The myth of Andromache in English (Neo)classicism

The focus of this paper is an analysis of the Ambrose Philips (16741749) neoclassical tragedy The Distrest Mother (1712). This play is an adaptation of Jean Racine’s (1639-1699) Andromaque (1667), which is, in turn, an adaptation of the Euripides’ ancient Greek tragedy Andromache (ca. 426 BC). Philips’ tragedy is an example of an early English adaptation from Racine. Philip took Racine’s play and moulded it to appeal to English taste. Therefore, this study shall analyse Philips’ play focusing on his innovations, mainly in comparison with the Racine version, but also with the ancient Greek myth.

Philips' tragedy is an example of an early English adaptation from Racine (Bredvold 1950). Philips is well-known for his pastoral literature; in this sense, he also writes The Distrest Mother as a moral tragedy. It is considered that Racine's Andromaque was his first great tragedy and, consequently, the first great French tragedy. For this reason, in the 18 th century, Racine became the main model for tragedians around Europe and his Andromaque, in addition to his Iphigénie, became the paradigm of moral tragedies.
Philips took Racine's play and simplified the characterization, increased the emotionalism and sharpened the didactic emphasis, making it appeal more to English taste: more restrained and voluptuous than the French drama style, more moral and less aesthetic. Therefore, this study shall analyse Philips' play focusing on his innovations, mainly in comparison with Racine's version, but also with the ancient Greek myth. Consequently, this work shall begin by addressing some questions: Why Andromache? What is the reason for this classical myth being revisited by an English author in the 18 th century? What is the context for Ambrose Philips wanting to translate as great a French author as Racine? There are limited studies on Euripides' Andromache, as well as his Iphigenia in Aulis, and neither have been popular tragedies, either in the 20 th or the beginning of the 21 st century, compared to, for instance, Euripides' Medea or Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. Thus, it could be said that traditionally classicist literary critics have neglected them. Nevertheless, with the success of Racine's Andromache in the 17 th century, the Andromache and Iphigenia myths achieved substantial popularity in the dramatic arts in the 17 th century in western Europe: theatre, opera, as well as other subgenres.
Racine's Andromache is considered to be the first great tragedy of the French author, and consequently, the first great tragedy of the French Grand Siécle. 1 Despite the Andromache myth having been unsung, it finds its floruit in the 17 th century with the French dramatist's work. The reason for this is that the masterpiece fits perfectly with the social and cultural context of this period. Racine recoups ancient classicism and brings it into the modern era, thus becoming the principal model -even more so than Euripides -for 18 th century authors.
In his tragedy, the French tragedian shows the predominant moral code existing in the court of France, in this way fulfilling the wishes of the monarch Louis XIV of France. He also makes it a didactic work -with this aspect of the tragedy being accentuated even more by Ambrose Philips in his The Distrest Mother -in accordance with court directives. In order to accomplish this, Racine endows the character of his tragedy with great dignity, noble goals and magnanimous passions (Pujol 1982: ix-xiii).
Why the English dramatist created his early adaptations from Racine has been a controversial subject for experts since the beginning of the last century (Wheatley 1956 andMacintire 1911). Therefore, this paper shall attempt to show how the author, Ambrose Philips, became linked, in the England of the 18 th century, with the French tragedy from the 17 th century. Naturally, this must be attributed to the general European literary panorama, without which this question cannot be understood.
As previously mentioned, Philips is well known for his pastoral poems. Indeed, he wrote six Pastorals and recreated ancient Arcadian scenes, which were surely a pleasing lecture for his contemporary readers. 2 The bucolic poetry tradition has a heritage leading from the Alexandrine poet Theocritus, whose rustic poems were "highly valued by the Greeks and the Romans" (Johnson 1817: ix), 3 while the literary genre was successfully followed by Virgil with his Eclogae/Bucolica ('Eclogues'/'Bucolics'). Later, in the 14 th century, there was a revival in bucolic poetry in Italy, where Petrarch composed his modern pastorals in Latin, titled Aeglogues. 4 From this perspective, it could be said that Philips had a deep knowledge of the classical literary tradition. Furthermore, he had great knowledge of the ancient Greek language as well as, and especially, the Latin language. He translated the ancient Greek lyric poets Sappho 5 and Pindar. 6 As a dramatist, Ambrose Philips wrote three plays, all of them tragedies: The Distrest Mother (1712), The Briton (1722) and Humphry Duke of Gloucester (1723).
