Here are blank verse translations of ten of the best tragedies by French dramatists contemporary with Corneille and Racine, and two by the most noted successors. No great dramatist can be properly understood and appreciated without some knowledge of the lesser playwrights surrounding him. The fact has long been realized as regards to Shakespeare; but the lesser figures of the great age of French drama--men comparable to such Elizabethans as Middleton and Fletcher and Massinger--have been generally neglected. This book makes a selection of their best works available to English readers. French students who do not have access to the frequently rare French texts of these plays will find it valuable. No play by any of these dramatists, except Voltaire, has ever before been translated into English. The faithfulness and literary qualities of Dr. Lockert's translations are avouched by his two previous volumes in this field, The Chief Plays of Corneille and The Best Plays of Racine.

This study highlights that both Corneille and Racine were living writers, struggling to create developing forms within the strait-jacket of neo-classical decorum.

Literary historians and critics who have written on the influence of Racine in England during the neoclassical period apparently have assumed that the English translators and adapters of Racine’s plays in general succeeded in presenting the real Racine to the English public. Katherine Wheatley here reveals the wide discrepancy between avowed intentions and actual results. Among the English plays she compares with their French originals are Otway’s Titus and Berenice, Congreve’s The Mourning Bride, and Philips’s The Distrest Mother. These comparisons, fully supported by quoted passages, reveal that those among the English public and contemporary critics who could not themselves read French had no chance whatever to know the real Racine: “The adapters and translators, so-called, had eliminated Racine from his tragedies before presenting them to the public.” Unacknowledged excisions and additions, shifts in plot, changes in dénouement, and frequent mistranslation turned Racine’s plays into “wretched travesties.” Two translations of Britannicus, intended for reading rather than for acting, are especially revealing in that they show which Racinian qualities eluded the British translators even when they were not trying to please an English theatergoing audience. Why it is, asks the author, that no English dramatist could or would present Racine as he is to the English public of the neoclassical period? To answer this question she traces the development of Aristotelian formalism in England, showing the relation of the English theory of tragedy to French classical doctrine and the relation of the English adaptations of Racine to the English neoclassical theory of tragedy. She concludes that “deliberate alterations made by the English, far from violating classical tenets, bring Racine’s tragedies closer to the English neoclassical ideal than they were to begin with, and this despite the fact that some tenets of English doctrine came from parallel tenets widely accepted in France.” She finds that “in the last analysis, French classical doctrine was itself a barrier to the understanding of Racinian tragedy in England and an incentive to the sort of change English translators and adapters made in Racine.” This paradox she explains by the fact that Racine himself had broken with the classical tradition as represented by Corneille.

With rare exceptions, English and American views of Corneille derive from that documentary approach that is more interested in a writer's times than in the writer. Perhaps more than any other major French writer, Corneille must be resurrected from the mass of documentation that has accumulated about him in nearly three centuries of criticism. Dr. Nelson's study, in line with much recent French criticism, concentrates primarily on the canon. The first book in English on this major European dramatist in over fifty years, this fresh return to the plays them­ selves presents a Corneille more varied and more flexible than the sententious figure passed down through decades of inordinate critical emphasis on the famed tetralogy (Le Cid, Horace, Cinna, Polyeucte). Thus, there is not only the familiar genereux of these plays, but also the damoiseau of the early comedies, the ambitieux of the middle plays, and the amoureux of the last plays. Through rigorous attention to the values of both the hero and the world Corneille creates about him in each of the thirty-two plays, Robert J. Nelson demonstrates in detail what some perceptive critics have hinted at in recent Corneille criticism: that Corneille's vision is not tragic. The drama of "The Father of French Tragedy" is, to be sure, "tragic" in the externals of composition (five acts, alexandrines, the fate of noble figures, etc.), but its essence is something else. What this something else is, and that even in our age of extreme deference to the "tragic vision" it in no way diminishes Corneille's stature, are the final arguments of this original study. Corneille: His Heroes and Their Worlds will appeal to all those with an interest in French Drama, as well as those studying the application of modern critical techniques to classical authors. Students of theory of tragedy will also find this new look at Corneillian "tragedy" stimulating.

The book contains, then, eleven plays from the great age of French drama in the seventeenth century, one play from the prolific pen of Alexandra Hardy, who proceeded the great age, and on from the eighteenth century, the aftermath of that age.

In two of his most celebrated plays, Britannicus and Bérénice, Racine depicts the tragedies of characters trapped by the ideals, desires, and cruelties of ancient Rome. This international collection of essays deploys cutting-edge research to illuminate the plays and their contexts.