Relevant Degree Programs
Graduate Student Supervision
Master's Student Supervision (2010 - 2018)
The purpose of this study was to investigate the notions of love, power, and sovereignty in Jean Racine’s Phèdre et Hipolyte and Bérénice. I used Erich Auerbach’s theory on passion to examine the notion of passionate love in the Grand Siècle and Louis Marin’s theory on the representation of power during the reign of Louis XIV. These theories provided a historical context for Racine’s work as well as clarified the use of these notions in the texts. Finally, Roland Barthe’s theory on the relationship between love and power in Racinian tragedy was used to analyze the sovereigns’ dialogue. I based my research with the following questions: Why does it seem that love and sovereignty cannot co-exist? Are politics and love incompatible in Racinian tragedy? I explain why politics and love painfully coexist in these tragedies through the analysis of Phèdre’s three avowals of her forbidden love for Hippolyte and three of Bérénice’s declarations of love for Thésée. These analyses served as examples of the power and love relationships between the heroines and the men they love as well as the specific limitations sovereignty poses on love relationships. I discovered that passion is akin to suffering in Racinian tragedy and for this reason, a sovereign is emotionally and physically weaker when in love. Symptoms such as obsession, irrationality and madness jeopardize the sovereign’s ability to rule and force him or her to chose between either submitting themselves to the forbidden passion that is overcoming them or to remove themselves from temptation thereby favoring their duty to their nation over love. Racine’s feeble and suffering sovereigns in love differ greatly from the qualities of the classic tragic hero. He portrays sovereigns in a way that gives them a human rather than a godly quality as many of his contemporaries did.
This study presents an analysis of the behaviour of three heavy fathers from Molière’s works: Orgon from Le Tartuffe, Harpagon from L’Avare, and Argan from Le Malade imaginaire. Molière’s heavy fathers are often instigators of conflict, perturbing order in their household and its day-to-day life (the term ‘heavy father’ was originally referred to as senex iratus, as identified by Northrop Frye). Inspired by the ideas of divine-right kingship and the family viewed as a monarchy, this study will examine the historical context in which the plays were written reflecting on the concept of authority and the parallelism between the father as the head of a household and the King as head of a nation. Ultimately, the study seeks to confirm how these fathers compare with the concept of the ideal head of a household based on standards of the seventeenth century. The inquiry begins by attempting to establish a heavy father’s logic that would justify and explain Molière’s heavy fathers’ tyrannical behaviour, thus suggesting that they are ideal fathers with validations for their actions. The next chapter, however, takes a completely opposite approach, citing downfalls that would point to their being anything but ideal. Specifically, it addresses the shortcomings displayed by Molière’s heavy fathers that lead to the rebellion and misbehaviour of the members of the family. The final chapter reveals through the combination of the ideas presented in the previous chapters, the distinctive idiosyncrasy of Molière’s heavy fathers that prevents them from being the ideal seventeenth century patriarch. Inherent to Orgon, Harpagon and Argan is a susceptibility to detachment: they detach themselves from the prescribed duty of a father, from family, and from reality. This is in opposition to the fundamental role of a leader whether they be the head of a household or a kingdom. Molière’s heavy fathers are not ideal seventeenth century heads of households because it is in their nature to disunite people and things while the essential function of a leader is to hold together, or 'relier'.