Athalie by Jean Racine

Athalie Reviews

• 
  David Sarkies

  One of Racine's two biblical plays
  19 August 2013
  
  This is the last play that Racine ever wrote and produced and it did not seem to go down all that well with the people of the time, maybe because there had recently been a political affair involving a woman who was trying to set herself up as Queen (read king) of France. However, it did garner some accord from a number of intellectuals at the time, including Voltaire, who believed that it was one of Racine's greatest plays. The political machinations that Racine manages to bring out of his plays do exalt him to the position of one of the great playwrights, and in a way he is set apart from Shakespeare because of this. However, despite the fact that he is French and he wrote in French, he still does not seem to attract the popularity that the Bard's plays tend to (probably because he is French).
  
  Athalie is one of two plays that Racine wrote based around biblical stories, both of them from the Old Testament. The other biblical play that he wrote is Esther, and anybody somewhat familiar with the Bible is probably familiar with the book of Esther. However the story of Athalie (or Athaliah in English) is much less familiar, and I would not be surprised if there are a number of Christians out there who have been Christians for a long time that are unfamiliar with the story of Athalie.
  
  The story itself comes from 1 Kings 11 and occurs after the brutal murders (not that they weren't asking for it) of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel (the monarchs of the northern Kingdom of Israel) by King Jehu (the king of the southern Kingdom of Judah – Racine explains this in his introduction). While at the time Jehu did what was right in the eyes of God, as he grew old he become corrupted with power, and no doubt threw away his faith in God. It appears that he did not produce an heir because his mother, Athalie, took hold of the reigns of power in Judah and then proceeded to execute the rest of the royal family, leaving her firmly in control.
  
  The play begins pretty quickly after she had ascended to the throne of Judah and had brought the worship of the Baals (foreign gods) back into Judah. However the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem continued the worship of the one true God, and they also had an ace up their sleeve – the only surviving heir to the throne of Judah and the only surviving descendant of the line of King David. Thus the play is set up to be a play where the queen and her prophets struggle and fight against the high priest and his prophets, who are also trying to keep the soul surviving heir a secret.
  
  Some have suggested, and this is probably true, that this play comes out of Racine's Jansenist upbringing. In fact after Phaedre, Racine left the lime light and returned to the faith of his youth, and it was only later in life that he returned to the stage to produce a couple of plays outlining his new found faith. However it is interesting to note that Racine still does not bring the extra-ordinary into his plays. This is similar to what we see in Shakespeare and which differs from the great tragedians (and even the old comics) of the Ancient world who had the gods playing an important role in the plays. However, it is also the case that in the Ancient World the gods played an important role in civil life.
  
  It is not that the Christian god did not play an important role however, it is just that it appears that ever since Christ's ascension to heaven, literature tended to drift away from the direct intervention of a divine ruler. Most of the stories that have come about have either come directly from the Bible, or simply focus only on the physical aspects of the world. We see this in Racine's Greek plays where the gods simply do not appear (which differs from Euripides, who would have the gods introduce and conclude the play, and also appear so as to set things right). In the European plays we tend to see a much more humanist aspect in the action, in that the play is not resolved through divine intervention, but through the acts of mere mortals.
  
  Maybe this is what Schaeffer is talking about when he talks about nature eating up grace. Namely, we divide the world into an upper and lower story (that is heaven and Earth) and by separating heaven from Earth we restrict the power of heaven's influence over Earth. We also see this in discussions on the Greek plays where modern commentators will criticise Euripides' use of the deus ex machina, in that it is a poor attempt to resolve the play's conflict when in Eurpides' time such scenes were accepted by the audience. I suspect that it has a lot to do with us moderns drifting further and further away from the acceptance of a divinity that can actually influence the world in which we live.
• 
  Czarny Pies

  Racine a écrit cette pièce à la demande d'une directrice d'un pensionnat pour jeunes filles qui voulait une pièce édifiante à sujet biblique. "Athalie" qui décrit la lutte courageuse par un groupe de juifs courageux à la défense de la vraie foi remplit bien ce mandat. Elle est certainement bien intentionnée mais les personnages n'ont pas le même profondeur psychologique que l'on trouve ailleurs chez Racine.
• 
  Jim Leckband

  One is wary when one dips into 17th Century drama. Well, this "one", being me, is wary. Below are my trepidations when I read that it is a Old Testament derived drama about an obscure Jewish queen in divided Jerusalem. This ain't Law & Order "ripped from the headlines" by any stretch.
  
  Trepidations:
  
  1. French verse drama in translation. Is the translator beholden to making poetry or making theater? I would much rather read the second.
  
  2. Obscure Jewish queen in biblical Jerusalem. Will I care enough about the characters to want to keep reading? I mean, who really reads the Old Testament when it gets into those biblical kings with all those grudges and religious dogmas and begats?
  
