17th Century responses to the Oedipus Tyrannos

17th Century responses to the Oedipus Tyrannos: An (un)Aristotelian Theory of Tragedy
Following the rediscovery of ancient authors in the Renaissance, critics set about interpreting
and theorising classical works. In particular, many focused on the Poetics, Aristotle’s principles of
literary theory, to build a concept of ideal drama based on the ancient (and therefore greatest)
model. Following a chaotic century embroiled in civil war,1 the 17th century saw France return to
centre stage in the European literary sphere, mainly under the direction of Cardinal Richelieu,2 who
took a great interest in the théâtre, and founded the Académie Française so as to regularise both the
French language and French drama. The century gave rise to the French theories of tragedy, often
referred to as neo-classical and supposedly derived from the Poetics of Aristotle. Though the text
was not translated into the vernacular until 1671, by André Dacier, Aristotle’s theories filtered into
French thought through Latin and Italian commentaries, and were developed into a series of ‘rules’3
which formed the basis of a French dramatic theory in the era, and became a key part of debate
following the Quarrel of Le Cid, during which the Académie Française criticised Corneille’s Le Cid,
and laid out the theories which drama ought to follow. Among these were the trois unites, framed in
terms of vraisemblance as follows. Unity of time: the action within the play should take place within
24 hours, derived from the Poetics,4 with the ideal being the length of the plot corresponding to the
length of the play. Unity of place: all action was expected to take place in a single setting, negating
any need for scenery change. Finally, unity of action: defined by d'Aubignac as the focus on a single
complete action or event in the life of a hero, without subplots or loose ends drawn from Aristotle’s
view that a plot ought to be simple. It might be expected therefore, that a culture claiming to draw
its dramatic theory from Aristotle would share his admiration for Sophocles’ tragedy, Oedipus
Tyrannos (henceforth OT). For all his talk of the play as being a prime example of tragedy, only one
translation into French was produced, at the end of the century, and three adaptations. Two of
these were produced before the formulation of the rules: Jean Prévost, 1614, Nicolas de SainteMarthe, 1614,5 leaving us with only one adaptation from the period dominated by ‘classicism’:
Pierre Corneille, 1659. In reality the French theorists took a far more formalistic approach to tragic
theory than Aristotle; of the three unities, only the unity of action is discussed as such in the Poetics.
Moreover the French rule of vraisemblance, which in one sense referred to the realism of the
theatrical illusion, through adherence to the unities, also meant a portrayal of that which was
‘credible’ and was used to ensure that the audience only saw content which reinforced the social
values of the era. Though there was no vernacular translation of the play until Dacier’s 1692
edition, the OT entered into critical debate in the century mainly because of Aristotle’s references to
it, yet it caused many problems for critics with its lack of conformity to the very standards of drama
that were said to come from the Poetics.
From the point of view of 17th century dramatic aesthetics, Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannos is
highly unified. The action of the play takes place within 24 hours, and indeed can be said to
The Wars of Religion: 1562 – 98.
Lancaster (1929)Pt. V, p.13.
3 See Lyons (1999)pp. 4-5, for a breakdown of this.
4Aristotle Poetics, V.
5 Dates for these plays varies, here they are taken from Dictionnaire des théâtres de Paris. The work by SainteMarthe does not seem to have been printed.
1
2
correspond exactly to the time of the play, making it an example of ideal unity of time in the eyes of
d'Aubignac. The tragedy unfolds in a single location, in front of the palace at Thebes; therefore it
abides by the rule of unity of place in its truest sense, not simply in the general sense of a single
town as many contemporary plays did. 6 Unity of action is also maintained as the actions of the OT
concentrates solely on Oedipus' search for Laius' killer, and his enquiry into his own origins which
come about as a result of his initial questions.
While on a basic structural level the OT adheres to the unities, it was considered to be an
inferior tragedy on the grounds of the rule of vraisemblance, believability, of the plot itself. Francois
Ogier considered the coinciding arrival of the two shepherds and the convenience of them both
having been involved in Oedipus’ origin story as too farfetched.7 Likewise, Corneille questioned
how credible it was that Oedipus had not investigated the murder of Laius prior to the action of the
play, as many years have elapsed, and both he and other dramatists make attempts to overcome
both of these issues in their own adaptations. Moreover further difficulties with the OT arise from
the concept of vraisemblance as what is appropriate to show on stage, together with bienséance,
which aimed to depict actions and people in concordance with social expectations. Showing
