In Questioning Racinian Tragedy, John Campbell takes issue with analyzes of Phaedra that simplistically map Jansenist faith into the work, or make assumptions about the author's intent as "an uneasy amalgam of theology, biography and tragedy" (153). Campbell sees the conventional Jansenist reading of Phaedra, which usually interprets the play as an unambiguous display of a religious concern with tragic fate and human fallibility, as producing a Racinian "corpse" (154), which means a singular reading that precludes the possibility of renewed interpretations. Given the limited biographical information that might clarify the extent of Racine's Jansenist influence, and the ongoing debates about the relationship between such information and artistic production, how should we situate Racine's biography and his relationship with Port-Royal? This article argues that Jansenism can still provide intriguing interpretations of Phaedra if scholars accept the inevitable limitations of religion or biography as explanatory tools. Instead, using the structures and evidence of biography and Jansenism, Phaedra's contradictions should be explored, rather than obscured in the interests of an authoritative reading. Thus, where Campbell, in his chapter "The Question of God," believes that the question at hand is whether or not Jansenism is an organizing principle of Racinian tragedy, this article sets aside questions that seek a single truth historian and reads Phaedra with the concern of what contradictions a Jansenist reading could produce. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayA clear example of how an examination of the text can simultaneously produce support for and rejection of the Jansenist belief in Phaedra is found in the conditions and consequences of Phaedra's sin. Phaedra's "crime" is often considered evidence of Racine's allegiance to Jansenism, because his tortuous psychological experience reflects the Jansenist emphasis on individual suffering. Phaedra's dialogue and the way she complains to Oenone, Theseus, and Hippolytus is solely concerned with her inner turmoil demonstrate "an attitude of indifference towards the world and its institutions" (Sedgwick 198). Scholars have argued that the character of Phaedra has a detached relationship with the action of the play, which other characters initiate (Short 39-40). When Phaedra tells Theseus, "My only desire must be solitude" (Racine 456), along with her suicide threats to Oenone, the reader is repeatedly reminded that Phaedra's isolation may remove her from the world (and from the 'work). This reality speaks to the Jansenist ideal that spiritual inquiry and conflict are a highly personal pursuit, rather than mediated by institutions or communities. While this textual evidence points to a Jansenist disconnection from society, Phaedra's suffering is at the same time a connection to society, which undermines a Jansenist Reading. Phaedra's "bitter secret" (Racine 454) is that she is on the verge of adultery and incest. Indeed, Racine labels her feelings as an “illicit passion” (446), demonstrating that Phaedra's crime can only be understood as a product of the law. The pandemonium created in Phaedra's psyche by the prospect of transgressing social institutions reveals enormous deference to those institutions. Law emerges as a moral authority in the play, conflicting with the Jansenist priority placed on divine authority and the desire to prioritize, “the interests of the individual above the interests of society” (Sedgwick 196). Jansenist followers in the pastthey prioritized the well-being of the individual even over the good of the religious community of Port-Royal (Sedgwick 197), and were so "concerned with their own lives" (Sedgwick 198), that they refused involvement with the State or Church in a time when other religious groups were in bitter conflict with these institutions. However, Phaedra's suffering stems in part from her recognition of the suffering and dissolution that submission to her passion will bring to society and family if it transgresses the taboos of incest and adultery. We see that Phaedra, particularly in this question of what the tragic heroine's suffering means and how it is experienced, simultaneously contains the seeds for readings for and against the Jansenist interpretation. Racinian scholars who replicate Phaedra's canonical consensus as a recitation of Jansenist morality must evade the contradiction to preserve such a reading. Short's analysis of Phaedra, which is a conventional interpretation that gives Phaedra the greatest importance of any character and makes her struggle almost entirely internal, contains two moments of recognition of the ways in which the play may not actually stick completely to this canonical explanation. First, he notes that there is a notable lack of "an actual monologue in which a character explores a state of mind" (Short 33). Second, Short contextualizes Phaedra's passion, recognizing it as incestuous because, “the world in which the events of the play take place” (36) defines it as such. Here, Short has the chance to examine how the conventions of the play (the absence of monologue) contradict the well-received idea that Phaedra is an isolated character, and how the social conventions (the law) accelerate Phaedra's understanding of her own transgression. . However, in both of these cases, the analysis chooses to overlook the potential for alternative readings posed by these observations. Short only "wonders" (33) at Racine's choice not to use monologue and ultimately sees Phaedra's crime as entirely "within herself" (37), choosing to gloss over the contradictions to preserve standard exegesis. This omission of inconsistency appears to be the culprit in Campbell's frustration with the way Racine has been rendered a lifeless "corpse" (154). The denial of contradiction in favor of a cohesive view of Phaedra as demonstrating a Jansenist worldview was legitimized. primarily by invoking biographical evidence of Racine's association with the religious sect. Worthen's introduction to Phaedra confidently asserts that Racine's "upbringing in Port-Royal played a decisive role in his intellectual life and throughout his career as a playwright" (444), and prepares new readers to interpret Phaedra through "the philosophical approach themes of the Jansenist faith" (444). When the textual evidence appears to contain inconsistencies (as Short notes), scant biographical facts are usually used as additional evidence that allows the idea that Racine wrote a Jansenist work to prevail. But do these fragments of biography really confirm a Jansenist reading? While historical support is limited, there is a more troubling assumption that a "pervasive influence" (Worthen 444) by a religion means only that that religion's beliefs are then conveyed through the author's artistic expression. Using this model, scholars assume that if Racine was at some point a Jansenist, then his tragedies unambiguously convey Jansenist standards. Convincingly, Campbell casts considerable doubt on past readings of Phaedra that label her solely as a product of Jansenism and assume that Racine's relationship with Port-Royal would lead without,. 1977. 193-207.