  3. Similarly to number 2, will the dramatic crisis be something that anyone would care about who isn't a Jewish history fanatic?
  
  4. In the dramatis personae I see this name: "Jehoshebath". Really. Shouldn't I just go on to something else right now? Look, there's dust on that lamp - let me run and get the duster RIGHT NOW!
  
  5. A cast of characters with similarly unpronounceable names. However, there is an "Abner". Yes, just "Abner". I can handle "Abner". But will the gobbledygook characters all just seem the same in my reading?
  
  6. A religiously divided Jerusalem? Oh come on now, who could believe anything so bizarre and antiquated? I wouldn't have the first clue how to relate that to modern times. Sheesh...
  
  So with the above trepidations I began to read - if only because it was a shortish play with lots of white space! And you know what, the play worked. Somehow I got a good translation (old Penguin classics) that didn't try to get all wonky with "proper" rhymes and meter, and syntax out of a "how assemble" manual of a Korean plasma TV.
  
  There was a Shakespearean feel to the drama, which I won't spoil by outlining the plot, and reading Racine's preface is key to getting the lowdown on the history of the conflicts: tribes, God, backsliding into Baal, temple priests, murders, burnt offerings, etc.
  
  The cast of characters was easier to keep track off than I thought it would be - much easier than some of Shakespeare's plays which seem like less than an exercise in literature than an Actor Job Creation Scheme.
  
  Athalie herself is quite a character - maybe not as deeply drawn as Lady Macbeth - but still interesting to discover her motivations and what she'll do.
  
  In the end, Abner plays a key role (yay Abner!) and it's the bureaucrat Joad who saves the day! And as I always say "Long live the temple bureaucrats!"
  
  
• 
  Ann

  Found in: Sevnteenth Century French Plays Hardback
  
  Monstrous characters. Gorgeous poetry. What's not to like?
• 
  Steven Godin

  Biblical plays aren't really my thing, but I just wanted to try something from the 17th century.
  It might be that this is simply not one of Racine's better works, as I was pretty bored to be honest.
  Unlike Shakespeare and certain wines, this hasn't aged well.
• 
  emmarps

  rien compris
• 
  Rozonda

  Like Shakespearean ones, Racine's evil characters awaken more interest than the good ones. Sometimes we even feel sympathy for them.
  This is Athalie's case. After seeing, as a child, her mother defenestrated and eaten by dogs, and suffering still from nightmares, she conceives an understandable hatred for King David's family and their God, who were responsible for that death.
  Even if she commits horrible murders to eliminate this family, we cannot see her fully as a monster; a woman, alone on the throne of a traditionally sexist country, facing the fierce monotheism of Jewish priests,who will not allow another religion in the country, her position is not an easy one. Child-king Joas and his followers are nice charcaters, but for a 21st century reader,they may seem fanatic and intolerant.
  
  Anyway, all this is saved by the amazing lyrical beauty of the play, with a chorus of Jewish girls who sing beautiful psalms and with monologues and dialogues of great poetical force. A beautiful play.
• 
  Lionel Nimbus

  Acte III Scène VII
  JOAD
  (...)
  Quel est dans le Lieu saint ce Pontif égorgé ?
  Pleure, Jéruslame, pleure, Cité perfide,
  Des Prophètes divins malheureuse homicide.
  Ton encens à ses yeux est un encens souillé.
  Où menez-vous ces enfants, et ces femmes ?
  Le Seigneur a détruit la Reine des Cités.
  Ses Prêtres sont captifs, ses Rois sont rejetés.
  Dieu ne veut plus qu'on vienne à ses solennités.
  Temple, renverse-toi. Cèdres jetez des flammes.
  Jérusalem, objet de ma douleur,
  Quelle main en un jour t'a ravi tous tes charmes ?
• 
  Leonardo

  Para poder ejemplificar el "point de caption", Lacan cita las famosas líneas de la Athalie de Racine: "Temo a Dios, querido Abner, y no tengo otros temores".
  
  
  Visión de Paralaje Pág.59
• 
  Myriam

  Ma tragédie préférée de Racine.
• 
  Matthew

  Athaliah was written after Racine converted back to his earlier Christian beliefs, and reading it makes me heartily wish he had not.
  
  I recognise that here I am in a minority. While I was bored by the play (at least as written on paper), many critics regard it as one of his best works. So while I cannot bring myself to recommend reading it, I will not go so far as to discourage anyone who wishes to try it either. Judge for yourself. If you disagree with me, you are in good company.
  
  For his subject matter Racine chooses a more obscure Bible story from one of the two books of Kings, hardly the most exciting part of the Scriptures. Characters have names like Jehoshabeath and Jehoiaida.
  
  The story is as follows. At this point in time Athaliah has seized the throne of Judah and eliminated all rivals, or so she thinks. This ruthless queen has renounced the Jewish religion (we should see this more as Christianity than Judaism) and returned to worshipping Baal.
  