violence on stage was not considered decent, and this was also applied to the final scene in the OT,
in which Oedipus appears on stage blinded and covered in blood, particularly given the graphic
description given by the messenger.8 Such a scene would, in Corneille’s view, not only offend the
delicacies of the female viewers, but would horrify a contemporary French audience.9 Thus he
omits this detail in his adaptation. René Rapin, comparing the French ‘humour’ to that of the ancient
Greeks and the British (he remarked the latter had a particular taste for bloodshed), saw the French
need for a more gallant, humane form of tragedy to please the audience.10 The French critics in the
17th century preferred tragedy which did not diverge from the social norms, or display any conduct
which could alarm the audience, and since Prévost’s adaptation of 1614 does have the blinded
Oedipus enter onto the stage, the French fondness of propriety would seem to be a particularity of
the ‘classical’ ideal.
Part of the criticism based on the OT’s divergence from 17th century norms is based on the
representation of monarchy in the play. If a French monarch ought to be powerful, infallible, and in
control, Oedipus comes under questioning, and loses all power and control by the end of the play.11
The OT depicts the downfall of a king, something which should not be envisaged in the monarchical
society of the 17th century. Moreover, having been through a period in the 16th century12 and the
assassination of a king in 1610, France sought to rebuild the power and stability of their monarchy.
Thus critics, especially those with strong connections to Cardinal Richelieu and the government,
6Corneille’s
Le Cid for example was criticised for using several locations within the city of Seville.
Ogier, F. 1628. ‘Préface au lecteur’ in Schélandre, Tyr et Sidon, tragi-comédie divisée en deux journées. Paris :
Robert Estienne.
8 OT p.457-61
9 ‘Examen d’Oedipe’ in Corneille and Voltaire (2004) p. 96. Although Corneille himself showed violence on
stage earlier in his career in Médée (1635), his position here can be seen as a more cautious one following the
Querelle du Cid of 1637. See Gasté (1898) for further details of the Querelle.
10 Rapin (1674 [2011]) pp. 539 – 541.
11 By the end Oedipus must obey Creon and has no control even over his children.
12 Years of civil war during the wars of religion.
7
such as d’Aubignac and Chapelain, saw the destruction of kings as inappropriate for the century.13
D’Aubignac also criticises the lack divine support in the OT for Oedipus as king, indeed Oedipus
himself claims he is hated by the gods,14 so a representation of a monarch disfavoured by the gods
can be seen to undermine the theory of the divine right of kings, to which Louis XIV strongly
adhered, which holds that the monarch has been divinely appointed by God. Moreover d’Aubignac
most objects to the scrutiny of the king’s conduct, with Oedipus becoming a sort of ‘scapegoat’ for
the plague in the city,15 and a general analysis of his faults which can be said to have led to his
downfall. There was a fear that the people may be encouraged to question and blame their own
monarchs in similar circumstances.16 Indeed through d’Aubignac’s eyes the OT is an example of the
“dangerously democratic models left by the ancient Greeks” that Lyons argues the early modernes
in France sought to reject.17 Rapin too saw a distinction between Athenian tragedy, which delighted
in seeing kings fall, and the sensibilities of the French,18 demonstrating fundamental differences in
French society which made many Greek tragedies, the OT included, unsuitable for a modern viewer
or reader. Although the critics and the Académie Française who supported the ‘classical doctrine’
purported to build rules for modern drama on the model of the classical ancients, their main
concern was ensuring that nothing on stage conflicted with the morals of the French nation.
Interestingly, while the 17th century produced only two adaptations and one translation of the
Oedipus, if we jump forward 18th century and the lead up to the 1789 Revolution, where the people
of France did start to question the responsibility of their monarchy, we can see a vast increase in
the output of translations and adaptations of Sophocles’ play. So it would seem that d’Aubignac’s
concerns were potentially well founded.
In terms of the plot of the OT, many critics had strong objections to its mention of acts which
conflicted with public taste and morals. If contemporary French critics tended towards drama of “la
galanterie et la tendresse”19 the parricide and incest within the plot of the OT are neither of those
things. Again we return to the notion of vraisemblance, defined in La Pratique du Théâtre which is
grounded not in a representation of the 'truth' (whether the original historical or mythological
source of the plot), but rather in the representation of what ‘should’ happen in relation to social
conventions.20 According to Chapelain “Les mauvais exemples sont contagieux”,21 showing the fear
amongst some critics, especially those closely tied to the government, that the portrayal of
inappropriate behaviour would be mimicked by an audience contemporary mores, which is echoed
by d’Aubignac’s fear. According to Corneille, the horrifying crimes often depicted in Greek tragedy