The Distrest Mother is the most well-known and also the most popular and successful of all of them. Concerning The Briton, it is not known how it was received when it was performed on stage, as previous literary studies have overlooked this problem. 7 Finally, the story of Humphry Duke of Gloucester is only remembered by its title (Johnson 1817: xii-xiv). 8 Thus, in keeping with the dominating literary tendencies of the Augustan period, the most celebrated of his tragedies, as well as his most famous poems, are neoclassical. Philips wrote in an Era, the 18 th century, 9 which is often considered to be a bridge between the two worlds.
The transition from neoclassicism, a movement beginning in the 17th century and aiming to return to ancient principles, finished with Romanticism. 10 In the last decades of the 17th century, court writers gave way to professional writers or "hacks", who wrote purely for financial gain and consequently 5 In 1711 his translations from Sappho were published in The Spectator 233 (Clark 1806: 211 and Prins 1996: 57-60). 6 In fact, translating Pindar, he found the art of reaching the obscurity in his poems (Johnson 1817: xiv). 7 Though one of its scenes, between Vanoc, the British prince, and Valens, the Roman general, is regarded to be written with great dramatic skill, animated by spirit truly poetical (Johnson 1817: xii). 8 His happiest undertaking was of a paper called The Freethinker. At that point, it must be remembered that politically he was a Whig (Johnson 1817: vi-xii). 9 We do not know when or where he was born nor do we know about his childhood. Concerning his education, it is known that he studied at St. John's College, in Cambridge, where he wrote some English verses in the Collection of poems published by the University of Cambridge on the death of Queen Mary (Johnson 1817: vii). 10 Of course, there was a step prior to this: Proto-Romanticism.
for the market. 11 They heralded a different kind of literary culture to the older aristocratic one based on patronage, the one to which Philips belonged (Widdowson 2004: 60). He ended a period, the 17 th century, when imagination and geniality ruled culture and literature and started another, the 18 th century, when judgement and reason became increasingly empowered. He was one of the last keepers of the final phase of Renaissance humanism who entered the Enlightenment. corum, moderation and elegantia 14 versus the precious French exuberance. 15 Like Racine, Philips dedicated his tragedy to a court lady. In the case of Racine, it was Henriette-Anne Stuart, Votre Altesse Royale, "Henriette of England", Duchess of Orleans (1644-1670), daughter of Charles I of England. 16 In the case of Ambrose Philips, it was the Duchess of Montague, daughter of the Duke of Marlborough. The reason for dedicating these kinds of plays to these ladies, and consequently obtaining their patronage, is well explained in Philips' dedication to the tragedy: "The principal action and main distress of the play is such a nature, as seems more immediately to claim the patronage of a lady: and when I consider the great and shining characters of antiquity are celebrated in it" (Philips 1817: iii). He also dedicated the tragedy to her father, linking him with the ancient world: "The name of Hector could not be more terrible among the Greeks, than that of the Duke of Marlborough has been to the French" (Philips 1817: iii).
The dramatists needed patronage, and the myth and character of Andromache -as well as, incidentally, the character of Iphigenia -fitted perfectly with the model of "proper" Christian women of the Court. However, the archetype of Andromache had to be changed from the classical one to the seventeenthcentury one, and that was Racine's task.
It is important here to study Euripides' ancient Greek tragedy. The focus of this tragedy is the love triangle between Hermione -Neoptolemus -Andromache (Morenilla Talens 2013: 144-145). Andromache, a Trojan princess, is the widow of Hector, leader of the Trojans. After the Trojan War, Andromache is taken as a slave to become the concubine of the son of Achilles, Neoptolemus (Harrauer and Hunger 2008 Euripides also emphasises the ravages of the war, how a Trojan princess, King Eetion's daughter, had to suffer the humiliation of being part of the spoils of war, while she is waiting for the terrible and irrevocable murder of her son Molossus by the Greeks: Χορός ἔδειξενἡ Λάκαινα τοῦ στρατηλάτα Μενέλα: διὰ γὰρ πυρὸς ἦλθ᾽ ἑτέρῳλέχει, κτείν ει δὲ τὰν τάλαιναν Ἰλιάδα κόραν παῖδά τε δύσφρονος ἔριδο ςὕπερ. (vv. 487-490) ['Chorus: This was shown by the Lacanian woman, daughter of the commander Menelaus: so, she came with her heart aflame against the other wife and she put to death the wretched Trojan girl and her son because of an odious strife.'] For his part, Racine shows Andromache mainly as the widow of Hector and her role of the lover of Neoptolemus is no longer relevant. Therefore, Racine, obviates the lover role of Andromache and shows her as a vivid representation of Mater dolo-rosa et amantissima. She will always be the widow of Hector and appears in front of the audience broken by the depth of sorrow for his deceased son, Molossus. In addition, Racine restructured the play and changed some characters in it. He divided the play into acts and different scenes, 18 omitting the Chorus as a classical character. He also took out supporting characters like the Slave, the Nursemaid, and the Messenger. In addition, other characters were eliminated: Menelaus, Peleus, Thetis and Andromache's son, who is a silent character in Euripides' play. Racine kept, of course, the main character, Andromache, and her antagonist, Hermione, as well as Orestes. On the other hand, he added Pylade and Pyrrhus. Finally, he added the new supporting characters Cléone -the confidant of Hermione, Cephisa -the confidant of Andromache, Phoenix -a senior official of Achilles and Pyrrhus' confidant, and the Attendants of Orestes.
