Les fatistes du théâtre à sujet religieux souhaitent montrer aux spectateurs médiévaux le scénario biblique. Il s’agit de représenter la confrontation du Bien et du Mal dont l’enjeu demeure l’homme. Pour autant,si les Écritures offrent (fournissent, procurent ?) aux auteurs toute la matière iconique des personnages théâtraux de la sphère christique, le diable reste une entité aux contours flous, un profil théologique. La gageure des fatistes est donc de construire le diable, puis ses comparses, afin qu’ils puissent agir sur le hourd :l’amplification, la réécriture et la poétique de ces « théologiens-dramaturges » font naître le diable théâtral.D’œuvre en œuvre, hors de toute considération d’évolution de genre, le personnage diabolique grandit et prolifère jusqu’à apparaître sous de multiples visages individualisés : ceux de la « maisnie infernale ». Dotés d’une corporéité, d’une gestuelle et d’un langage nouveaux, les diables envahissent le hourd pour agir dans et sur le mystère de la Passion. La possibilité ainsi donnée aux diables d’être les serviteurs du message chrétien tout autant que de véritables actants dramatiques et paradramatiques concourt à leur individuation. Même partiellement factice, celle-ci se réalise pleinement dans le rire diabolique. En effet, que le rire provoqué par le mystère de la Passion soit critique ou qu’il serve d’exutoire, son origine est toujours diabolique.On peut alors concevoir que l’aspect divertissant des grandes Passions s’élabore au fil de l’essor diabolique qu’elles proposent. Surtout, on peut imaginer que les germes comiques, gestuels et dramatiques nés avec ces diables fleurissent, même après la fin de la représentation des mystères de la Passion, en d’autres œuvres et à d’autres époques. / The authors of the Passion plays on religious subject want to show the biblical scenario to the medieval audiences. It consists of representing the confrontation between Good and Evil whose main stake remains Man.If the Scriptures offer to their authors all the iconic material of the theatrical characters of the Christlike sphere,the Devil remains an entity with blurred outlines, a theological profile. What is at stake for the authors of thePassion Plays is to build the Devil and its stooges so that they can act on the stage: the magnification, therewriting and the poetics of those “theological playwrights” offer a birth to the theatrical Devil.From work to work, out of any consideration about the evolution of the genre, the diabolic charactergrows and multiplies to the point of appearing under numerous individualized faces: those of the « maisnieinfernale ». Endowed with a new body language, body movements, and language; the devils swept into thestage to act in and on the Passion Plays.The possibility which is offered to the devils of being the servants of the Christian Message as much as beinggenuine dramatic and paradramatic actors contribute to their individuation. This individuation, even partlyartificial, comes entirely true in the diabolic laughter. Whether it is a grating laugh or whether it acts as a kind ofrelease, the laugh provoked by the Passion Plays is always the result of the diabolic amusement.We can then consider that the amusing aspect of the great Passion Plays is worked out in the course ofthe diabolic development it offers. Above all, we can imagine that the dramatic, gestural and comical germswhich were born with those devils bloom even after the end of the representation of the Passion Plays in otherworks but in other periods too.

This study is about three French plays in which Jocasta, the mother and wife of Oedipus, is shared as a main character: La Thébaïde (The Theban Brothers) by Jean Racine, La Machine Infernale (The Infernal Machine) by Jean Cocteau, and Le Nom d’Oedipe (The Name of Oedipus) by Hélène Cixous. Jocasta has always been overshadowed by the tragic destiny of Oedipus since the onset of Sophocles’ works. Although these three plays commonly focus on describing the character of Jocasta, there are some remarkable differences among them in terms of theme, style, and stage directions. In The Theban Brothers, Racine’s 17th century play, Jocasta is described as a deathlike mother, while Cocteau’s Jocasta, in The Infernal Machine, is portrayed as an “extravagant, liberal, and hilarious” lady. In The Name of Oedipus, Cixous portrays Jocasta as a woman possessing hermaphroditic characteristics, ushering in a new era of resistance to the age-old paternal hierarchy. As for style, Racine’s neoclassical play shows a strict respect for the three unities of time, space, and action. Cocteau’s avant-garde play neglects all these rules, while Cixous goes even further by destroying the order of languages, as illustrated by her “feminine writing.” Freed from Western orthodoxy, Cixous wants to contribute to the creation of cosmic unity. Her deconstructionist play intends to regenerate the world by establishing a new order and new point of view towards universality. The stage directions of these plays are also an important key to better understanding theatrical evolution. It is through the stage directions, indicated both implicitly and explicitly in these three plays, iv that enables us to appreciate the theatrical transformation in terms of visualization as well as metaphysics. In sum, the transformation of theme, style, and stage devices in portraying their own Jocastas demonstrates that while these three plays are deconstructional to one another, each denying the existing value and orders of their respective time periods, they are also constructional in that they all attempt to open a new horizon of theatre