were in fact unbelievable to an audience,22 presumably because they refused to believe something
d'Aubignac (1663 [1995])p.89.
“the gods detest me” p.481
15 Burkert (1991) pp. 19-20.
16 « C’est leur donner sujet, quand il arrive quelque infortune publique, d’examiner toutes les actions de leurs
Princes » d'Aubignac (1663 [1995]) p.89
17 Lyons (1999) p. viii.
18 Rapin (1674 [2011]) p. 540.
19 Ibid. p. 539.
20 d'Aubignac (1657 [1971])Chapter II.
21 “Bad examples are contagious”, ibid, p.360.
22 “L'horreur de ces actions engendre une répugnance à les croire” Discours de la Tragédie, 1660. Corneille
refers here to Medea murdering her children and Atreus feeding Thyestes his own sons.
13
14
so terrible could happen. D’Aubignac reiterates this idea with reference to the Oedipus story: “les
spectateurs…ne voulaient pas croire que ces choses fussent arrivées”.23 The OT was discouraged in
17th century France because it presented themes that ‘should not’ happen, or even be imagined to
happen in an organised society such as their own. Incest was considered a capital crime under the
Ancien Régime,24 and children of incest were not considered legal heirs under French law.
Moreover Oedipus’ children with Jocasta are not simply mentioned in the OT his daughters appear
on stage in the final scene, and Oedipus emphasises that they are born of incest,25 leaving the image
of his destroyed family, his incest-born children and his lack of ancestry fresh in the mind of the
audience. Patricide too was a particularly vile form of murder, as it attacked the leader figure of
one’s own family, and again this crime is emphasised at the end of the OT.26 In addition, Chapelain,
in Les Sentiments de l’Académie Française sur la tragi-comédie du Cid, remarks that the sorts of acts
which worried a sensible, moral audience27 were those that violated the laws of nature. Patricide
disrupts natural familial bonds as well as the hierarchy within a patriarchal society. Incest carried a
huge social taboo, as it too is corruption of family ties, particularly in an incestuous relationship
which produced children, as that of Oedipus and Jocasta: therefore both of these can be considered
to violate nature’s laws. Let us not forget that the murder of Laius is also regicide, and although this
crime is not stressed as much as the incest and patricide by Sophocles, in the context of the 17th
century concept of monarchy it is a serious crime: if you kill a king appointed by God you are
attacking the divine order. What is more, as Corneille had remarked, it is many years before anyone
questions the murder of their king. A regicide which incites such little concern in his subjects is
therefore a poor model for contemporary society.
French tragic theory of the 17th century not only preferred an idealised representation of
what ‘should’ occur, to maintain and encourage the ‘good’ behaviour of the public, it also held that
drama should have moral utility. Key to contemporary thought was the idea that in watching the
failings of a hero on stage (which lead to his downfall) the audience would themselves be corrected
of these faults. As Aristotle’s Poetics became available, the moral nature of drama was assimilated
with Aristotle’s prescriptions. The theorists held that the hamartia mentioned briefly in Poetics 13
was a tragic error which brings about the hero’s end, and in seeing a representation of just
punishment, the audience experienced catharsis, in the form of “la purgation des passions
vicieuses”.28 It is with this theory in mind that many condemned the OT as a bad example of
tragedy: most in the 17th century interpret the unwilling incest and patricide as the essentially
tragic element, and Oedipus’ ‘punishment’. However they struggle to find his tragic error, or any
faults which can be corrected by his example. As Corneille states:
“The spectators…did not want to believe that these things might happen” Dissertations Contre Corneille,
p.88
24Cabourdin and Viard (1978), p.90.
25 “Your father…begot you from the source of his own being” 1496-1500.
26 ‘Your father killed his father’ 1496-7.
27 Chapelain, Les Sentiments de l’Académie Française sur la tragi-comédie du Cid, p. 360.
28 “The purgation of immoral passions” Chapelain (1905) p.43
23
“[Oedipe] me semble ne faire aucune faute; bien qu’il tue son père, parce qu’il
ne le connaît…je ne puisse voir quelle passion il nous donne à purger, ni de quoi nous
pouvons nous corriger sur son exemple” 29
Corneille summarises the problems that the 17th century doctrine found with the OT: as Oedipus
does not intend to commit these crimes, he has committed no moral error so an audience cannot
purge this from themselves. Therefore there is no hamartia, no catharsis and no moral utility. What
is more, since there is no discernible reason why Oedipus faces ruin, the main rule of drama is
broken: “que les vertus y soient toujours récompensées…et que les vices y soient toujours punis”.30
As a result there is no palpable demonstration of Christian justice in the OT, instead it can be seen
as a tragedy of fate, undermining the theory retributive justice taught by the Catholic Church,
something which became of great importance amongst critics of the 18th century, as we shall see. 31
There were some attempts to justify Oedipus’ fate on the grounds of his character. André