For some authors (Cumberland 1817: xi), Ambrose Philips' The Distrest Mother is a translation, not a different version, although this work argues that this is not true: it is, in fact, a distinct version of Racine's play. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that the conception of "translation" in the 17 th -18 th centuries, was not the same as today: the translator was free to change some parts of the work and add or remove other parts (Sala 2005 andRíos 1997). However, even if we take into account this meaning of "translation", Philips' The Distrest Mother is not a translation of Racine's Andromache.
However, Philips did follow Racine in one particular point: he remarked in his work that the main character of Andromache is the paradigm of a devoted and pious mother -which is shown in the title of the play: Andromache: That were to wrong thee. Oh, my Cephisa! this gay, borrow'd air, This blaze of jewels, and this bridal dress, 118 Beyond Philology 16/2 Are but mock trappings to conceal my woe: My heart still mourns; I still am Hector's widow. (Act IV,p. 39) In terms of the structure, Philips's play respected Racine's division into five acts, but restructured the division of scenes for each act. Each of Racine's acts was divided into between five and eleven scenes, meanwhile Philips' play was divided into five acts, but there is only one scene per act. The purpose of this new division is to concentrate the dramatic action and have a more powerful emotional impact on the audience. This was common practice in the 18 th century with new versions of classical tragedies. Some authors even condensed plays into one single lyric act (Metastasio 1754 andLassala 1783), while it could be suggested that this "condensing" results in the monologues becoming even more relevant.

Attendants on Orestes
Attendants on Pyrrus and Orestes However, Andromache is performed even more like a great heroine, with Philips awarding her increased relevance in the play. Adapting the character of Andromache was the most enticing challenge for the English writer. She was equally admirable as mother, wife and widow, so Philips attempted to evoke the audience's admiration. She was virtuous, in distress and therefore sympathetic. She represented the uncorrupted English woman, an English heroine, suddenly becoming as vigorous as an "Old testament profetesse" (Parnell 1959: 16): Andromache: With open arms I'll meet him!-Oh, Cephisa! A springing joy, mixt with a soft concern, A pleasure which no language can express, An ecstasy that mothers only feel,  (1668), with an ending. that was removed from the final version, which was set in 1697. In this final version, Andromache does not even appear in the last scene. It seems that Philips solves the problem of the ending with a speech by Andromache, who becomes an active protagonist.
Her insolence at least is well repaid.-I cannot bear the thought! (Act II, p. 13, emphasis added) In this scene it is shown that not only the main heroine, but also her antagonist is a strong and charismatic character. This feature is noticeable in both, Racine and Philips' versions. Note that in both cases, Hermione uses the same adjective to describe herself: 'proud' (fière in French). Finally, and as previously noted, another important issue in Philips' version is the writing style. The style of verse was also modified, Philips leaves the over-elaborated baroque French style and recovers the classical decorum: regularity and simplicity of firm, order and proportion, elegance and polished wit, by encouraging emotional restraint.
While there is much left to be said on this subject, this work has sought to offer some insight into plays based on the Andromache myth and, as such, can draw some conclusions. There was a transfiguration of the Andromache myth, which was originally about war, jealousy, passionate love and power. Andromache turned into a loving mother, wife and widow, a moral archetype. It started with Racine, who Christianized the myth and transformed it into a didactic myth. Subsequent writers followed this trend and Ambrose Philips was not an exception. It is because of this transformation, and also, because of its classical background that in the 18 th century, Andromache, The Distrest Mother, became a moral, even political, ethical and didactic tragedy.