This thesis explores the intersection between the study of Shakespearean drama and the theory and practice of early modern dramatic genres. It reassesses the significance of tragedy and the idea of the tragic within three separate yet related generic frames: tragedy, history, and tragicomedy. Behind this research lies the fundamental question of how newly emerging dramatic genres allow Shakespeare to explore tragedy within different aesthetic and dramatic contexts, and of how they allow his writing to move beyond tragedy. The thesis begins by looking at Shakespeare’s deployment of the complex trope of “nothing”. “Nothing” as a rhetorical trope and metaphysical idea appears across many of the tragedies, often becoming a focal point for the dramatic representation of scepticism, loss and nihilism. The trope is often associated with the space of the theatre, and sometimes with the dramaturgy of tragedy itself. However, it is also deployed within the histories and tragicomedies at certain moments which might equally be called tragic. “Nothing” therefore provides a starting-point for thinking about how the genres of history and tragicomedy engage with tragedy. Part I focuses on tragedy, including extended readings of Timon of Athens and King Lear. It explores Shakespearean drama as a response to the pressures of the early modern cultural preoccupation with, and anxiety about, scepticism. Stanley Cavell and other critics of early modern dramatic scepticism have tended to locate this engagement with scepticism within tragedy. However, this section shows that the same sceptical problematic is addressed across Shakespearean dramatic genres, with very different results. It then explores why scepticism should display a particular affinity for tragedy as a dramatic genre. Part II focuses on history, with particular reference to Richard II and Henry V. The trope of “nothing” is used as a starting-point to explore the intersection between Shakespearean history and tragedy. Engaging with Walter Benjamin’s theory of baroque tragedy as Trauerspiel (mourning-plays) rooted in history, it argues that Trauerspiel provides a useful generic framework against which to consider the mournful aesthetic of Shakespeare’s histories. Part III focuses on early modern tragicomedy and The Winter’s Tale, asking how Shakespeare achieves the transition from tragedy to tragicomedy in his later writing. It explores tragicomedy’s background on the early modern stage in theory and practice, paying particular attention to Guarini’s theory that pastoral tragicomedy frees its hearers from melancholy, and to the legacy of medieval religious drama and its engagement with faith and belief. Returning to the trope of “nothing”, this section shows that The Winter’s Tale addresses the same sceptical problematic as the earlier tragedies. Arguing that scepticism opens up a space for tragedy and nihilism in the first half of The Winter’s Tale, it demonstrates that Shakespeare finds in the genre of tragicomedy an aesthetic and dramatic form which allows him to move through, and beyond, the claims of tragedy.

Le point de départ de ce travail réside d’une part dans la découverte d’une différence considérable de nature entre le héros du Cid et les protagonistes du théâtre contemporain ; et d’autre part sur l’intuition que l’analyse littéraire utilise presque exclusivement Rodrigue comme personnage représentatif du premier XVIIe siècle. Notre première démarche a été de chercher à confirmer ces impressions en démontrant le statut particulier de ce personnage. Nous avons étudié la réception du Cid et de son héros au fil des siècles dans cette optique, jugeant que les réactions des spectateurs, des lecteurs et des critiques construisaient progressivement notre image actuelle de Rodrigue. Nous avons cherché à voir comment depuis janvier 1637 jusqu’au début du XXIe siècle la pièce et son héros ont été accueillis. Nous avons ainsi établi la longévité du texte, ainsi que les exceptionnelles réactions d’engouement qu’il a pu rencontrer. Cela nous a permis d’établir la mythification de la pièce et de dégager sa portée universelle. Ces premières conclusions nous ont invité à rechercher les causes d’un tel succès. C’est à nouveau l’étude de la réception qui nous a permis de découvrir que cette unanimité tenait essentiellement au personnage de Rodrigue. C’est lui qui semble d’abord retenir l’intérêt des lecteurs et des spectateurs. Nous avons donc cherché dans une deuxième partie à comprendre ce qui fascinait tant en Rodrigue. Pour cette raison, nous l’avons confronté à l’idée de héros. La coïncidence saisissante que les réactions publiques révèlent entre ce personnage archétypal et le protagoniste du Cid nous a permis d’aboutir à un premier stade de compréhension : la pièce est accueillie avec enthousiasme au XVIIe siècle parce que son personnage principal actualise l’idéal humain tel que l’époque se le représente. Cependant, l’engouement des siècles suivants repose sur le même motif : c’est parce que Rodrigue incarne le héros du XVIIe siècle que le spectateur du siècle des Lumières, du Romantisme, de la Troisième République ou de l’entre-deux-guerres l’apprécie. Le protagoniste du Cid apparaît comme un héros révéré mais regretté car appartenant à une époque révolue. Au sein de l’œuvre de Corneille, il est également envisagé comme un paradigme héroïque et incarne le modèle dont tous les personnages masculins du théâtre