Dacier, for example in the preface to his translation of Sophocles’ play, used Oedipus’ violence,
pride, and rage, demonstrated by his outbreaks of anger towards Tieresias, and his unjustified
suspicions of Creon, as examples of characteristics which lead towards his misery.32 However these
behaviours can hardly be cited as reason for the gods leading him to commit incest and parricide
since chronologically his actions within the play come after the crimes have been committed, ergo
the punishment would have preceded the crime and the problem of his free will remains. In his
Commentary on the Poetics, therefore, Dacier links the disagreeable aspects of Oedipus’ character to
his downfall by claiming that his anger and violence resulted in the murder of a stranger, which
turned out to be a fulfilment of the prophesy. Moreover, he also claimed that the main cause of
Oedipus’ misery in the OT is due primarily to him unearthing the truth of what terrible things he
has done in ignorance and that this discovery is the main tragic element of the play which he has set
in motion of his own free will. Therefore it is Oedipus’ recklessness and blind curiosity which an
audience must correct in them since these are what bring about the discovery, and so are the direct
causes of his misery.33 Although this proposes a solution to the problem of the moral lesson found
in the OT, which potentially raises it in 17th century esteem, the ‘vices’ which he purports can be
purged from an audience are a possible cause for concern. The Renaissance saw human discovery
and inquisitiveness on a huge scale, and in a century in which literature “[presupposed] a belief in
human capacities in both the moral and intellectual sphere”,34 it does not seem fitting with the
intellectual context for Dacier to conclude that curiosity is a flaw. Moreover, given that Dacier’s
commentaries and (the first) translation of Sophocles’ play were not published until the end of the
“[Oedipus] does not seem to make any mistake; even though he kills his father, because he doesn’t know
it…I cannot see which passion he gives us to purge, nor in what we can correct ourselves by his example ”
Discours de la Tragédie, in Corneille (1862) pp.56 - 57.
30 “that virtues are always rewarded…and vices are always punished”, d'Aubignac (1657 [1971]) p.5
31 “rien au monde ne nous paraîtrait plus barbare, plus funeste, plus opposé aux vrais sentiments qu’on doit
avoir”, ‘nothing in the world would appear to us more barbaric, more dire, more opposed to the sentiments
that one ought to have’ ‘De la tragédie ancienne et moderne’ (1672) in Saint-Evremond (1753) p. 309.
32 ‘Préface to Œdipe’, in Dacier (1692a)[no pagination]
33“Il n’y a personne qui en voyant l’Edipe de Sophocle, n’apprenne à corriger en soy la témérité et l’aveugle
curiosité, car ce sont les seules causes de ses malheurs” Dacier (1692b)pp.79 – 80.
34Cave (1999)p.422
29
century his works became the sources for many 18th century views on the play. In the context of
Enlightenment thought, which was particularly inquisitive in nature, his works became the grounds
for even further debate.
I would add that it is of significance that the first and only French translation of the OT in
the 17th century is accompanied by an explanation which seems to integrate Sophocles’ play into
the dramatic theory of the era: only once the play suitably conformed to contemporary moral
values was it seen suitable for circulation to the general public. This is also reflected in the limited
number of adaptations in the period in comparison to the 18th century. What is more, of the
adaptations, two were produced before the establishment of the classical theories (by Prévost and
Sainte-Marthe), and the second was written by a playwright known for his frequent disregard of the
‘rules’ (Corneille). It is therefore ironic that ‘classicism’ mostly kept the OT out of the public sphere
in this century, as Aristotle considered the play one of the best examples of his theories; the
theories on which ‘classicism’ was founded.
I have shown in this work how the dramatic conventions in 17th century France known as
the ‘classical doctrine’ gave rise to many harsh criticisms of Sophocles’ famous tragedy the OT.
Following a Christianised interpretation of Aristotle’s Poetics, theorists of this time concluded that
tragedy must have a moral message, otherwise it is damaging to the public. In the 17th century,
those obsessed with public morality, often closely linked to the government, claimed that its
negative presentation of monarchy and inappropriate themes (incest and parricide) as well as its
perceived lack of morality would encourage sinful behaviour amongst the people and the relative
lack of productions or adaptations during this century demonstrates this moral censorship at the
hands of classicism. We have seen how the perception of tragedy has been strongly influenced by
the Christian culture of the early modern period, and how the reception of ancient literature and
culture is in fact dependent on the receiving culture. The seemingly chaotic and fatalistic world of
the OT mainly remained supressed under the stable government of Richelieu and his successor
Mazarin, and gained popularity in times of social instability.
Works Consulted
Ancient Texts

