Hitherto, Néron had never seen Junie and the night of the kidnapping falls in love with her, he desires her: “j’idolâtre Junie” 32 . He secretly observes the kidnapping, whereby her half-naked and captivated body and her tears provoke in him “un désir curieux” 33 . The birth of the monster is the birth of a sadist and of jealousy (“demon envieux”, “amant jaloux” 34 ), and Britannicus turns from a political rival to a personal one. Britannicus’ offstage death is the beginning of Néron’s tyranny. For reasons of biens ance it remains in the realms of sadistic voyeurism. Néron is a king who from a hidden place observes his court, not only the kidnapping of Junie, but also the meeting between Britannicus and Junie, which he had arranged himself and during which Junie is supposed 31 Le Cid, p. 31. 32 Britannicus, p. 389. 33 Britannicus, p. 389. 34 Britannicus, p. 400; 414.