cornélien ne seraient que la déclinaison. Il est l’élément fondateur du mythe du « héros cornélien ». Cependant, l’unanimité de réception face à Rodrigue pose question : Le Cid a-t-il réellement eu une place à part sur le théâtre du premier XVIIe siècle ? À l’ouverture de notre troisième partie, une brève étude de ce théâtre permet de révéler l’écart entre l’image de Rodrigue façonnée par la réception et la réalité dramaturgique des années 1630-1650. La tragi-comédie de Corneille n’est pas la seule pièce à connaître le succès et son héros n’est pas l’unique incarnation sur scène de l’homme tel qu’on se le représente alors. De nombreux autres dramaturges connaissent de réelles réussites. Toutefois, la réception critique les oublie. L’histoire littéraire semble ne vouloir retenir que Corneille pour la postérité. Elle impose Le Cid comme pièce modèle ; mais, se faisant, elle fausse l’appréciation que nous nous faisons du théâtre et des mentalités du XVIIe siècle. Nombre de théories critiques se sont en effet élaborées sur l’idée d’un premier XVIIe siècle glorieux à l’image de Rodrigue et d’une seconde moitié de siècle déclinante et sombre. C’est le cas de Paul Bénichou et de sa « démolition du héros ». Mais peut-on en garantir la véracité si elles reposent pour affirmer la grandeur des premières décennies du siècle sur le seul exemple de Rodrigue ? Une relecture de la littérature de cette période permet pour finir de revenir sur des conceptions altérées notamment par l’éclat du succès incomparable du Cid et d’envisager le premier XVIIe siècle sous une autre lumière. / The basis of this work lies primarily in the discovery of a huge nature difference between the hero in “Le Cid”, and the far less glorious contemporary drama protagonists. On the other hand, it is based upon the intuition that most literary analysis almost exclusively use Rodrigue as the character of the first decades of the17th century.The first step of our work was therefore to try to confirm these impressions by conveying the very special status of this character. We have studied the treatment of “Le Cid” and its hero throughout the centuries with this goal in mind, assessing that the way audiences, readers and critics reacted to the play steadily built our perception of Rodrigue. We have tried to understand how the play and its hero were welcomed from January 1637 to the outcome of the 21st century. We have thus established the longevity of the text as well as the outstanding praise reactions it met with. This enabled us to substantiate the mythification of the play and bring into light its universal scope.From these first conclusions, we then tried to find out the reasons why the success of the play has never been denied. Here again it is the study of the critic treatment that quickly showed us that the unanimous public feeling was essentially due to Rodrigue as a character. For it is he mainly who seems to captivate the audience and the readers’interest. In the second part, we therefore tried to understand why Rodrigue is so mesmerising. With this purpose in mind, we confronted our character to the very hero notion. The stiking coincidence that public reactions convey between this archetypal character and “Le Cid” protagonist brought us to a first conclusion: the play is enthusiastically welcomed in the 17th century because the main character updates the human ideal as it was viewed at the time. Yet, the passion that the play generated in later periods is based on the same principle: it is because Rodrigue embodies the 17th century hero that the public from the age of enlightenment, from the great romantic era, from the French 3rd Republic or the interwar period do feel fond of him. “Le Cid” protagonist appears both as a revered and missed hero because he belongs to days gone by, a past example of the ideal man. In Corneille’s entire works, he is also regarded as a heroic paradygm and is viewed as the Cornelian male reference from which other male characters are derived in the works of the playwright. He is the very source of “the Cornelian hero” myth.However, Rodrigue’s unanimous critic treatment brings forward another issue: does “Le Cid” really stand apart in the early 17th century drama? At the outset of our third part, a brief survey of the period drama reveals the gap between Rodrigue’s image as it was made by the critic treatment and the dramatic reality of the 1630-1650 era. Corneille’s tragicomedy is not the only successful play and its hero is not the only stage embodiment of the male figure as it was then represented. Several other playwrights were successful too. Yet, the critic treatment does not take them into account. It seems as if Corneille is the only author to be remembered in the history of literature. Thus, “Le Cid” is the play reference. But it alters our vision of the 17th century drama and mentalities.In fact, scores of critic theories were based on the idea of a glorious early 17th century (impersonated by Rodrigue) as opposed to a gloomier and declining period at the end of the century. But can one guarantee their truthfulness if they are only based on the character of Rodrigue to assert the grandeur of the early 17th century decades?To conclude, a precise and detailed reading of the period literature allows one to study many misinterpretations, particularly because of “Le Cid” unmatched success, and to consider the early 17th century with a brand new perspective.