Aristotle. 1996. Poetics. tr. Heath, M. New York, N.Y; London: Penguin Books.

Seneca. 1966. Four tragedies and Octavia. tr. Watling, E.F. London: Penguin Books.

Sophocles. 1994. Oedipus. tr. Lloyd-Jones, H. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Pre-20th century texts

Chapelain. 1637 [1898]. Les Sentiments de l’Académie Française sur la tragi-comédie du
Cid. In: Gasté, A. ed. La querelle du Cid : pièces et pamphlets publiés d'après les originaux.
Paris: H. Welter, pp. 355-447

Chapelain. 1905. La Préface de Chapelain à L’Adonis. [Online]. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
[Accessed 11/03/15]. Available from:
https://archive.org/details/laprfacedechape00bovegoog

Corneille, P. 1660. Discours de la tragédie. [Online]. [Accessed 12/03/15]. Available from:
http://www.theatreclassique.fr/pages/theorie/CORNEILLE_DISCOURSDELATRAGEDIE.HTM

Corneille, P. 1862. Oeuvres. Marty Laveaux, C.J., et al. eds. vol. 1, Paris: L. Hachette.

Corneille, P. 1978. La Suivante: comédie. Margitić, M.R. ed. Genève: Droz.

Corneille, P. and Voltaire. 2004. Oedipe. Thirouin, L. and Reynaud, D. eds. Saint-Etienne:
Publications de l'Université de Saint-Etienne.

Dacier, A. 1692. La poétique d'Aristote traduite en françois, avec des remarques. [Online].
Paris: Claude Barbin. [Accessed 28/02/15]. Available from:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k70329z.r=andr%C3%A9+dacier.langEN

Dacier, A. 1692. L'Oedipe et l'Électre de Sophocle , tragédies grecques traduites en françois
avec des remarques. [Online]. Paris: Claude Barbin. [Accessed 16/01/15]. Available from:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k123190w.r=andr%C3%A9+dacier.langEN

d'Aubignac, F.H. ed. 1657 [1971]. La pratique du théâtre: und andere Schriften zur Doctrine
classique. Genève: Slatkine Reprints.

d'Aubignac, F.H. 1663 [1995]. Dissertations contre Corneille. Hammond, N. and Hawcroft, M.
eds. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

Fontenelle. 1687 [1973]. Histoire des Oracles: dénonciation des impostures en matière de
religion. [Online]. Paris: Marabout Université. [Accessed 13/04/15]. Available from:
http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/fontenelle_bernard_de/histoire_des_oracles/Histoire_
des_oracles.pdf

Gasté, A. 1898. La querelle du Cid: pièces et pamphlets publiés d'après les originaux. Paris: H.
Welter.

Ogier, F. 1628. Préface au lecteur. In: Schélandre ed. Tyr et Sidon. [Online]. Paris: R.
Estienne. [Accessed 15/03/15]. Available from:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k705432

Pré vost, J. 1614 [2001]. Edipe : tragédie. Sandrone, S. ed. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.

Rapin, R. 1674 [2011]. Les réflexions sur la poétique et sur les ouvrages des poètes anciens et
modernes, 1684. Paris: H. Champion.
Post-20th century texts

Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2015. s.v. Enlightenment,

Ahrensdorf, P.J. 2004. The Limits of Political Rationalism: Enlightenment and Religion in
Oedipus the Tyrant. The Journal of Politics. 66(3), pp.773-799.

Barnwell, H.T. 1982. The tragic drama of Corneille and Racine. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BBC Radio 4. 2011. Aristotle's Poetics. In Our Time. [Podcast]. [Accessed 15th Feb 2015].
Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xw210

Biet, C. 1994. Œdipe en monarchie: tragédie et théorie juridique à l'âge classique. Paris:
Klincksieck.

Borgerhoff, E.B.O. 1950. The Freedom of French Classicism. Princeton: University Press.