  Unhappily for Athaliah, the grandson of the late king, Joash has survived after all. Now the Queen has bad dreams about him overthrowing her. As Joash’s identity becomes clearer, there is a race against time to see whether Athaliah will put Joash to death, or whether the young boy’s followers will kill her instead.
  
  Of course there is not much doubt of the outcome as this is a Bible story. The Judeo-Christian side will prevail against the followers of the older religion.
  
  There is much potential for drama here, and there is excitement in seeing how events will turn out. Athaliah is the most interesting character, a Queen who has performed bad deeds, but who vacillates, unable to bring herself to take the ruthless decisions that will secure her place.
  
  Sadly Racine’s religious views ultimately swamp the narrative. Athaliah is only indecisive because God has afflicted her, Racine seems to say, making her fickle behaviour seem less interesting.
  
  As Racine is expressing his own religious faith through the play, there is no room for moral ambiguity, even if the facts of the case suggest otherwise. Athaliah is evil. Her ruthless priest Mattan is a hypocrite. Both secretly know they are wrong.
  
  By contrast the Christians are righteous, even when they overcome the Queen by an act of deceit and treachery. Joash is virtuous, and we had better ignore later parts of the Bible where our ‘hero’ turns back towards the old gods as well.
  
  To the objective reader, neither side seems any better than the other, but to Racine there is a clear fight between good and evil. He reinforces this at the end of each act by having a dull chorus appear and utter bland pieties.
  
  Now that I have read three Racine plays, I can make a few observations about the dramatist himself. Firstly Racine is no Shakespeare. His characters are interesting, but the dialogue does not bring them to life.
  
  Shakespeare’s characters talk to one another; Racine’s characters make speeches at one another. Shakespeare’s characters express emotion. Racine’s characters proclaim emotion.
  
  Still this style works well when Racine is writing about ancient Greek stories, since many of the original plays shared the same qualities. There is some undeniably beautiful writing in the plays, and great nuance of meaning, though this is less evident in Athaliah.
  
  Perhaps one day I will return to Athaliah and be impressed by it. Perhaps if I see or hear a performance of the play, it will impress me when witnessed in its true element. For now I regard it with a little respect, but not much enthusiasm.
• 
  Davis Smith

  Racine was a true master. His plays are composed with extreme restraint: he never writes overly flowery or verbose language and the presentation of even the more outlandish plot points seems perfectly natural; but he still manages to achieve a deep and lasting dramatic impact. Mostly, he just lets the alexandrine do the talking—there are reports that theatergoers would shed tears over the sheer beauty of the poetic line. This biblical tragedy focuses on a story that I had not heard of, being from the depths of Kings and Chronicles where I admittedly almost never visit. I like that it observes all the classical unities, but doesn't have a single tragic figure or come to an unexpectedly neat resolution. Racine writes Neo-classicized versions of classical tragedy, in line with the poised melancholy of the Monteverdian opera that is his clearest predecessor, and the results are wonderful. The use of the chorus is brilliant here too, as they paraphrase psalms in their rapturous paeans to the Lord. I would rank Phaedra as his masterpiece, but this isn't far behind.
• 
  Michael A.

  Interesting syncretic that has the form of Greek theater and content of Biblical themes. Maybe I'm missing something from Racine but his "greek plays" (andromaque, phedre, iphegnie, and I guess this one) all combine the prolixity of Greek tragedy with barely any of the interesting parts (no eye gouging after finding out you killed your dad and married your mother or killing your children in a jealous revenge in Racine!) I think perhaps a lot of Racine's genius is untranslatable and that it comes from the language he uses rather than the plots/characters themselves. Could be wrong though!
• 
  The Fat

  Maybe it was just due to it not being "secular" but I found this play to be the least moving of any of the Racine ones that I've read so far. The "tragedy" of the central character didn't really seem that tragic at all. I also didn't like the use of the chorus; in Racine's previous plays I enjoyed how he had cut that out as a way of distancing himself from his classical forbearers, so it was a bit jarring to see it used so prominently in this play.
• 
  Karen

  This is a 17th century French play, based on historical events of the 9th century BC as related in the Bible, about a woman who does some very bad things for some arguably very good reasons. So, to put it into a modern translation, Athaliah is pretty much Thanos.
• 
  Jackson Cyril

  A majestic Biblical play. Racine has a certain alluring power.
• 
  Lydia

  "Lui seul est Dieu, madame, et le vôtre n'est rien."
• 
  Armelle Fontaine

  in love with this book
• 
  esther

  vraiment decue de mon cheri racine sur ce coup peut mieux faire je mets trois pour encourager mais ca mérite deux . intrigue pas ouf mais jolis vers , on comprend rien y a trop de personnages avec le meme prenom c est presque desolant
• 
  Todor Tchervenkov

  Fabulous!