Burkert, W. 1991. Oedipus, oracles, and meaning: from Sophocles to Umberto Eco. [Leaflet].
Toronto: University College, the University of Toronto.

Cabourdin, G. and Viard, G. 1978. Lexique historique de la France d'Ancien régime. Paris: A.
Colin.

Cave, T. 1999. Ancients and Moderns: France. In: Norton, G. ed. The Cambridge history of
literary criticism: Vol.3, The Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.417426.

Chantalat, C. 1992. À la recherche du goût classique. Paris: Klincksieck.

Clark, B.H. 1965. European theories of the drama. New York: Crown Publishers.

Cruickshank, J. 1968. French literature and its background. vol. 2, London: Oxford University
Press.

Delmas, C. 1994. La tragédie de l'âge classique (1553-1770). Paris: Seuil.

Descotes, M. 1980. Histoire de la critique dramatique en France. Tübingen; Paris: G. Narr.

Dion, N. 2012. Entre les larmes et l'effroi: la tragédie classique française, 1677-1726. Paris:
Classiques Garnier.

Dodds, E.R. 1966. On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex. Greece and Rome. 13(1), pp.37-49.

Dukore, B.F. ed. 1974. Dramatic theory and criticism: Greeks to Grotowski. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Ferber, S. 2004. Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France. London; New
York: Routledge.

Forestier, G. 2003. Passions tragiques et règles classiques: essai sur la tragédie française.
Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Garland, R. 2004. Surviving Greek tragedy. London: Duckworth.

Hammond, N. 1997. Creative tensions: an introduction to Seventeenth-Century French
literature. London: Duckworth.

Hardwick, L. and Stray, C. eds. 2011. A Companion to Classical Receptions. UK: Edinburgh
University Press.

Harsh, P.W. 1944. A handbook of classical drama. Stanford University: Stanford university
press.

Heath, M. 1987. Jure Principem Locum Tenet': Euripides' Hecuba,. Bulletin of the Institute of
Classical Studies. 34(1), pp.40-68.

Jones, T.B. and Nicol, B.d.B. 1976. Neo-classical dramatic criticism, 1560-1770. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jourdain, E.F. 1921. Dramatic theory and practice in France, 1690-1808. London: Longmans
Green.

Knox, B.M.W. 1957. Oedipus at Thebes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lancaster, H.C. 1929. A history of French dramatic literature in the seventeenth century.
Baltimore, Md; Paris: Johns Hopkins press.

Lawton, H.W. 1949. Handbook of French Renaissance dramatic theory. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.

Lurie, M. 2012. Facing Up To Tragedy. In: Ormand ed. A Companion to Sophocles. Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell, pp.440-461.

Lyons, J.D. 1999. Kingdom of disorder: the theory of tragedy in classical France. vol. 18, West
Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press.

Macintosh, F. 2009. Sophocles: Oedipus tyrannus. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Mossman, J. 1999. Wild justice: a study of Euripides' Hecuba. Bristol: Bristol Classical.

Norman, L.F. 2011. The shock of the ancient: literature and history in early modern France.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ormand, K. ed. 2012. A companion to Sophocles. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Racine, J. 1959. Principes de la tragédie, en marge de la Poétique d'Aristote. Vinaver, E. ed.
Manchester: Editions de l'Université de Manchester.

Reese, H.R. 1937. La Mesnardière's Poëtique (1639): sources and dramatic theories.
Baltimore, Md; London: Johns Hopkins Press.

Reiss, T. 1999. Renaissance theatre and the theory of tragedy. In: Norton, G. ed. The
Cambridge history of literary criticism: Vol.3, The Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.229-248.

Rocco, C. 1997. Tragedy and enlightenment: Athenian political thought and the dilemmas of
modernity. [Online]. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Accessed 05/03/15].
Available from:
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft9p300997&chunk.id=ch2&toc.de
pth=1&toc.id=ch2&brand=eschol

Rohou, J. 1996. La tragédie classique: 1550-1793. Paris: SEDES.

Ryan, C. 2010. Eighteenth-century responses to Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. PhD thesis,
University of Nottingham.

Sclippa, N. 1993. La loi du père et les droits du cœur: essai sur les tragédies de Voltaire.
Genève: Droz.

Seeman, E. 2010. Death in the New World: Cross-Cultural Encounters, 1492-1800.
Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.

Segal, C. 1999. Tragedy and civilization: an interpretation of Sophocles. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.

Spingarn, J.E. 1908. A history of literary criticism in the Renaissance: with special reference to
the influence of Italy in the formation and development of modern classicism. New York;
London: Columnia University Press.